The Deaf Education
History in Utah
History in Utah
Compiled & Written by Jodi Christel Becker
Contributing Editing by Bronwyn O'Hara,
Valerie G. Kinney, and Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz
Published in 2006
Updated in 2026
Contributing Editing by Bronwyn O'Hara,
Valerie G. Kinney, and Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz
Published in 2006
Updated in 2026
Author's Note
Working on the document "The Deaf Education History in Utah" has dramatically improved my understanding of the Utah Association for the Deaf and their vital role in advocating for better education and services for the Deaf community in Utah. Their commitment to enhancing access to Deaf education illustrates the challenges and successes of advocates in this community. We acknowledge the significance of the association and commend their hard work and dedication, which foster pride and unity among community members. Their contributions are invaluable and profoundly impact many lives.
My interest in the history of Deaf education in Utah was inspired by my father-in-law, Kenneth L. Kinner, affectionately known as "Ken." He is a remarkable Deaf individual who graduated from the Utah School for the Deaf in 1954. Between 1997 and 1999, while dating and later marrying my spouse, Duane, I began to explore the rich history of Deaf education in Utah. Ken's experiences as a parent of two Deaf children, Deanne and Duane, have significantly influenced my understanding of the evolution of Deaf education in our state. Recognizing this history helps me feel connected and proud of our community's resilience and progress.
Hearing Ken's stories opened my eyes to the importance of exploring the history of Deaf education in Utah. This exploration has enabled me to better advocate for my children, Joshua and Danielle, who are also Deaf. Ken's passion for sharing his life experiences fueled my desire to document and preserve this history, an effort that began in 2006. I hope to inspire others to contribute to this endeavor, recognizing how essential it is to honor those who paved the way before us and to ensure their stories are remembered and celebrated for their fight for educational access and equality.
On October 21, 2006, I had the opportunity to interview Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, a well-known and highly respected figure in the Deaf community. I was eager to learn about his role as a Deaf education advocate, as well as his involvement in communication, educational methods, and placement controversies. As I prepared to take notes, Dr. Sanderson began sharing captivating stories. I was so intrigued that I asked him a few more questions. He looked at me and said, "Do your homework." That advice has stuck with me; he recommended checking resources such as UAD bulletins, newspapers, and other relevant materials. Utilizing shared resources can empower others to contribute meaningfully to Deaf history and advocacy efforts, strengthening our community's collective knowledge and resilience.
We do not intend to criticize the Utah School for the Deaf or any individual. Rather, we aim to provide a clear historical perspective from the Utah Deaf community and its allies, including the hearing parents of Deaf children. The lack of a recorded Deaf perspective on the history of Deaf education in Utah underscores the need to recognize this crucial narrative.
Additionally, this document acknowledges the tireless efforts of the Utah Association for the Deaf, the Utah Deaf community, and the Utah Deaf Education Core Group in preserving American Sign Language and supporting the Utah School for the Deaf, particularly the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf. This school stands as a testament to the resilience and dedication of the Deaf community in Utah. By fostering an inclusive environment and promoting the use of American Sign Language, these organizations play a vital role in empowering Deaf students and ensuring their voices are heard within the broader educational landscape.
I am particularly interested in the history of Dr. Grant B. Bitter, an oral and mainstreaming advocate whose ideologies have had a long-term impact on the Utah Deaf community. Under the leadership of Dr. Grant B. Bitter, a firm advocate for oral and mainstream education, Utah's groundbreaking movement to mainstream all Deaf children began in the 1960s. Dr. Bitter's efforts earned him the title of 'Father of Mainstreaming.' This movement was in stark contrast to the historical significance of Dr. Martha Hughes Cannon, America's first female state senator and a member of the Board of Trustees of the Utah School for the Deaf and Blind, who, in 1896, spearheaded a proposal for the 'Act Providing for Compulsory Education of Deaf, Dumb, and Blind Citizens,' landmark legislation that made attendance at the Utah School for the Deaf and Blind mandatory for all Deaf, Dumb, and Blind citizens (Martha Hughes Cannon, Wikipedia, April 20, 2024). Her legislation led to its successful passage in 1896 and marked a turning point in the education of Deaf and Blind children. However, Dr. Bitter advocated for mainstreaming all Deaf children, paving the way for widespread acceptance of this approach in 1975 with the passage of Public Law 94-142, now known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. This landmark legislation ensured that children with disabilities, including those who are Deaf or Blind, would have access to a free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. As a result, the educational landscape for these children continued to evolve, promoting inclusivity and equal opportunities in learning.
Dr. Bitter's journey as an advocate for Deaf education was profoundly influenced by his daughter Colleen, who was born deaf in 1954. This personal experience deepened his commitment to promoting oral and mainstream education for Deaf and hard-of-hearing children. His internship time at the Lexington School for the Deaf further shaped his beliefs, especially as he witnessed the separation of young children from their families. This experience reinforced his determination to fight for equal educational opportunities for Deaf children, as he believed that inclusivity not only benefits these children but also enriches the entire school community. His advocacy was driven by both his personal experiences and his professional dedication (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987).
In the 1970s, Dr. Stephen C. Baldwin, a Deaf educator who served as the Total Communication Division Curriculum Coordinator at the Utah School for the Deaf, a department that promotes a comprehensive approach to communication and education for Deaf students, shared his observations of Dr. Bitter. Dr. Bitter was a staunch supporter of oral and mainstream education, and he was particularly vocal about his beliefs. According to Dr. Baldwin, Dr. Bitter's influence was profound; he was a hard-core oralist and one of the top leading figures in oral Deaf education, and no one was more persistent than he was in promoting an oral and mainstream approach. Dr. Baldwin recalled that Dr. Bitter's criticism of the increasing use of sign language had a profound impact on the education of Deaf children. This criticism contributed to a decline in the use of sign language in educational settings, which affected the communication and learning experiences of these children. Dr. Bitter argued that sign language hindered the development of oral skills, which led to a decrease in enrollment in residential schools. He believed that such practices isolated Deaf individuals from mainstream society (Baldwin, 1990). Dr. Bitter likely disagreed with Dr. Martha Hughes Cannon, a prominent figure in Deaf education, and her team regarding their proposal to mandate education for Deaf children at the state institution. Dr. Bitter believed that Deaf children should learn to speak and attend local public schools to facilitate their integration into mainstream society. This perspective contrasted sharply with Dr. Hughes Cannon's advocacy for a specialized residential school in Ogden, Utah, which recognized and embraced the unique needs of Deaf students. She advocated for a more inclusive approach at the state institution, believing that Deaf children should have access to a comprehensive education at the Utah School for the Deaf. Dr. Hughes Cannon felt this education was essential for preparing them to participate fully in society. This disagreement in educational philosophy highlighted a broader debate within the Utah Deaf community about the best methods for promoting communication and social integration.
Dr. Bitter strongly believed that Deaf children should learn to speak and attend local public schools to facilitate their integration into mainstream society. Oralism is a teaching method that focuses on teaching Deaf students to speak and understand spoken language, often without the use of sign language. In contrast, mainstreaming is the practice of integrating Deaf students into regular public schools rather than placing them in specialized schools for the Deaf. Dr. Bitter's advocacy push for both oral communication and mainstream education sparked a longstanding feud with the Utah Association for the Deaf (UAD). This association was primarily comprised of graduates from the Utah School for the Deaf, notably including Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, who became deaf at the age of 11 and was a staunch advocate of sign language and state schools for the deaf. The intense animosity between these two giant figures, Dr. Bitter and Dr. Sanderson, stemmed from their ongoing dispute over the implementation of oral versus sign language in Utah's Deaf education system. This conflict was not just a matter of personal preference, but a fundamental clash over the most effective methods for educating Deaf children. Each side strategically sought to gain a political advantage in this complex educational landscape, much like a chess match, adding a layer of complexity to the situation. As tensions escalated, both parties began to gather supporters, launching campaigns to sway public opinion and influence policymakers. The outcome of this conflict would not only shape the future of Deaf education in Utah but also set a precedent for similar debates nationwide.
To fully understand the complex field of Deaf education, it is important to examine two distinct communication approaches: American Sign Language (ASL) and Listening and Spoken Language (LSL). Each approach has its own unique benefits and limitations. ASL offers several advantages, including clear visual communication, positive identity development, robust cognitive and linguistic growth, and accessible communication that fosters inclusivity within the Deaf community. However, ASL also has some drawbacks. One significant limitation is its lack of mainstream accessibility; most people are unfamiliar with ASL, leading to communication barriers for Deaf individuals who rely on it. Furthermore, many environments, such as medical and legal settings, require interpreters to ensure full access, which can create a dependence on these services. In contrast, LSL has its own set of advantages and disadvantages. One major benefit of LSL is that it facilitates broader integration into a primarily spoken-language society. This integration allows Deaf individuals to access mainstream education and typical classroom settings without needing an interpreter. Nevertheless, LSL does present challenges. Its effectiveness often depends on early identification of hearing loss, consistent speech and auditory therapy, and access to technology such as hearing aids or cochlear implants. Additionally, the processes of listening and lip-reading can be exhausting and cognitively demanding for individuals with hearing loss, increasing the risk of language deprivation. Language deprivation occurs when a person does not have full access to a natural language during the critical period of language development. If LSL efforts are unsuccessful and no sign language is introduced, a child may experience delays or incomplete language development. Both ASL and LSL have their distinct strengths and limitations, but they are not mutually exclusive. Many individuals and families combine both approaches to create flexible and effective communication strategies.
Dr. Bitter, a leading figure in oral Deaf education in Utah, had a significant impact on shaping policies that benefit both oral and mainstream educational methods in the state. He highlighted the advantages of each approach. In contrast, Dr. Sanderson, backed by the Utah Association for the Deaf, actively engaged in ongoing debates regarding the benefits of sign language over oral communication. He and the UAD emphasized the importance of providing accessible education in sign language at the Utah School for the Deaf, particularly during Dr. Bitter's oral demonstration panels, picket protests, committee meetings, board discussions, and legislative hearings. The UAD served as a crucial platform for Deaf individuals to share their perspectives and experiences within the Deaf educational system, offering valuable insights during these sessions. Their collective advocacy was essential in shaping these debates and fighting for the rights of Deaf children at the Utah School for the Deaf.
During the intense controversy over oral versus sign language education, Dr. Bitter formally demanded the termination of Dr. Robert G. Sanderson and Dr. Jay J. Campbell, both respected advocates for sign language, at a meeting of the Utah State Board of Education. He argued that their actions were obstructing his mission to promote oral and mainstream education. Additionally, he voiced dissatisfaction with Beth Ann Stewart Campbell's televised interpretation of news in sign language, claiming it did not align with his oral educational goals. He demanded the removal of the interpreted news segment. Dr. Bitter also called for the firing of Dr. Sanderson, who had assigned Beth Ann to cover the news from his position at the Utah State Office of Rehabilitation. Lastly, he requested the resignation of Della L. Loveridge (D-Salt Lake City), a Utah legislator and respected chairperson of the committee. He criticized her decision to invite representatives from the Utah Association for the Deaf, including Dr. Sanderson, viewing this invitation as a deviation from the committee's purpose and focus.
The Utah Association for the Deaf, led by Dr. Sanderson—a well-known Deaf educator and advocate—played a vital role in voicing concerns about oral education and mainstreaming policies, while Dr. Bitter aimed to promote these same policies. As a representative of the Deaf community, Dr. Sanderson provided significant insights into the challenges faced by Deaf individuals in Utah. It is important to note that most Deaf children have hearing parents, which gives figures like Dr. Bitter considerable influence over policy decisions. With the support of other parents who favored oralism, Dr. Bitter used his power to advocate for oral and mainstream education, making it difficult for the UAD, including Dr. Sanderson, to effectively counter his efforts. Despite Dr. Bitter's substantial influence and the backing of other proponents of oralism, the UAD, particularly Dr. Sanderson, showed remarkable resilience in facing these challenges and countering his opposition. They remained dedicated to advocating for sign language and protecting the rights of Deaf children, both at the Utah School for the Deaf and in mainstream educational settings.
The UAD, with contributions from Dr. Sanderson, worked to change perceptions and policies to prioritize accessibility in language, communication, and school placement through discussions in educational committees, board meetings, and legislative hearings. They played a crucial role in shaping educational policies, recognizing the importance of sign language and the need for an accessible environment at the Utah School for the Deaf. To address these issues, they established a two-track program, replacing the original 1962 dual-track program that mandated oral enrollment. Since its implementation in 1971, this program has offered families of Deaf children a choice between oral and sign language education. It fostered collaboration among educators, parents, and the Utah Deaf community, emphasizing shared goals and unity. Through inclusive advocacy, the UAD empowered Deaf individuals by ensuring equitable access to education and resources, leading to a strong community. As a result, a balanced approach to Deaf education has emerged, valuing both ASL/English and listening and spoken language as equal options for families of Deaf children in the current hybrid program established in 2016.
The Utah Association for the Deaf tirelessly advocated for equality in Deaf education in Utah, and now the next generation has taken on the responsibility for this cause. This new generation has embraced the challenge and established four ASL/English bilingual programs in different regions, including Ogden, Salt Lake City, Springville, and St. George. These programs have made significant progress, fostering hope for a bright future marked by increased awareness and appreciation of ASL/English bilingualism and Deaf culture. There is also a strong commitment to ensuring that all Deaf students receive the support they need to thrive through ongoing advocacy and community engagement. The goal of these programs is to create an inclusive environment where Deaf individuals can fully realize their potential.
Dr. Bitter's support for oral education sheds light on audism, which has significantly impacted Deaf education in Utah. Audism, similar to racism and sexism, suggests that individuals who can hear and speak are superior to those who cannot. Historically, the Deaf community in Utah has faced various forms of audism, including the oppression of language, discrimination in communication, and a preference for oralism (now referred to as listening and spoken language). This has led to low expectations in Deaf education—particularly regarding literacy and job prospects—and has perpetuated negative stereotypes of Deaf individuals who do not speak, resulting in limited representation in decision-making roles.
The Utah Association for the Deaf has taken a strong stand against audism, firmly advocating for the right to use sign language, access to language, and quality education. Their commitment is evident through active political engagement with organizations like the Utah State Board of Education and the USDB Advisory Council, particularly during legislative sessions.
It is crucial to recognize the lasting influence of Dr. Bitter and oral advocates on the history of Deaf education in Utah, while acknowledging that current disparities persist. As Robert Heinlein noted, "A generation that ignores history has no past and no future," emphasizing the necessity of addressing ongoing challenges. The political discussions surrounding Deaf education inequalities in Utah are both enlightening and empowering, enabling us to better advocate for Deaf children's rights to language and equal opportunities. The Utah Association for the Deaf plays a vital role in dismantling systemic barriers and fostering an inclusive environment where Deaf children can thrive academically and socially. It is essential to uplift their voices and experiences as we strive for a future where every Deaf child can achieve their fullest potential.
In my historical work, I use first names for everyone—men, women, and LGBTQ+ individuals—to honor their unique contributions and challenge the patriarchal norm of associating women's achievements with their husbands' last names. This choice acknowledges their contributions under their names, which is essential for recognizing their identities. Using first names not only makes each person feel valued and respected, but it also highlights the importance of women's advocacy in our community and fosters inclusivity. This approach emphasizes women's accomplishments and contributions while acknowledging the unique identity of each individual.
Also, our organization was previously known as the Utah Association for the Deaf, but we changed our name to the Utah Association of the Deaf in 2012. For some background, we were known as the Utah Association of the Deaf from 1909 to 1962, then became the Utah Association for the Deaf in 1963, and finally reverted to our original name in 2012. When I write for the history website, I mention both "of" and "for" to reflect the different eras of our association's history.
Also, our organization was previously known as the Utah Association for the Deaf, but we changed our name to the Utah Association of the Deaf in 2012. For a bit of background, we were called the Utah Association of the Deaf from 1909 to 1962, then became the Utah Association for the Deaf in 1963, and finally embraced our original name again in 2012. When I write for the history website, I mention both "of" and "for" to reflect the different eras of our association's history.
Thank you for your interest in the 'Deaf Education History in Utah' webpage of this website. Your engagement is invaluable to our mission to educate and advocate for the Deaf community and its history in Utah. We appreciate your interest and look forward to your continued support.
Enjoy!
Jodi Christel Becker
My interest in the history of Deaf education in Utah was inspired by my father-in-law, Kenneth L. Kinner, affectionately known as "Ken." He is a remarkable Deaf individual who graduated from the Utah School for the Deaf in 1954. Between 1997 and 1999, while dating and later marrying my spouse, Duane, I began to explore the rich history of Deaf education in Utah. Ken's experiences as a parent of two Deaf children, Deanne and Duane, have significantly influenced my understanding of the evolution of Deaf education in our state. Recognizing this history helps me feel connected and proud of our community's resilience and progress.
Hearing Ken's stories opened my eyes to the importance of exploring the history of Deaf education in Utah. This exploration has enabled me to better advocate for my children, Joshua and Danielle, who are also Deaf. Ken's passion for sharing his life experiences fueled my desire to document and preserve this history, an effort that began in 2006. I hope to inspire others to contribute to this endeavor, recognizing how essential it is to honor those who paved the way before us and to ensure their stories are remembered and celebrated for their fight for educational access and equality.
On October 21, 2006, I had the opportunity to interview Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, a well-known and highly respected figure in the Deaf community. I was eager to learn about his role as a Deaf education advocate, as well as his involvement in communication, educational methods, and placement controversies. As I prepared to take notes, Dr. Sanderson began sharing captivating stories. I was so intrigued that I asked him a few more questions. He looked at me and said, "Do your homework." That advice has stuck with me; he recommended checking resources such as UAD bulletins, newspapers, and other relevant materials. Utilizing shared resources can empower others to contribute meaningfully to Deaf history and advocacy efforts, strengthening our community's collective knowledge and resilience.
We do not intend to criticize the Utah School for the Deaf or any individual. Rather, we aim to provide a clear historical perspective from the Utah Deaf community and its allies, including the hearing parents of Deaf children. The lack of a recorded Deaf perspective on the history of Deaf education in Utah underscores the need to recognize this crucial narrative.
Additionally, this document acknowledges the tireless efforts of the Utah Association for the Deaf, the Utah Deaf community, and the Utah Deaf Education Core Group in preserving American Sign Language and supporting the Utah School for the Deaf, particularly the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf. This school stands as a testament to the resilience and dedication of the Deaf community in Utah. By fostering an inclusive environment and promoting the use of American Sign Language, these organizations play a vital role in empowering Deaf students and ensuring their voices are heard within the broader educational landscape.
I am particularly interested in the history of Dr. Grant B. Bitter, an oral and mainstreaming advocate whose ideologies have had a long-term impact on the Utah Deaf community. Under the leadership of Dr. Grant B. Bitter, a firm advocate for oral and mainstream education, Utah's groundbreaking movement to mainstream all Deaf children began in the 1960s. Dr. Bitter's efforts earned him the title of 'Father of Mainstreaming.' This movement was in stark contrast to the historical significance of Dr. Martha Hughes Cannon, America's first female state senator and a member of the Board of Trustees of the Utah School for the Deaf and Blind, who, in 1896, spearheaded a proposal for the 'Act Providing for Compulsory Education of Deaf, Dumb, and Blind Citizens,' landmark legislation that made attendance at the Utah School for the Deaf and Blind mandatory for all Deaf, Dumb, and Blind citizens (Martha Hughes Cannon, Wikipedia, April 20, 2024). Her legislation led to its successful passage in 1896 and marked a turning point in the education of Deaf and Blind children. However, Dr. Bitter advocated for mainstreaming all Deaf children, paving the way for widespread acceptance of this approach in 1975 with the passage of Public Law 94-142, now known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. This landmark legislation ensured that children with disabilities, including those who are Deaf or Blind, would have access to a free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. As a result, the educational landscape for these children continued to evolve, promoting inclusivity and equal opportunities in learning.
Dr. Bitter's journey as an advocate for Deaf education was profoundly influenced by his daughter Colleen, who was born deaf in 1954. This personal experience deepened his commitment to promoting oral and mainstream education for Deaf and hard-of-hearing children. His internship time at the Lexington School for the Deaf further shaped his beliefs, especially as he witnessed the separation of young children from their families. This experience reinforced his determination to fight for equal educational opportunities for Deaf children, as he believed that inclusivity not only benefits these children but also enriches the entire school community. His advocacy was driven by both his personal experiences and his professional dedication (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987).
In the 1970s, Dr. Stephen C. Baldwin, a Deaf educator who served as the Total Communication Division Curriculum Coordinator at the Utah School for the Deaf, a department that promotes a comprehensive approach to communication and education for Deaf students, shared his observations of Dr. Bitter. Dr. Bitter was a staunch supporter of oral and mainstream education, and he was particularly vocal about his beliefs. According to Dr. Baldwin, Dr. Bitter's influence was profound; he was a hard-core oralist and one of the top leading figures in oral Deaf education, and no one was more persistent than he was in promoting an oral and mainstream approach. Dr. Baldwin recalled that Dr. Bitter's criticism of the increasing use of sign language had a profound impact on the education of Deaf children. This criticism contributed to a decline in the use of sign language in educational settings, which affected the communication and learning experiences of these children. Dr. Bitter argued that sign language hindered the development of oral skills, which led to a decrease in enrollment in residential schools. He believed that such practices isolated Deaf individuals from mainstream society (Baldwin, 1990). Dr. Bitter likely disagreed with Dr. Martha Hughes Cannon, a prominent figure in Deaf education, and her team regarding their proposal to mandate education for Deaf children at the state institution. Dr. Bitter believed that Deaf children should learn to speak and attend local public schools to facilitate their integration into mainstream society. This perspective contrasted sharply with Dr. Hughes Cannon's advocacy for a specialized residential school in Ogden, Utah, which recognized and embraced the unique needs of Deaf students. She advocated for a more inclusive approach at the state institution, believing that Deaf children should have access to a comprehensive education at the Utah School for the Deaf. Dr. Hughes Cannon felt this education was essential for preparing them to participate fully in society. This disagreement in educational philosophy highlighted a broader debate within the Utah Deaf community about the best methods for promoting communication and social integration.
Dr. Bitter strongly believed that Deaf children should learn to speak and attend local public schools to facilitate their integration into mainstream society. Oralism is a teaching method that focuses on teaching Deaf students to speak and understand spoken language, often without the use of sign language. In contrast, mainstreaming is the practice of integrating Deaf students into regular public schools rather than placing them in specialized schools for the Deaf. Dr. Bitter's advocacy push for both oral communication and mainstream education sparked a longstanding feud with the Utah Association for the Deaf (UAD). This association was primarily comprised of graduates from the Utah School for the Deaf, notably including Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, who became deaf at the age of 11 and was a staunch advocate of sign language and state schools for the deaf. The intense animosity between these two giant figures, Dr. Bitter and Dr. Sanderson, stemmed from their ongoing dispute over the implementation of oral versus sign language in Utah's Deaf education system. This conflict was not just a matter of personal preference, but a fundamental clash over the most effective methods for educating Deaf children. Each side strategically sought to gain a political advantage in this complex educational landscape, much like a chess match, adding a layer of complexity to the situation. As tensions escalated, both parties began to gather supporters, launching campaigns to sway public opinion and influence policymakers. The outcome of this conflict would not only shape the future of Deaf education in Utah but also set a precedent for similar debates nationwide.
To fully understand the complex field of Deaf education, it is important to examine two distinct communication approaches: American Sign Language (ASL) and Listening and Spoken Language (LSL). Each approach has its own unique benefits and limitations. ASL offers several advantages, including clear visual communication, positive identity development, robust cognitive and linguistic growth, and accessible communication that fosters inclusivity within the Deaf community. However, ASL also has some drawbacks. One significant limitation is its lack of mainstream accessibility; most people are unfamiliar with ASL, leading to communication barriers for Deaf individuals who rely on it. Furthermore, many environments, such as medical and legal settings, require interpreters to ensure full access, which can create a dependence on these services. In contrast, LSL has its own set of advantages and disadvantages. One major benefit of LSL is that it facilitates broader integration into a primarily spoken-language society. This integration allows Deaf individuals to access mainstream education and typical classroom settings without needing an interpreter. Nevertheless, LSL does present challenges. Its effectiveness often depends on early identification of hearing loss, consistent speech and auditory therapy, and access to technology such as hearing aids or cochlear implants. Additionally, the processes of listening and lip-reading can be exhausting and cognitively demanding for individuals with hearing loss, increasing the risk of language deprivation. Language deprivation occurs when a person does not have full access to a natural language during the critical period of language development. If LSL efforts are unsuccessful and no sign language is introduced, a child may experience delays or incomplete language development. Both ASL and LSL have their distinct strengths and limitations, but they are not mutually exclusive. Many individuals and families combine both approaches to create flexible and effective communication strategies.
Dr. Bitter, a leading figure in oral Deaf education in Utah, had a significant impact on shaping policies that benefit both oral and mainstream educational methods in the state. He highlighted the advantages of each approach. In contrast, Dr. Sanderson, backed by the Utah Association for the Deaf, actively engaged in ongoing debates regarding the benefits of sign language over oral communication. He and the UAD emphasized the importance of providing accessible education in sign language at the Utah School for the Deaf, particularly during Dr. Bitter's oral demonstration panels, picket protests, committee meetings, board discussions, and legislative hearings. The UAD served as a crucial platform for Deaf individuals to share their perspectives and experiences within the Deaf educational system, offering valuable insights during these sessions. Their collective advocacy was essential in shaping these debates and fighting for the rights of Deaf children at the Utah School for the Deaf.
During the intense controversy over oral versus sign language education, Dr. Bitter formally demanded the termination of Dr. Robert G. Sanderson and Dr. Jay J. Campbell, both respected advocates for sign language, at a meeting of the Utah State Board of Education. He argued that their actions were obstructing his mission to promote oral and mainstream education. Additionally, he voiced dissatisfaction with Beth Ann Stewart Campbell's televised interpretation of news in sign language, claiming it did not align with his oral educational goals. He demanded the removal of the interpreted news segment. Dr. Bitter also called for the firing of Dr. Sanderson, who had assigned Beth Ann to cover the news from his position at the Utah State Office of Rehabilitation. Lastly, he requested the resignation of Della L. Loveridge (D-Salt Lake City), a Utah legislator and respected chairperson of the committee. He criticized her decision to invite representatives from the Utah Association for the Deaf, including Dr. Sanderson, viewing this invitation as a deviation from the committee's purpose and focus.
The Utah Association for the Deaf, led by Dr. Sanderson—a well-known Deaf educator and advocate—played a vital role in voicing concerns about oral education and mainstreaming policies, while Dr. Bitter aimed to promote these same policies. As a representative of the Deaf community, Dr. Sanderson provided significant insights into the challenges faced by Deaf individuals in Utah. It is important to note that most Deaf children have hearing parents, which gives figures like Dr. Bitter considerable influence over policy decisions. With the support of other parents who favored oralism, Dr. Bitter used his power to advocate for oral and mainstream education, making it difficult for the UAD, including Dr. Sanderson, to effectively counter his efforts. Despite Dr. Bitter's substantial influence and the backing of other proponents of oralism, the UAD, particularly Dr. Sanderson, showed remarkable resilience in facing these challenges and countering his opposition. They remained dedicated to advocating for sign language and protecting the rights of Deaf children, both at the Utah School for the Deaf and in mainstream educational settings.
The UAD, with contributions from Dr. Sanderson, worked to change perceptions and policies to prioritize accessibility in language, communication, and school placement through discussions in educational committees, board meetings, and legislative hearings. They played a crucial role in shaping educational policies, recognizing the importance of sign language and the need for an accessible environment at the Utah School for the Deaf. To address these issues, they established a two-track program, replacing the original 1962 dual-track program that mandated oral enrollment. Since its implementation in 1971, this program has offered families of Deaf children a choice between oral and sign language education. It fostered collaboration among educators, parents, and the Utah Deaf community, emphasizing shared goals and unity. Through inclusive advocacy, the UAD empowered Deaf individuals by ensuring equitable access to education and resources, leading to a strong community. As a result, a balanced approach to Deaf education has emerged, valuing both ASL/English and listening and spoken language as equal options for families of Deaf children in the current hybrid program established in 2016.
The Utah Association for the Deaf tirelessly advocated for equality in Deaf education in Utah, and now the next generation has taken on the responsibility for this cause. This new generation has embraced the challenge and established four ASL/English bilingual programs in different regions, including Ogden, Salt Lake City, Springville, and St. George. These programs have made significant progress, fostering hope for a bright future marked by increased awareness and appreciation of ASL/English bilingualism and Deaf culture. There is also a strong commitment to ensuring that all Deaf students receive the support they need to thrive through ongoing advocacy and community engagement. The goal of these programs is to create an inclusive environment where Deaf individuals can fully realize their potential.
Dr. Bitter's support for oral education sheds light on audism, which has significantly impacted Deaf education in Utah. Audism, similar to racism and sexism, suggests that individuals who can hear and speak are superior to those who cannot. Historically, the Deaf community in Utah has faced various forms of audism, including the oppression of language, discrimination in communication, and a preference for oralism (now referred to as listening and spoken language). This has led to low expectations in Deaf education—particularly regarding literacy and job prospects—and has perpetuated negative stereotypes of Deaf individuals who do not speak, resulting in limited representation in decision-making roles.
The Utah Association for the Deaf has taken a strong stand against audism, firmly advocating for the right to use sign language, access to language, and quality education. Their commitment is evident through active political engagement with organizations like the Utah State Board of Education and the USDB Advisory Council, particularly during legislative sessions.
It is crucial to recognize the lasting influence of Dr. Bitter and oral advocates on the history of Deaf education in Utah, while acknowledging that current disparities persist. As Robert Heinlein noted, "A generation that ignores history has no past and no future," emphasizing the necessity of addressing ongoing challenges. The political discussions surrounding Deaf education inequalities in Utah are both enlightening and empowering, enabling us to better advocate for Deaf children's rights to language and equal opportunities. The Utah Association for the Deaf plays a vital role in dismantling systemic barriers and fostering an inclusive environment where Deaf children can thrive academically and socially. It is essential to uplift their voices and experiences as we strive for a future where every Deaf child can achieve their fullest potential.
In my historical work, I use first names for everyone—men, women, and LGBTQ+ individuals—to honor their unique contributions and challenge the patriarchal norm of associating women's achievements with their husbands' last names. This choice acknowledges their contributions under their names, which is essential for recognizing their identities. Using first names not only makes each person feel valued and respected, but it also highlights the importance of women's advocacy in our community and fosters inclusivity. This approach emphasizes women's accomplishments and contributions while acknowledging the unique identity of each individual.
Also, our organization was previously known as the Utah Association for the Deaf, but we changed our name to the Utah Association of the Deaf in 2012. For some background, we were known as the Utah Association of the Deaf from 1909 to 1962, then became the Utah Association for the Deaf in 1963, and finally reverted to our original name in 2012. When I write for the history website, I mention both "of" and "for" to reflect the different eras of our association's history.
Also, our organization was previously known as the Utah Association for the Deaf, but we changed our name to the Utah Association of the Deaf in 2012. For a bit of background, we were called the Utah Association of the Deaf from 1909 to 1962, then became the Utah Association for the Deaf in 1963, and finally embraced our original name again in 2012. When I write for the history website, I mention both "of" and "for" to reflect the different eras of our association's history.
Thank you for your interest in the 'Deaf Education History in Utah' webpage of this website. Your engagement is invaluable to our mission to educate and advocate for the Deaf community and its history in Utah. We appreciate your interest and look forward to your continued support.
Enjoy!
Jodi Christel Becker
Acknowledgement
I want to express my deep gratitude to everyone who played a crucial role in completing the Deaf Education History in Utah project. I am genuinely thankful for their support and contributions.
First and foremost, I would like to thank my spouse, Duane, and my children, Joshua and Danielle, for their unwavering patience and support throughout the years I have dedicated to this project. This endeavor has taken nearly two decades to complete and would not have been possible without the assistance of many individuals.
I would like to commend Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, Ned C. Wheeler, W. David Mortensen, and Lloyd H. Perkins, along with other Utah Deaf leaders, for their courage and vigilance in protecting the Deaf educational system from the influences of oral education and mainstreaming.
Additionally, I want to express my deep appreciation to my father-in-law, Kenneth L. Kinner, for sharing the fascinating history of Deaf education in Utah with me. This project, which I started in 2006, would not have come to fruition without his support and guidance.
I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to several individuals who supported and contributed to the successful completion of this project. First and foremost, I am thankful to Dr. Robert G. Sanderson for inspiring me to diligently work on my homework, which ultimately led to the project's success.
I would also like to acknowledge the enthusiastic support and assistance provided by W. David Mortensen and Eleanor McCowan throughout the project. Additionally, I am deeply grateful to my parents, John and Jeanne Becker, for their unwavering support during this endeavor.
Furthermore, I extend my sincerest thanks to Valerie G. Kinney and Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz for generously donating their time to revise and edit this document. Lastly, I want to thank my editor, Bronwyn O'Hara, for her invaluable contributions to the editing process.
I am grateful to Dr. Bitter for motivating me to write this history and for donating his documents to the J. Willard Marriott Library at the University of Utah. His donation provided me with the resources needed to document the broader context of the oral and sign language controversy, making the history more compelling. Dr. Bitter's materials helped me fill the gaps with information from UAD Bulletins, newspapers, and more. I am fascinated by historical events that are intense, random, and unsettling. This history website presents a realistic, honest account of events rather than a rosy, overly optimistic narrative that some readers may expect. Learning about the darker aspects of history allows us to engage in open discussions, listen to one another, learn, and grow.
I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to Doug Stringham for sharing the manuscript with Dr. Bryan K. Eldredge. This initiative led to the establishment of a senior-level "special topics" course titled "Deaf Education in Utah" at Utah Valley University, first introduced in 2011 and again in 2016. I am also deeply thankful to Dr. Eldredge for his unwavering commitment to teaching this course and promoting ASL/English bilingual education. His dedication has significantly increased awareness of Utah's Deaf education system.
A big thank you!
Jodi Christel Becker
First and foremost, I would like to thank my spouse, Duane, and my children, Joshua and Danielle, for their unwavering patience and support throughout the years I have dedicated to this project. This endeavor has taken nearly two decades to complete and would not have been possible without the assistance of many individuals.
I would like to commend Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, Ned C. Wheeler, W. David Mortensen, and Lloyd H. Perkins, along with other Utah Deaf leaders, for their courage and vigilance in protecting the Deaf educational system from the influences of oral education and mainstreaming.
Additionally, I want to express my deep appreciation to my father-in-law, Kenneth L. Kinner, for sharing the fascinating history of Deaf education in Utah with me. This project, which I started in 2006, would not have come to fruition without his support and guidance.
I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to several individuals who supported and contributed to the successful completion of this project. First and foremost, I am thankful to Dr. Robert G. Sanderson for inspiring me to diligently work on my homework, which ultimately led to the project's success.
I would also like to acknowledge the enthusiastic support and assistance provided by W. David Mortensen and Eleanor McCowan throughout the project. Additionally, I am deeply grateful to my parents, John and Jeanne Becker, for their unwavering support during this endeavor.
Furthermore, I extend my sincerest thanks to Valerie G. Kinney and Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz for generously donating their time to revise and edit this document. Lastly, I want to thank my editor, Bronwyn O'Hara, for her invaluable contributions to the editing process.
I am grateful to Dr. Bitter for motivating me to write this history and for donating his documents to the J. Willard Marriott Library at the University of Utah. His donation provided me with the resources needed to document the broader context of the oral and sign language controversy, making the history more compelling. Dr. Bitter's materials helped me fill the gaps with information from UAD Bulletins, newspapers, and more. I am fascinated by historical events that are intense, random, and unsettling. This history website presents a realistic, honest account of events rather than a rosy, overly optimistic narrative that some readers may expect. Learning about the darker aspects of history allows us to engage in open discussions, listen to one another, learn, and grow.
I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to Doug Stringham for sharing the manuscript with Dr. Bryan K. Eldredge. This initiative led to the establishment of a senior-level "special topics" course titled "Deaf Education in Utah" at Utah Valley University, first introduced in 2011 and again in 2016. I am also deeply thankful to Dr. Eldredge for his unwavering commitment to teaching this course and promoting ASL/English bilingual education. His dedication has significantly increased awareness of Utah's Deaf education system.
A big thank you!
Jodi Christel Becker
Audience
This webpage is designed specifically for hearing audiences, particularly parents of Deaf children. Learning about Deaf education in Utah can enhance your confidence and motivation to advocate effectively for your child's needs and rights.
I encourage the Deaf community to explore the rich history of Deaf education in Utah and to understand how past debates, such as the conflict between oral and sign language education, influence current advocacy efforts. Take the time to engage with the powerful narratives that highlight the ongoing controversy surrounding oral versus sign language education, the social and academic segregation at the Utah School for the Deaf, and the intense rivalry between Dr. Bitter and Dr. Sanderson. These elements are integral to the complex narrative of Deaf education history in Utah, showcasing resilience, pride, and the continuous fight for equality, while inspiring hope for future progress.
As I reflect on this intricate history, I aspire to bring it to life through a documentary or film that captures these stories. Sharing these narratives can empower you and others in the Deaf community to advocate more effectively, such as by attending school board meetings or joining advocacy groups, working towards a more inclusive future for Deaf children everywhere. Let us embark on this journey with passion and purpose!
I encourage the Deaf community to explore the rich history of Deaf education in Utah and to understand how past debates, such as the conflict between oral and sign language education, influence current advocacy efforts. Take the time to engage with the powerful narratives that highlight the ongoing controversy surrounding oral versus sign language education, the social and academic segregation at the Utah School for the Deaf, and the intense rivalry between Dr. Bitter and Dr. Sanderson. These elements are integral to the complex narrative of Deaf education history in Utah, showcasing resilience, pride, and the continuous fight for equality, while inspiring hope for future progress.
As I reflect on this intricate history, I aspire to bring it to life through a documentary or film that captures these stories. Sharing these narratives can empower you and others in the Deaf community to advocate more effectively, such as by attending school board meetings or joining advocacy groups, working towards a more inclusive future for Deaf children everywhere. Let us embark on this journey with passion and purpose!
The Evolution of
Deaf Education in Utah
Deaf Education in Utah
We will explore the history of Deaf Education in Utah, with a focus on the early days of the Utah School for the Deaf. These days are an important part of this story and connect us to our roots. On this webpage, we will discuss the following topics.
I. National Deaf Education History
II. Origin and Early Beginnings of Utah School for the Deaf
III. Controversies Surrounding Communication/Educational Methods and Educational Placement Regarding Interpretation of “Least Restrictive Environment” in Utah
IV. The Evolution of the ASL/English Bilingual Teaching Method in Utah
V. In Danger: Deaf Education in Utah and Its Impact on ASL/English Bilingual Program as well as Inequality of Deaf Education in Utah
PART VI: The Suspension of the ASL/English Bilingual Education Program at Utah State University and Its Reimagined Status
Part VII: The Surprise Proposal from the Public Education Appropriations Committee for the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind
I. National Deaf Education History
II. Origin and Early Beginnings of Utah School for the Deaf
III. Controversies Surrounding Communication/Educational Methods and Educational Placement Regarding Interpretation of “Least Restrictive Environment” in Utah
IV. The Evolution of the ASL/English Bilingual Teaching Method in Utah
V. In Danger: Deaf Education in Utah and Its Impact on ASL/English Bilingual Program as well as Inequality of Deaf Education in Utah
PART VI: The Suspension of the ASL/English Bilingual Education Program at Utah State University and Its Reimagined Status
Part VII: The Surprise Proposal from the Public Education Appropriations Committee for the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind
"Nothing about us, without us."
~2012 NAD Conference~
~2012 NAD Conference~
A History of Deaf Education
in the United States
Part I
Written & Compiled by Jodi Christel Becker
Edited by Valerie G. Kinney
Published in 2015
Updated in 2025
in the United States
Part I
Written & Compiled by Jodi Christel Becker
Edited by Valerie G. Kinney
Published in 2015
Updated in 2025
Deaf Genes in Martha’s Vineyard
To understand Utah's Deaf history, it is essential to first explore the national context of Deaf history. This history can be traced back to Martha's Vineyard, an island off the coast of Massachusetts, where a significant incidence of deafness was present for 250 years, beginning with a Deaf resident named Jonathan Lambert in 1694. The isolated community on the island led to intermarriage among its residents, which spread the gene for deafness through generations of his descendants (Shapiro, 1994). While eighty-five percent of Deaf children had two hearing parents, many had Deaf relatives (Roberts, 1994).
On Martha's Vineyard, there were no barriers to communication; the entire community relied on sign language, even in the absence of Deaf individuals. Deaf residents actively participated in their bilingual society, marrying hearing individuals and taking on important roles within the community. Because everyone used sign language, the islanders viewed deafness as a normal trait rather than a disability, fostering a culture of respect and acceptance (Groce, 1985; Shapiro, 1994; Foster, 1998).
On Martha's Vineyard, there were no barriers to communication; the entire community relied on sign language, even in the absence of Deaf individuals. Deaf residents actively participated in their bilingual society, marrying hearing individuals and taking on important roles within the community. Because everyone used sign language, the islanders viewed deafness as a normal trait rather than a disability, fostering a culture of respect and acceptance (Groce, 1985; Shapiro, 1994; Foster, 1998).
The First Deaf School in America
In 1817, the American Asylum for the Deaf and Dumb, which later became known as the American School for the Deaf, as the first permanent school, was established in Hartford, Connecticut. Two key figures founded this institution: Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet, a hearing minister, and Laurent Clerc, a prominent Deaf leader from France who played a crucial role in American Deaf education. American Sign Language (ASL) was developed through a combination of Clerc’s French sign language and the signed communication used by Deaf students at the school. This collaboration ultimately led to the creation of ASL.
Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet. Source: Gallaudet University Archives
The school taught students in ASL, enabling them to reach literacy levels comparable to their hearing peers. With teachers fluent in sign language who incorporated ASL into their instruction, Deaf students demonstrated impressive literacy skills (Shapiro, 1994).
Laurent Clere: Source:
Gallaudet University
Archives
The Oral Movement in the United States
The oral movement in the United States began in 1843 when two American educators, Dr. Samuel Gridley Howe and Horace Mann, who had limited knowledge of Deaf individuals, traveled to Europe to study different education systems. In Germany, they were surprised to find Deaf children who could speak and read lips. Upon their return to America, Samuel and Horace published a report that strongly urged the instruction of speech and lip-reading for Deaf students. Some administrators of schools for the deaf in America chose to use spoken methods for individuals with partial hearing, especially those who had lost their hearing after learning to speak. However, sign language continued to be the primary mode of instruction (Pace, 1946).
Dr. Samuel Gridley Howe. Source: Wikipedia
Interest in oral education began to grow significantly in the late 19th century. In 1867, a wealthy Bostonian named Gardiner Greene Hubbard, who was the father-in-law of Alexander Graham Bell, founded the Clarke School for the Deaf in Northampton, Massachusetts. This school was the first permanent oral school for the deaf in the United States.
Two years later, in 1869, the second oral school, the Horace Mann School for the Deaf, opened as a day school in Boston. This marked the beginning of a new educational model for the deaf. The first principal of this school, Sarah Fuller, served in her role for forty-one years and was also Helen Keller’s speech instructor. Following this, a pattern emerged in the 1860s, with an increasing number of oral schools, particularly day schools, being established (Pace, 1946; Shapiro, 1994).
Two years later, in 1869, the second oral school, the Horace Mann School for the Deaf, opened as a day school in Boston. This marked the beginning of a new educational model for the deaf. The first principal of this school, Sarah Fuller, served in her role for forty-one years and was also Helen Keller’s speech instructor. Following this, a pattern emerged in the 1860s, with an increasing number of oral schools, particularly day schools, being established (Pace, 1946; Shapiro, 1994).
Horace Mann. Source: Wikipedia
The Most Influential Oral Advocate
In the 1870s, Alexander Graham Bell emerged as the most influential oral advocate for Deaf Americans, emphasizing the importance of speech training. His father, Alexander Melville Bell, was a master of phonetics, and his mother, Eliza Grace, was hard-of-hearing. While she had enough hearing to use an ear tube for one-on-one conversations, Mr. Bell often communicated with her using the manual alphabet. Ironically, although he was well-versed in sign language, he believed speech was the superior method of communication. His wife, Mabel Gardiner Hubbard, was Deaf but did not use sign language (Pace, 1946; Winefield, 1987).
Alexander Graham Bell. Source: Wikipedia
Most Americans recognize Dr. Alexander Graham Bell as the inventor of the telephone. In 1876, at the age of 29, he patented a device called the “electrical speech machine,” which was designed to transmit spoken words over a wire. Bell believed this invention would help his wife and hoped it would enable the Deaf to hear. However, instead of benefiting those who were Deaf, the telephone ultimately became a barrier for them. As a result of his invention, Dr. Bell gained fame and wealth. He used his resources, prestige, and influence to support the oral movement (Gannon, 1981; Lane, Hoffmeister, & Bahan, 1996).
Alexander Graham Bell and his wife, Mabel Hubbard Bell. Source: montessorieducation.com
Throughout his life, Dr. Bell was dedicated to the education of Deaf individuals and was one of the most prominent advocates for oralism. He actively campaigned for the full assimilation of Deaf people into hearing society and opposed the use of sign language, intermarriage among Deaf individuals, and residential schools (Erting et al., 1989; Van Cleve & Crouch, 1989; Shapiro, 1994; Parasnis, 1998).
The Establishment of the National Association of the Deaf
Since the establishment of the first Deaf school in Hartford in 1817 (Gannon, 1981), several states have formed associations for the deaf. In August 1880, Deaf representatives from various states convened in Cincinnati, Ohio, for the First National Convention, where they founded the National Association of the Deaf (Gannon, 1981; Van Cleve & Crouch, 1989). The attendees at this convention were the products of nearly 60 years of the American Deaf school system and included teachers, school founders, principals, business owners, and community leaders.
The association focused on several key issues: opposing laws that would limit their rights, discouraging impostors and Deaf peddlers, promoting a better understanding of Deaf issues in the general public, advocating for improved vocational training in schools, enhancing educational methods, and combating employment discrimination. Their primary goal was to improve the quality of life for Deaf individuals (Gannon, 1981).
The association focused on several key issues: opposing laws that would limit their rights, discouraging impostors and Deaf peddlers, promoting a better understanding of Deaf issues in the general public, advocating for improved vocational training in schools, enhancing educational methods, and combating employment discrimination. Their primary goal was to improve the quality of life for Deaf individuals (Gannon, 1981).
The Infamous Milan Congress of 1880
A few weeks after the establishment of the National Association of the Deaf, the Second International Congress on Education of the Deaf convened in Milan, Italy, on September 11, 1880. In stark contrast to the wishes of Deaf individuals from around the world, Congress adopted the oral method as the "best" approach for Deaf education (Van Cleve & Crouch, 1989; Parasnis, 1998; Shapiro, 1994). The oral advocates who organized the convention agreed to promote speech methods while prohibiting the use of sign language. The vote overwhelmingly favored oral education. Out of more than 150 participants, James Denison, a principal from the Kendall School in Washington, D.C., was the only Deaf delegate at the Milan Congress.
James Denison. Source: Societe Laurent Clerc/
Only five attendees were from the United States, which included the two sons of Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet: Thomas Gallaudet, the Episcopal priest of St. Ann's Church for the Deaf, and Edward Miner Gallaudet, the president of Gallaudet College. Americans generally believed that Deaf children should be taught using sign language. However, the majority of oral advocates from Europe and the United States voted in favor of the oral method for Deaf education. This victory, engineered by European oralists, energized the oral movement in the United States (Buchanan, 1850-1950, p. 25; Van Cleve & Crouch, 1989).
Edward Miner Gallaudet. Source: Gallaudet University Archives
The Establishment of Alexander Graham Bell
Association for the Deaf
Association for the Deaf
In 1890, the Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf was established to promote speech education for the deaf. Today, it is the largest organization in the world dedicated to teaching spoken language to Deaf individuals. Dr. Bell's advocacy for oral education had a significant impact on how Deaf children were taught.
The Pendulum of Deaf Education
Despite Edward Miner Gallaudet's best efforts to combat the rise of pure oralism, the Milan decision and Dr. Bell's initiatives shifted the focus of Deaf education in America toward using speech as the primary means of communication in the classroom for Deaf students. This shift led to the establishment of local oral day schools, the removal of sign instruction from residential schools, and the replacement of Deaf teachers with hearing instructors (Winefield, 1987; Parasnis, 1998). Dr. Bell's main opponent, Dr. Edward Miner Gallaudet, supported a combined system of sign language and spoken English in the education of Deaf students. He was raised by his Deaf mother, Sophia Fowler Gallaudet, Dr. Gallaudet's mother. Unlike Dr. Bell, she had no usable hearing, spoke unintelligibly, and relied on sign language for communication. He regarded her success as a significant influence on his views regarding communication methods. She shaped not only his approach to communication but also his attitude toward deafness (Winefield, 1987). Nevertheless, the Milan Congress extensively promoted oral education, leading to a rapid decline in the combined system of education.
Sophia Fowler Gallaudet. Source: visitguilfordct.com/women-in-guilford
The Dismissal of Deaf Teachers
Following the conclusion of the Milan Congress of 1880, hundreds of Deaf teachers across Europe lost their jobs in favor of hearing teachers who did not know sign language. Many Deaf schools prohibited the use of sign language (Buchanan, 1850-1950; Erting et al., 1989; Shapiro, 1994).
In the United States, most Deaf leaders and educators advocated for a combined system of instruction as the primary method for educating Deaf children. They fiercely defended residential schools and fought to preserve sign language. However, the movement favoring oral education gained momentum, resulting in the replacement of Deaf principals by their hearing counterparts. Despite facing numerous challenges, Deaf teachers were not completely removed from the educational system. Typically, the educational system assigned them to teach older students labeled "oral failures." Unfortunately, these teachers often could not focus on academic subjects (Buchanan, 1850-1950; Erting et al., 1989). According to Erting et al. (1989), oralism had a significant negative impact on Deaf children's academic achievement. As a result, society began to perceive Deaf individuals and their identities as inferior and inadequate—a belief that was often reinforced by the educators responsible for their education.
In the United States, most Deaf leaders and educators advocated for a combined system of instruction as the primary method for educating Deaf children. They fiercely defended residential schools and fought to preserve sign language. However, the movement favoring oral education gained momentum, resulting in the replacement of Deaf principals by their hearing counterparts. Despite facing numerous challenges, Deaf teachers were not completely removed from the educational system. Typically, the educational system assigned them to teach older students labeled "oral failures." Unfortunately, these teachers often could not focus on academic subjects (Buchanan, 1850-1950; Erting et al., 1989). According to Erting et al. (1989), oralism had a significant negative impact on Deaf children's academic achievement. As a result, society began to perceive Deaf individuals and their identities as inferior and inadequate—a belief that was often reinforced by the educators responsible for their education.
The Survival of the Deaf Community
Despite the suppression of sign language within the educational system, Deaf communities worldwide have continued to thrive. Since 1880, Deaf individuals have preserved their languages and communities despite efforts to isolate them from one another. Deaf parents at residential schools transmitted sign language to their children and to other Deaf children through interactions with peers and a few Deaf adult staff members. Residential schools forbade the use of sign language in classrooms, but allowed its free use in dormitories and playgrounds. Additionally, Deaf individuals continued to socialize at clubs, compete in Deaf sports events, publish newspapers and magazines, and participate in state associations to improve their lives (Buchanan, 1850-1950; Erting et al., 1989; Parasnis, 1998).
Origin and Early Beginnings
of the Utah School for the Deaf
Part II
Written & Compiled by Jodi Christel Becker
Edited by Valerie G. Kinney
Published in 2015
Updated in 2025
of the Utah School for the Deaf
Part II
Written & Compiled by Jodi Christel Becker
Edited by Valerie G. Kinney
Published in 2015
Updated in 2025
The establishment of state schools for the deaf was a growing trend across the United States in the late 19th century. In August 1884, a new chapter began for the deaf community in the Utah territory. Three primary factors contributed to the founding of the Utah School for the Deaf:
The Utah School for the Deaf was established in Salt Lake City, Utah, in 1884. From 1884 to 1896, enrollment increased from fourteen to fifty-five students. Instruction at the school included speech and lip-reading, as well as practical skills such as printing, carpentry, shoemaking, cooking, sewing, and housework. Due to the increasing student population, in August 1896, the school relocated to Ogden, Utah. This move occurred eight months after Utah became a state on January 4, 1896.The Utah School for the Deaf evolved into an independent educational institution serving Deaf students from Utah, Idaho, and the territory of Arizona.
During its early years, the school had three main objectives:
These skills enabled Deaf individuals to lead productive lives within the wider society (Roberts, 1994).
- A widespread interest in the education of the deaf population throughout the United States.
- The strong commitment to education felt by the early settlers of Utah.
- The religious homogeneity of the communities in the region (Pace, 1946, p. 9).
The Utah School for the Deaf was established in Salt Lake City, Utah, in 1884. From 1884 to 1896, enrollment increased from fourteen to fifty-five students. Instruction at the school included speech and lip-reading, as well as practical skills such as printing, carpentry, shoemaking, cooking, sewing, and housework. Due to the increasing student population, in August 1896, the school relocated to Ogden, Utah. This move occurred eight months after Utah became a state on January 4, 1896.The Utah School for the Deaf evolved into an independent educational institution serving Deaf students from Utah, Idaho, and the territory of Arizona.
During its early years, the school had three main objectives:
- Provide instruction in both oral and sign language for the Deaf,
- Provide vocational training for students and
- Teach academic skills similar to those in other public schools.
These skills enabled Deaf individuals to lead productive lives within the wider society (Roberts, 1994).
Interest in the Education of the Deaf
The American School for the Deaf, the first school for the deaf in the United States, was established in 1817. By 1875, an additional twenty-three schools had been founded across the country. This movement sparked considerable interest and enthusiasm for Deaf education in the Utah territory (Pace, 1946).
General Education in Utah
The early Latter-day Saint settlers had a strong commitment to education. They entered Salt Lake Valley on July 24, 1847. Despite the extreme hardships of pioneer life, they established a school just three months later (Pace, 1946).
In 1850, the Legislative Assembly convened and created the University of Deseret, later renamed the University of Utah. This university served as a board of education for the Utah Territory and primarily functioned as a policy-making organization. Under its leadership, local schools were established throughout the region, providing education for children with disabilities (Pace, 1946).
In 1850, the Legislative Assembly convened and created the University of Deseret, later renamed the University of Utah. This university served as a board of education for the Utah Territory and primarily functioned as a policy-making organization. Under its leadership, local schools were established throughout the region, providing education for children with disabilities (Pace, 1946).
Religion as a Factor
The Utah pioneers were deeply religious and members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Parents of Deaf children preferred their children to receive their education within the Utah territory due to the high costs associated with sending their children to deaf schools located outside the territory. The nearest school was the Colorado School for the Deaf. People viewed the prolonged separation from family and church as unfavorable (Pace, 1946).
Following the establishment of the Utah School for the Deaf in 1884, students initially attended a Protestant church due to the predominantly Protestant backgrounds of the teachers who had come to Utah (Roberts, 1994). This Protestant influence raised concerns among several Latter-day Saint parents. In response, they requested that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints organize a Sunday School for their children.
On January 10, 1892, the church officially organized the first Sunday School in Salt Lake City, Utah, which had a membership of eleven boys and sixteen girls. Elder H.C. Barrell was appointed as the first superintendent of the Sunday School, with Elder Laron Pratt, who was Deaf, serving as his assistant (The Daily Enquirer, February 11, 1892).
Following the establishment of the Utah School for the Deaf in 1884, students initially attended a Protestant church due to the predominantly Protestant backgrounds of the teachers who had come to Utah (Roberts, 1994). This Protestant influence raised concerns among several Latter-day Saint parents. In response, they requested that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints organize a Sunday School for their children.
On January 10, 1892, the church officially organized the first Sunday School in Salt Lake City, Utah, which had a membership of eleven boys and sixteen girls. Elder H.C. Barrell was appointed as the first superintendent of the Sunday School, with Elder Laron Pratt, who was Deaf, serving as his assistant (The Daily Enquirer, February 11, 1892).
Laron Pratt. Source: God Made Me Deaf Accounts from Deaf Latter-day Saint, 1836-1916
On November 16, 1896, the Utah School for the Deaf relocated to Ogden, Utah, and began offering the same Sunday School program to Deaf and Blind students and adults. The old 4th Ward Amusement Hall in Ogden served as the venue for these classes (Deseret News, November 21, 1896).
Ogden Branch for the Deaf in Ogden, Utah. Photo by Kenneth L. Kinner
Later, on February 14, 1917, the Ogden Branch for the Deaf was established as a Deaf-friendly meetinghouse for Deaf members in Ogden. The Ogden Stake then transformed this signing branch into an independent branch. This branch ultimately became a model for future units for the Deaf, including the Salt Lake Valley Deaf Ward, Los Angeles Deaf Branch, Portland Heights Deaf Branch, Fremont Deaf Branch, Gooding Deaf Branch, and others around the world (Walker, 2006).
The Work of John Beck and William Wood
in Establishing the Utah School for the Deaf
in Establishing the Utah School for the Deaf
John Beck and William Wood were pioneers in establishing a school for the Deaf in Utah, motivated by their own experiences as parents of Deaf children. John Beck had three Deaf sons—Joseph, John A., and Jacob—who were attending the California School for the Deaf. Meanwhile, William Wood’s Deaf daughter, Elizabeth Mary, was enrolled at the Colorado School for the Deaf in Colorado Springs, Colorado (Metcalf, 1900; Pace, 1947; Utah School for the Deaf Brochure; Roberts, 1994). John and William wanted their children to have the opportunity to live closer to home (Evans, 1999). They are credited with originating the idea of educating the Deaf in Utah and collaborated to establish a school specifically for this purpose (Clarke, 1897; Metcalf, 1898).
John Beck. Source: FamilySearch.org
While John Beck, the owner of the Bullion-Beck Mine and Beck’s Hot Springs, was working to establish a school for the deaf in the Utah territory, he gathered data from the 1880 United States Census. This effort revealed that 118 Deaf individuals were living in the territory. In 1883, he distributed a letter throughout the area to determine how many Deaf children were of school age. In response, he received a list of fifty school-age Deaf children (Pace, 1946; Utah School for the Deaf Brochure, Evans, 1999).
William Wood. Source: FamilySearch.org
Around the same time, the length of the journey and the cost of sending Elizabeth Mary Wood to Colorado Springs prompted William Wood to consider establishing a school for the deaf in Utah. He learned about Mr. Beck’s efforts and visited him at home to discuss the matter. Together, they gathered statistics on the status of the Deaf community in Utah and petitioned the legislature to establish a school for the deaf (Metcalf, 1898; Pace, 1946; Utah School for the Deaf Brochure). With the support of their collected statistics, they decided to lobby the territorial legislature (Evans, 1999).
During the legislative session of 1883, Utah Governor Eli Murray became interested in advocating for the Deaf community in the territory. He presented the needs of Deaf individuals to the territorial legislature, emphasizing the necessity of establishing a school where Deaf children could receive an appropriate education (Pace, 1946; Utah School for the Deaf Brochure).
During the legislative session of 1883, Utah Governor Eli Murray became interested in advocating for the Deaf community in the territory. He presented the needs of Deaf individuals to the territorial legislature, emphasizing the necessity of establishing a school where Deaf children could receive an appropriate education (Pace, 1946; Utah School for the Deaf Brochure).
Eli Murray. Source: Wikipedia
On February 17, 1883, William Wood submitted a petition that prompted the legislature to approve an appropriation of $4,000, which would provide $2,000 per annum for two years to start a class for Deaf students under the administration of the University of Deseret in Salt Lake City, Utah (Clarke, 1897; Metcalf, 1900; Utah School for the Deaf Brochure; Evans, 1999). William Wood contributed $250, while John Beck donated $500 to help establish the class for Deaf children (Clarke, 1897). This connection between the school and the university was the first of its kind in the nation.
Opening of the School
After the establishment of a classroom for Deaf students and the enactment of the appropriation bill, Dr. John Rocky Park, president of the University of Deseret, was tasked with making arrangements to start a Deaf class in connection with the university. He initially attempted to find a qualified teacher for the Deaf in the territory. When this effort proved unsuccessful, he traveled to the East in 1884 to meet Dr. Edward Miner Gallaudet, president of Gallaudet College (The Utah Eagle, February 1922; Evans, 1999).
Dr. John Rocky Park. Source: Wikipedia
Dr. Gallaudet recommended hiring Henry C. White, a Deaf man from Boston and a graduate of the National Deaf-Mute College (later renamed Gallaudet University, class of 1880), as the teacher to lead the class. Following Dr. Gallaudet's recommendation, Dr. Park appointed Mr. White as the principal of the Utah School for the Deaf (The Utah Eagle, February 1922; Evans, 1999).
Henry C. White. Source: Gallaudet University Archives
On August 26, 1884, a room at the University of Deseret was established as the Utah School for the Deaf, using a Combined System as the instructional method. This monumental event brought hope and opportunity to the Deaf community in Utah. Elizabeth Mary Wood, the Deaf daughter of William Wood, who had been attending the Colorado School for the Deaf, joined Professor White on the first day of class (Fay, Histories of American Schools for the Deaf, 1817–1893). Professor Henry C. White, a visionary, served as the school's first principal, as well as a teacher and head teacher, until 1890 (Fay, 1893; Clarke, 1897; Metcalf, 1900; The Utah Eagle, February 1922; Pace, 1946). His dedication and expertise shaped the school's early years. His leadership was also a significant turning point in the history of Deaf education in Utah, providing hope and a platform for the Utah Deaf community to receive education, thrive, and contribute to society.
Elizabeth Mary Wood, 1886. Source: FamilySearch.org
Shortly after, John Beck's three Deaf sons, Joseph, John, and Jacob, who were attending the California School for the Deaf, also joined the class (Evans, 1999). Four students enrolled by the end of September, bringing the total enrollment for the first year to fourteen. In its second year, enrollment grew to eighteen students. The school aimed to prepare graduates to be proficient in both vocational and academic fields (Fay, 1893; Pace, 1946; Evans, 1999).
Jacob Beck, 1921. Source: 1966 NFSD SLC Division, No. 56
Professor Henry C. White, a visionary, served as the school's first principal, as well as a teacher and head teacher, until 1890 (Fay, 1893; Clarke, 1897; Metcalf, 1900; The Utah Eagle, February 1922; Pace, 1946). His dedication and expertise shaped the school's early years. His leadership was also a significant turning point in the history of Deaf education in Utah, providing hope and a platform for the Utah Deaf community to not only receive education but also to thrive and contribute to society.
The Utah School for the Deaf was located at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, Utah in 1886
During its first two years, from 1884 to 1886, the Utah School for the Deaf operated as a day school without dormitory facilities. Many students did not reside in Salt Lake City, Utah, but lived in various parts of the state. Professor White was successful in establishing a home for Deaf children living outside the Salt Lake City area; however, this arrangement was not satisfactory for parents (Pace, 1946; Utah School for the Deaf Brochure).
Professor White, a non-LDS member, wrote a letter to Dr. Edward Miner Gallaudet about the newly established school. In his letter, he noted, "The organization of the school is peculiar, like all the methods of the Mormons" (Evans, 1999, p. 24). He observed that the school functioned more like a day school than a residential facility. Additionally, Professor White noticed that, unlike other residential schools, his students had to board with neighborhood families, attend classes from 9:00 AM to 2:00 PM without a break, and have dinner at 2:00 or 3:00 PM (Evans, 1999).
Professor White, a non-LDS member, wrote a letter to Dr. Edward Miner Gallaudet about the newly established school. In his letter, he noted, "The organization of the school is peculiar, like all the methods of the Mormons" (Evans, 1999, p. 24). He observed that the school functioned more like a day school than a residential facility. Additionally, Professor White noticed that, unlike other residential schools, his students had to board with neighborhood families, attend classes from 9:00 AM to 2:00 PM without a break, and have dinner at 2:00 or 3:00 PM (Evans, 1999).
Dr. Edward Miner Gallaudet. Source: Wikipedia
During the 1886 legislative session, Professor White presented two petitions. In his first petition, he requested an appropriation of $25,000 to permanently establish a school for Deaf children. He later amended his request, increasing the amount to $38,000. However, both petitions were ultimately rejected. Despite an increase in the annual appropriation from $2,000 to $3,000, funding was ultimately denied. Utah Governor Eli Houston Murray vetoed the entire appropriation bill for political reasons (Pace, 1946; Utah School for the Deaf Brochure; Evans, 1999).
Although the legislature did not provide funding support, it did not disrupt the school's operations. The university regents took on the financial responsibility of running the school until the legislature could assist (Pace, 1946; Utah School for the Deaf Brochure; Evans, 1999).
In 1886, Professor White funded students' boarding in his home. He also received reimbursement from parents, donations from individuals, and support from Salt Lake County to meet the children's educational needs (Pace, 1946; Utah School for the Deaf Brochure; Evans, 1999). As the head of the school, Professor White took full responsibility for managing the department (Evans, 1999).
Although the legislature did not provide funding support, it did not disrupt the school's operations. The university regents took on the financial responsibility of running the school until the legislature could assist (Pace, 1946; Utah School for the Deaf Brochure; Evans, 1999).
In 1886, Professor White funded students' boarding in his home. He also received reimbursement from parents, donations from individuals, and support from Salt Lake County to meet the children's educational needs (Pace, 1946; Utah School for the Deaf Brochure; Evans, 1999). As the head of the school, Professor White took full responsibility for managing the department (Evans, 1999).
The Utah School for the Deaf, part of the University of Deseret, was located at Professor Henry C. White's home in Salt Lake City, Utah, in 1886. Source: American School for the Deaf, 1817-1893
In 1887, the Utah School for the Deaf was relocated to the spacious mansion and beautiful grounds of Hooper Place, which had formerly been the residence of Captain W.H. Hooper in Salt Lake City, Utah. The school remained at Hooper Place for three years while it was still affiliated with the University of Deseret (American Annals of the Deaf and Dumb, January 1888; American Annals of the Deaf and Dumb, October 1889; Fay, 1893).
Enabling Act of the School
After four years of struggling to secure funding for the school, the Legislative Assembly officially established and maintained the deaf school as a branch of the University of Deseret in 1888 (Pace, 1946). Furthermore, the Utah Territorial Legislature expanded the age range of Deaf students eligible for education, allowing those under the age of thirty who could not benefit from instruction in regular schools (Roberts, 1994). The legislature allocated annual funding of $5,000 to the school and an additional $20,000 to construct a building for the deaf. At that time, Eli Murray was no longer the governor, allowing the legislature the freedom to allocate funds for the school, as he had previously opposed funding for it (Evans, 1999).
The school was initially known as the Institute of Deaf Mutes. Later, it changed its name to the School for the Deaf and Dumb and finally became the Utah School for the Deaf. For eleven years, the Institution of Deaf Mutes was part of the University of Deseret, making it the only school for the deaf in the United States affiliated with a university at that time (Pace, 1946; Utah School for the Deaf Brochure; Roberts, 1994).
Students at the school were taught subjects including reading, writing, spelling, arithmetic, grammar, and geography (Evans, 1999).
The school was initially known as the Institute of Deaf Mutes. Later, it changed its name to the School for the Deaf and Dumb and finally became the Utah School for the Deaf. For eleven years, the Institution of Deaf Mutes was part of the University of Deseret, making it the only school for the deaf in the United States affiliated with a university at that time (Pace, 1946; Utah School for the Deaf Brochure; Roberts, 1994).
Students at the school were taught subjects including reading, writing, spelling, arithmetic, grammar, and geography (Evans, 1999).
Elizabeth Mary Wood can be seen standing on the second right at the top, surrounded by other Deaf students, at the Utah School for the Deaf in Salt Lake City, Utah, in 1887. Henry C. White, the principal and teacher, appears to be standing behind Elizabeth and the other woman. Source: FamilySearch.org
Did You Know?
On October 10, 1889, a small paper named "The Deseret Eagle" published its first issue (Pace, 1946; Utah School for the Deaf Brochure).
Replacing the Unpopular Principal
Henry C. White, a resilient figure, worked at the Utah School for the Deaf for five years before losing his job in 1890 due to the infamous Milan Congress of 1880, an impactful event in the history of Deaf education, which passed a resolution mandating the use of the oral method in education. This decision, which sparked the oral movement across the country, posed a direct threat and jeopardized Henry's job. It led to his eventual replacement as principal in 1889 by Frank W. Metcalf, a hearing teacher from the Kansas School for the Deaf (Evans, 1999). This change was a stark reflection of the growing emphasis on oralism in Utah and its profound impact on Deaf education.
Frank W. Metcalf
As a Deaf person, Professor White did not gain much popularity during his tenure as principal (The Silent Worker, September 1897). His unclear speech likely contributed to this, despite being a versatile writer. The oral movement in Utah reflected Henry's replacement as principal in 1889 by a hearing teacher from the Kansas School for the Deaf, Frank W. Metcalf (Evans, 1999). He was eventually forced to resign from his position, which was then taken over by Frank Metcalf (American Annals of the Deaf and Dumb, October 1889). However, it was clear that the students sincerely appreciated Professor White. On his 33rd birthday on December 18, 1889, his students presented him with a double inkstand and a Russian leather wallet, a gesture that brought him "unspeakable" happiness (The Silent Worker, December 1889, p. 4).
The students held Professor White in high regard. On his 33rd birthday, December 18, 1889, they expressed their admiration with a thoughtful gift: a beautiful double inkstand and a Russian leather wallet. This gesture left him "unspeakably" happy (The Silent Worker, December 1889, p. 4), showcasing the students' deep respect and appreciation for him.
The students held Professor White in high regard. On his 33rd birthday, December 18, 1889, they expressed their admiration with a thoughtful gift: a beautiful double inkstand and a Russian leather wallet. This gesture left him "unspeakably" happy (The Silent Worker, December 1889, p. 4), showcasing the students' deep respect and appreciation for him.
Henry C. White. Source: The Utah Eagle, February 1922
Frank Metcalf took over as the school's principal in 1889, demoting Henry White to the position of head teacher. Frank supported oralism, which involved teaching Deaf students to speak and lipread, while Henry advocated using sign language in education. Their conflict, rooted in their differing educational philosophies, caused frequent disputes and intense animosity between them. The Board of Regents, caught in the middle of this tension, investigated and ultimately terminated Henry's employment with the school (The Utah Eagle, February 1922). Henry's ability to persevere in the face of adversity is a testament to his character and determination.
In February 1890, Henry completely disassociated himself from the school (White, 1890; Fay, 1893; Pace, 1946). In 1894, Henry C. White criticized the school administrators for failing to directly consult with Deaf adults, questioning, 'What about the Deaf themselves?' Have they no say in a matter which means intellectual life and death to them?' (Buchanan 1850-1950, p. 28). This bold criticism underscores his advocacy for the Deaf community.
Although Henry C. White did not establish the Utah School for the Deaf, he is credited with leading and maintaining it, which still exists today, as a leader and administrator despite limited financial resources and a lack of support from the hearing community. During Professor White's final year at the school, Frank M. Driggs, the boys' supervisor, teacher, and a 40-year superintendent, had the opportunity to get to know him. He found Professor White to be 'well-educated, bright, alert, and active.' Frank praised Henry's efforts to keep the school running during the early years, when it required both money and courage (The Utah Eagle, February 1922, p. 2). His bravery in the face of such challenges is truly commendable, and his work was of significant importance.
In 1894, a significant event took place in the Deaf community. Deaf leaders, including Henry C. White, opposed Alexander Graham Bell's mission to promote oral education. This mission aimed to ban sign language and advocate for oralism. They also fought against the spread of oral day schools throughout the United States, perceiving this movement as a danger to Deaf culture and education. Henry C. White stood out as one of the most forward-thinking Deaf activists. He believed Deaf teachers deserved teaching positions but realized that vigilant Deaf adults needed legal support and protection for such claims. While working at the Utah School for the Deaf in Salt Lake City, Utah, in 1885, Henry encouraged his colleagues to establish, coordinate, and defend a new set of rights. He said, "We must assert our right to justice, or we will never receive it" (Buchanan, 1850-1950, p. 32). Henry White's forward-thinking approach was remarkable.
In February 1890, Henry completely disassociated himself from the school (White, 1890; Fay, 1893; Pace, 1946). In 1894, Henry C. White criticized the school administrators for failing to directly consult with Deaf adults, questioning, 'What about the Deaf themselves?' Have they no say in a matter which means intellectual life and death to them?' (Buchanan 1850-1950, p. 28). This bold criticism underscores his advocacy for the Deaf community.
Although Henry C. White did not establish the Utah School for the Deaf, he is credited with leading and maintaining it, which still exists today, as a leader and administrator despite limited financial resources and a lack of support from the hearing community. During Professor White's final year at the school, Frank M. Driggs, the boys' supervisor, teacher, and a 40-year superintendent, had the opportunity to get to know him. He found Professor White to be 'well-educated, bright, alert, and active.' Frank praised Henry's efforts to keep the school running during the early years, when it required both money and courage (The Utah Eagle, February 1922, p. 2). His bravery in the face of such challenges is truly commendable, and his work was of significant importance.
In 1894, a significant event took place in the Deaf community. Deaf leaders, including Henry C. White, opposed Alexander Graham Bell's mission to promote oral education. This mission aimed to ban sign language and advocate for oralism. They also fought against the spread of oral day schools throughout the United States, perceiving this movement as a danger to Deaf culture and education. Henry C. White stood out as one of the most forward-thinking Deaf activists. He believed Deaf teachers deserved teaching positions but realized that vigilant Deaf adults needed legal support and protection for such claims. While working at the Utah School for the Deaf in Salt Lake City, Utah, in 1885, Henry encouraged his colleagues to establish, coordinate, and defend a new set of rights. He said, "We must assert our right to justice, or we will never receive it" (Buchanan, 1850-1950, p. 32). Henry White's forward-thinking approach was remarkable.
Henry C. White (center) at the first convention of the National Association of the Deaf in Cincinnati, Ohio, 1880. His wife, Mary E. Mann is standing behind him. Source: Deaf Heritage: A Narrative History of Deaf America
Henry C. White was not the only one facing this situation. Deaf men who set up state schools for the deaf also experienced similar challenges, losing their positions as principals simply because they were Deaf. They faced discrimination and prejudice from hearing individuals who wanted to take over the positions previously held by Deaf administrators. The Deaf Community acknowledged Professor White and three other Deaf principals—J.M. Koehler of Pennsylvania, A.R. Spear of North Dakota, and Mr. Long of the Indian Territory—as "shining lights in this particular," all men who had worked hard and made sacrifices, but told them to "get out" and make room for hearing men (The Silent Worker, March 1900, p. 101). At that time, the Deaf community regarded Professor White as one of the founders, and they were unaware of the involvement of two parents, John Beck and William Wood, in the establishment of the Utah School for the Deaf. Nonetheless, the injustice Professor White and his peers endured serves as a stark reminder of the widespread discrimination during their era.
Henry C. White emerged as a key figure during the battle that Deaf leaders led against Alexander Graham Bell and the expansion of oral day schools across the United States in 1894. A gifted rhetorician, he criticized school administrators for their failure to consult directly with Deaf adults, asking, "What of the Deaf themselves? Do they have no say in a matter that means intellectual life and death to them?" (Buchanan, 1850-1950, p. 28).
Henry White, one of the most visionary Deaf activists of his time, recognized that the Deaf community could not organize an effective national campaign without proper representation. Buchanan (1850-1950) noted that Henry C. White "believed that Deaf instructors had a moral claim to teaching positions, but he understood that such assertions were meaningless unless they were grounded in law and protected by vigilant Deaf adults" (p. 32).
While employed at the Utah School for the Deaf in Salt Lake City, Utah, in 1885, Henry urged his colleagues to define, organize, and defend a new set of rights for the Deaf community. He asserted, "One thing must be made plain: if we wish to combat this lingering prejudice and secure justice, we must assert our claims to justice, or we will never receive it" (p. 32). It was evident that Henry had not forgotten the challenges faced in Utah.
On September 15, 1894, Laron Pratt, an early leader in the Utah Deaf community and assistant superintendent of the Deaf Mute Sunday School in Salt Lake City, delivered a powerful sermon. He addressed his attentive audience about the divine providence that he perceived in his life, highlighting how what many considered an affliction was a blessing in his circumstances. "My apparent affliction is proving to be a blessing, removing the disguise to my own comprehension," he declared (Deseret News, September 15, 1894, p. 399). This bold declaration reflected his acceptance and even celebration of his deafness. Doug Stringham, a well-known researcher of Deaf LDS history, aptly remarked, "These sentences, considering the climate against manualist approaches at the time, represent some pretty brazen Deaf advocacy, 1894 style. It is significant that Laron Pratt stood before a large audience and said, 'Yeah, it's okay for me to be deaf; in fact, it's a blessing to be deaf. I didn't realize it earlier, but, yeah, it's good to be deaf" (Doug Stringham, personal communication, June 2, 2011). Laron Pratt's courage and advocacy continue to inspire us today.
Henry C. White emerged as a key figure during the battle that Deaf leaders led against Alexander Graham Bell and the expansion of oral day schools across the United States in 1894. A gifted rhetorician, he criticized school administrators for their failure to consult directly with Deaf adults, asking, "What of the Deaf themselves? Do they have no say in a matter that means intellectual life and death to them?" (Buchanan, 1850-1950, p. 28).
Henry White, one of the most visionary Deaf activists of his time, recognized that the Deaf community could not organize an effective national campaign without proper representation. Buchanan (1850-1950) noted that Henry C. White "believed that Deaf instructors had a moral claim to teaching positions, but he understood that such assertions were meaningless unless they were grounded in law and protected by vigilant Deaf adults" (p. 32).
While employed at the Utah School for the Deaf in Salt Lake City, Utah, in 1885, Henry urged his colleagues to define, organize, and defend a new set of rights for the Deaf community. He asserted, "One thing must be made plain: if we wish to combat this lingering prejudice and secure justice, we must assert our claims to justice, or we will never receive it" (p. 32). It was evident that Henry had not forgotten the challenges faced in Utah.
On September 15, 1894, Laron Pratt, an early leader in the Utah Deaf community and assistant superintendent of the Deaf Mute Sunday School in Salt Lake City, delivered a powerful sermon. He addressed his attentive audience about the divine providence that he perceived in his life, highlighting how what many considered an affliction was a blessing in his circumstances. "My apparent affliction is proving to be a blessing, removing the disguise to my own comprehension," he declared (Deseret News, September 15, 1894, p. 399). This bold declaration reflected his acceptance and even celebration of his deafness. Doug Stringham, a well-known researcher of Deaf LDS history, aptly remarked, "These sentences, considering the climate against manualist approaches at the time, represent some pretty brazen Deaf advocacy, 1894 style. It is significant that Laron Pratt stood before a large audience and said, 'Yeah, it's okay for me to be deaf; in fact, it's a blessing to be deaf. I didn't realize it earlier, but, yeah, it's good to be deaf" (Doug Stringham, personal communication, June 2, 2011). Laron Pratt's courage and advocacy continue to inspire us today.
Loran Pratt. Source: God Made Me Deaf Accounts from Deaf Latter-day Saints, 1836-1916
Start of Speech Training
Under Frank Metcalf's direction, the school experienced significant growth and progress. Enrollment increased to thirty-seven students, and work commenced on a substantial new building with a budget of $50,000 (Chronology of USDB).
Utah School for the Deaf, located in Ogden, Utah, in 1900. Top L-R: Frances N. Eddy, Edward P. Clarke, Sarah Whalem, M. Frances Walker. Bottom L-R: Katherine King, Frank W. Metcalf, Florence Crandall Metcalf, and Frank M. Driggs
In 1891, the Utah School for the Deaf introduced speech training for its Deaf students, which was not common in most state schools for the deaf at that time. The school believed that teaching speech and lip-reading could benefit many students, and about two-thirds of the students received speech therapy. The school had one class that used speech and lipreading, while the other two classes used a 'combined system' that included both sign language and speech (Pace, 1946; Evans, 1999, p. 29). Florence Crandall Metcalf, a Child of Deaf Adults, former teacher at the Kansas School for the Deaf, and wife of the first superintendent of the Utah School for the Deaf, Frank W. Metcalf, played a crucial role as an oral program teacher (Fay, 1893; Evans, 1999). This method would later become a controversial part of Deaf education history.
Florence Crandall Metcalf
The Utah Eagle magazine published an article on February 15, 1893, discussing the relationship between three aspects of Deaf education for advocates and parents.
“Our method of instruction is known as the American or combined method, as distinguished from the oral method. The combined method includes every means, which it is possible to use to reach the mind and intelligence of the child. We use the sign language as a medium through which to teach written language to reach the understanding. We use the manual alphabet; teach by means of objects, actions, and pictures, anything to develop the child’s mind. We employ a special teacher to [teach] speech and speech reading. A class of our pupils is taught entirely by the oral method. Others are taught to speak and read lips…After our pupils have finished a course of instruction in our school, the college [Gallaudet] at Washington is open to them, where college courses can be pursued. A Deaf child can thus be lifted from mental darkness into full light of knowledge and understanding. But we do not educate the mind alone, but the hand as well. Three trade classes are in successful operation. A class in printing, one in carpentry, and one in shoemaking” (Roberts, 1994, p. 63).
“Our method of instruction is known as the American or combined method, as distinguished from the oral method. The combined method includes every means, which it is possible to use to reach the mind and intelligence of the child. We use the sign language as a medium through which to teach written language to reach the understanding. We use the manual alphabet; teach by means of objects, actions, and pictures, anything to develop the child’s mind. We employ a special teacher to [teach] speech and speech reading. A class of our pupils is taught entirely by the oral method. Others are taught to speak and read lips…After our pupils have finished a course of instruction in our school, the college [Gallaudet] at Washington is open to them, where college courses can be pursued. A Deaf child can thus be lifted from mental darkness into full light of knowledge and understanding. But we do not educate the mind alone, but the hand as well. Three trade classes are in successful operation. A class in printing, one in carpentry, and one in shoemaking” (Roberts, 1994, p. 63).
Utah School for the Deaf, located in Ogden, Utah, in 1894. L-R: Frank Milton Driggs, boys's supervisor; Earl Moore; Charles Thomas Stucki; Joseph Olorensaw; and Frank Walter Metcalf, superintendent at the Utah School for the Deaf. Source: FamilySearch.org
In pursuit of their goals, many hearing parents insisted that their children learn to speak and read lips. However, Deaf individuals strongly opposed this approach (Robert, 1994). Since then, the debate over the use of oral methods versus sign language in Deaf education has continued for more than 150 years, and no completely satisfactory compromise has been reached to date.
During Superintendent Metcalf's administration in the late 1890s, the Utah School for the Deaf employed teachers trained in the oral method to help students improve their speaking and listening skills. Some of these teachers were also proficient in sign language. If a Deaf student had difficulty with speech or language development and couldn't communicate verbally, the oral teacher, who knew sign language, used it to bridge the gap and help the student communicate effectively (Roberts, 1994). This innovative approach, which focused on effective communication strategies, was highly successful, providing confidence in the methods' effectiveness.
During Superintendent Metcalf's administration in the late 1890s, the Utah School for the Deaf employed teachers trained in the oral method to help students improve their speaking and listening skills. Some of these teachers were also proficient in sign language. If a Deaf student had difficulty with speech or language development and couldn't communicate verbally, the oral teacher, who knew sign language, used it to bridge the gap and help the student communicate effectively (Roberts, 1994). This innovative approach, which focused on effective communication strategies, was highly successful, providing confidence in the methods' effectiveness.
The class at the Utah School for the Deaf took place in the 1890s. In a photo, Joseph Olorensaw is located behind the girl in the first row on the right, Earl Moore is behind Joseph, and Charles Thomas Stucki is behind Earl. Source: FamilySearch.org
Did You Know?
In 1894, the Utah State Legislature passed legislation to establish the Utah School for the Blind, which began operations two years later in 1896.
The class at the Utah School for the Deaf took place in the 1890s.
An Effort to Separate the
Utah School for the Deaf from the University of Utah
Utah School for the Deaf from the University of Utah
Initially affiliated with the University of Deseret, the Utah School for the Deaf became independent over time (Evans, 1999). The two institutions had little in common, making it appropriate to separate the school from the university (Fay, 1893; Evans, 1999). Efforts to detach the school began at various points, with the first attempt occurring in 1890. A proposal was made to relocate the school to Fort Cameron, an abandoned military post in Beaver City, Utah, in the southern part of the territory (Fay, 1893). Although local press and civic leaders supported this plan, Superintendent Metcalf opposed it due to concerns about Fort Cameron's isolation and lack of necessary rail connections (Evans, 1999). As a result, this effort was unsuccessful (Fay, 1893; Evans, 1999).
Under Superintendent Metcalf's leadership, vocational training programs were introduced at the school. The Utah School for the Deaf offered carpentry, printing, and shoemaking training to boys, and taught cooking, sewing, and household skills to girls (Evans, 1999).
Under Superintendent Metcalf's leadership, vocational training programs were introduced at the school. The Utah School for the Deaf offered carpentry, printing, and shoemaking training to boys, and taught cooking, sewing, and household skills to girls (Evans, 1999).
The Utah School for the Deaf at the University of Utah, West High Campus in Salt Lake City, Utah, in 1898, Utah. Ole Pettit Photograph Collection. Source: Special Collections, J. Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah
In 1890, the legislature allocated an additional $35,000 to complete a $50,000 building on the university campus, which had begun construction in 1889 (Fay, 1893). The building was officially occupied in December 1890. Before this, the school used rented buildings for dormitories and conducted classes on the university campus (Fay, 1893).
During the construction period, from June to December 1890, the school was temporarily located at 267 West Second South Street in Salt Lake City, Utah. On December 24 of that year, the school moved into the newly constructed facility on the university campus (Fay, 1893).
During the construction period, from June to December 1890, the school was temporarily located at 267 West Second South Street in Salt Lake City, Utah. On December 24 of that year, the school moved into the newly constructed facility on the university campus (Fay, 1893).
The Eaglet Staff. Back Row L-R: Matilda Lund, Reporter, Ezra T. Rollor, Business Manager, Chas Martin, Reporter. Second Row L-R: Jno W. Bradley, Blind Reporter, Frank M. Driggs, Censor, John H. Clark, Editor in Chief. Front Row L-R: Ole Peitit, Reporter and Lillie Swift, Associate Reporter. Source: FamilySearch.org
In 1892, a second attempt was made to separate the school from the University of Deseret and relocate it to the "Industrial Home," an unoccupied building in Salt Lake City, Utah, owned by the federal government. The territorial legislature asked the U.S. Congress to approve the use of this building as a Deaf school for a maximum of three years. While the House of Representatives approved the request, it ultimately failed to pass in the Senate (Fay, 1893; Pace, 1946; Evans, 1999).
The Industrial Home located in Salt Lake City, Utah. Source: Deseret Eagle, March 1, 1892
During this time, the students were housed in a newly constructed building on the university campus. During the same year of 1892, the territorial legislature officially changed the name of the "University of Deseret" to the "University of Utah." Through the Board of Regents, the university continued to oversee the Utah School for the Deaf (Pace, 1946; Evans, 1999).
The territorial legislature was considering the establishment of a new school for Deaf and Blind students in a different location. However, Deaf students living in rural areas faced unique challenges. John H. Clark, a 13-and-a-half-year-old rural resident who served as the editor of the Eaglet, expressed the students' gratitude for the legislature's plans in an article on February 15, 1894. He highlighted the students' concerns about the location of the new school, underscoring the need for a strategic decision. Clark's article stated,
"The legislature however was in doubt as to where they will have the school for the Deaf erected. There was constant conversation among the pupils about their preferred locations. Some of the pupils who lived in the north area preferred that the legislature would have the building erected at Logan. Others who also lived in the north area wished the legislature would have the school erected near Fort Douglas where there was plenty of ground for all kind of sports. Most of the pupils who lived in the southern part of the Utah Territory were in favor of having it erected in Provo. Those who lived in that area expressed concerns that it would cost much money to get to Logan. They recognized that there were many Deaf children living in the southern Utah, but their parents were too poor to afford to send their children to school in Salt Lake City. The concerns were expressed if the school is established in Logan, it will probably be far beyond the reach of the people in Southern Utah and it could lose some of the most promising pupils for their parents cannot afford to pay the expenses of such a long trip. They felt Provo would help reach the promising pupils to enroll at the school nearby" (Clark, 1894, p. 1-2).
The territorial legislature was considering the establishment of a new school for Deaf and Blind students in a different location. However, Deaf students living in rural areas faced unique challenges. John H. Clark, a 13-and-a-half-year-old rural resident who served as the editor of the Eaglet, expressed the students' gratitude for the legislature's plans in an article on February 15, 1894. He highlighted the students' concerns about the location of the new school, underscoring the need for a strategic decision. Clark's article stated,
"The legislature however was in doubt as to where they will have the school for the Deaf erected. There was constant conversation among the pupils about their preferred locations. Some of the pupils who lived in the north area preferred that the legislature would have the building erected at Logan. Others who also lived in the north area wished the legislature would have the school erected near Fort Douglas where there was plenty of ground for all kind of sports. Most of the pupils who lived in the southern part of the Utah Territory were in favor of having it erected in Provo. Those who lived in that area expressed concerns that it would cost much money to get to Logan. They recognized that there were many Deaf children living in the southern Utah, but their parents were too poor to afford to send their children to school in Salt Lake City. The concerns were expressed if the school is established in Logan, it will probably be far beyond the reach of the people in Southern Utah and it could lose some of the most promising pupils for their parents cannot afford to pay the expenses of such a long trip. They felt Provo would help reach the promising pupils to enroll at the school nearby" (Clark, 1894, p. 1-2).
John H. Clark
In 1895, the Utah Constitutional Convention successfully separated the Utah School for the Deaf from the University of Utah. The U.S. Congress facilitated this significant change by passing the Enabling Act and granting the school an endowment of 100,000 acres. This substantial financial support was crucial for the school's ability to operate independently from the university (Pace, 1946; Evans, 1999). With over fifty students enrolled and the option to sell or generate income from the land, the school was well-prepared to establish its own identity (Evans, 1999).
In 1896, the Utah School for the Deaf officially achieved independence from the University of Utah, prompting discussions about its new location. Potential sites considered included Ogden, Ephraim, Fort Cameron, and Fillmore, with several efforts made to secure the school in Ogden (Pace, 1946; Evans, 1999).
The Utah Constitutional Convention carefully evaluated several potential locations for the school and determined that Ogden, the second-largest city in the state, offered the most significant advantages. Voters subsequently approved the decision to establish the school in Ogden, Utah. Following this decision, the legislature acted on the provisions of the convention by occupying the former Territorial Reform School in Ogden (Pace, 1946). Furthermore, the legislature decided to merge the School for the Deaf and the School for the Blind into a single institution, establishing the Utah School for the Deaf and Blind, also referred to as USDB (Chronology of USDB).
On September 15, 1896, following Utah's admission to the Union, the Utah School for the Deaf moved to the Territorial Reform School, taking up a 57-acre site in Ogden. The institution included a school for the blind for the first time. The USDB shared facilities in Ogden, Utah (Pace, 1946; Roberts, 1994; Evans, 1999).
In 1896, the Utah School for the Deaf officially achieved independence from the University of Utah, prompting discussions about its new location. Potential sites considered included Ogden, Ephraim, Fort Cameron, and Fillmore, with several efforts made to secure the school in Ogden (Pace, 1946; Evans, 1999).
The Utah Constitutional Convention carefully evaluated several potential locations for the school and determined that Ogden, the second-largest city in the state, offered the most significant advantages. Voters subsequently approved the decision to establish the school in Ogden, Utah. Following this decision, the legislature acted on the provisions of the convention by occupying the former Territorial Reform School in Ogden (Pace, 1946). Furthermore, the legislature decided to merge the School for the Deaf and the School for the Blind into a single institution, establishing the Utah School for the Deaf and Blind, also referred to as USDB (Chronology of USDB).
On September 15, 1896, following Utah's admission to the Union, the Utah School for the Deaf moved to the Territorial Reform School, taking up a 57-acre site in Ogden. The institution included a school for the blind for the first time. The USDB shared facilities in Ogden, Utah (Pace, 1946; Roberts, 1994; Evans, 1999).
The Territorial Reform School, Ogden, Utah
The changes were implemented to provide Superintendent Frank W. Metcalf and his staff with more space and improved facilities (The Silent Worker, October 1896). During this time, a board of five trustees was established to oversee both the Deaf and Blind schools, which were managed by the same superintendent.
Martha Hughes Cannon, a significant figure in our history, held a unique position as a board member. She was not only a doctor, suffragist, and public health advocate but also America's first female state senator in Utah. Her contributions as both a senator and a trustee of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind were remarkable, and her efforts had lasting and meaningful impacts.
Martha Hughes Cannon, a significant figure in our history, held a unique position as a board member. She was not only a doctor, suffragist, and public health advocate but also America's first female state senator in Utah. Her contributions as both a senator and a trustee of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind were remarkable, and her efforts had lasting and meaningful impacts.
Martha Hughes Cannon. Source: Utah State Historical Society, Deseret News Archives
As a state senator, Martha had a significant impact on education and healthcare by successfully passing legislation that benefited the Utah School for the Deaf and Blind. One of her key achievements was the "Act Providing for Compulsory Education of Deaf, Dumb, and Blind Citizens of 1896." This law mandated that Deaf and Blind students attend the Utah School for the Deaf and Blind in Ogden, Utah. As a result, this legislation greatly improved the lives of these students, ensuring they received the education they deserved.
In 1896, during Martha's tenure on the Board of Trustees, she worked diligently to address the absence of a law requiring Deaf and Blind children to attend the state institution. Martha and her fellow board members wrote a letter to the Utah governor and legislature, urging them to provide education for these children at the state institution rather than in public schools. Their collaborative efforts specifically called for a legislative mandate for these children's attendance at the state institution, highlighting the transformative impact of specialized education. The report from the Utah State School for the Deaf and Dumb and the State School for the Blind in 1896, detailed in the section below, offers a clearer understanding of the content of this letter and its effects (Report of the Utah State School for the Deaf and Dumb and the State School for the Blind, 1896).
In 1896, during Martha's tenure on the Board of Trustees, she worked diligently to address the absence of a law requiring Deaf and Blind children to attend the state institution. Martha and her fellow board members wrote a letter to the Utah governor and legislature, urging them to provide education for these children at the state institution rather than in public schools. Their collaborative efforts specifically called for a legislative mandate for these children's attendance at the state institution, highlighting the transformative impact of specialized education. The report from the Utah State School for the Deaf and Dumb and the State School for the Blind in 1896, detailed in the section below, offers a clearer understanding of the content of this letter and its effects (Report of the Utah State School for the Deaf and Dumb and the State School for the Blind, 1896).
Source: Report of the Utah State School for the Deaf and Dumb and the State School for the Blind, 1896
|
Source: Report of the Utah State School for the Deaf and Dumb and the State School for the Blind, 1896
|
Source: Report of the Utah State School for the Deaf and Dumb and the State School for the Blind, 1896
Dr. Martha Hughes Cannon's advocacy for healthcare extended beyond her time as a senator. She persisted in her efforts to establish a new hospital on the campus of the Utah School for the Deaf and Blind by spearheading a healthcare bill. Her steadfast determination paid off when the "Act of Authorizing the Erection of a Hospital Building for the Utah State School for the Deaf and Dumb" was successfully passed in 1898. This legislation led to the construction of a hospital building on the school campus, which was completed in 1900. The photos below reflects her commitment to improving healthcare for the students (Pace, The Utah Eagle, October 1946; Martha Hughes Cannon, Utah Division of Archives and Records Services, April 9, 2020; Martha Hughes Cannon, Wikipedia, April 20, 2024). Notably, much of the woodwork in the building was completed by students from the carpentry class (Pace, The Utah Eagle, October 1946). If you have ever received care at the infirmary during your illness, you owe her a great deal of gratitude for her significant contributions to healthcare!
The hospital building is at the Utah School for the Deaf and Blind in Ogden, Utah. Source: Biennial Report of the Trustees and Superintendent of the Utah State School for the Deaf, Dumb, and Dumb and the Blind, 1903–1904
The Utah School for the Deaf is located in Ogden, Utah. The hospital is on the left, the Industrial Building is in the center, and the Main Building is on the right.
The classroom at the Utah School for the Deaf, in Ogden, Utah, in 1899
Utah Governor Heber Wells acknowledged Dr. Martha Hughes Cannon's significant contributions by endorsing the first mandatory school bill. He appointed her to the Board of Trustees for the Utah School for the Deaf and Blind, which inspired her to sponsor a second bill to establish a hospital at that institution. Even after leaving politics after serving one term, Martha remained dedicated to her work by serving two additional terms on the board of the Utah School for the Deaf and Blind, leaving behind a lasting legacy (Martha Hughes Cannon, Wikipedia, April 20, 2024).
Heber Wells. Source: Wikipedia
Another significant member of the Board of Trustees for the Utah School for the Deaf and Blind was Maud May Babcock. She was a trailblazer, being the first female professor at the University of Utah, where she taught speech and physical education. Maud's dedication was evident in her twenty-two years of service on the board, including twelve years as its president (Toone, Deseret News, May 7, 2014). At the Utah Association of the Deaf Convention in 1915, she shared her unique and enlightening experiences from visiting Deaf schools in France and Germany, which offered a global perspective to the Utah Deaf community (The UAD Bulletin, Summer 1963).
Maud May Babcock. Source: J. Willard Marriott Library of the University of Utah
Board of Trustees of the Utah School for the Deaf. Fred W. Chambers, Vice-President; E.F. Corey, Secretary; Maud May Babcock, President (center); Chas J. Ross and Rev. Peter A. Simpkin. Source: Biennial Report of the Trustees and Superintendent of the Utah State School for the Deaf, Dumb, and Dumb and the Blind, 1905-1906
Ogden City was an ideal location for the Utah School for the Deaf. All railway lines in Utah and neighboring states converged there, allowing easy access from nearly every point in Utah, Idaho, Nevada, and other adjacent states without the need to change trains. This was particularly important for Deaf and Blind children. At that time, Ogden had a population of around 20,000 residents, and the churches, schools, and businesses in the area were of high quality. Additionally, electric streetcar lines connected all parts of the city, with one line passing within two blocks of the school's main entrance (Pace, 1946).
The Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind, Ogden, Utah, 1896: Source: APH Callahan Museum
The Utah School for the Deaf was on a 57-acre property with a garden, fruit orchard, pasture, and agricultural areas (Pace, 1946; Evans, 1999).
On the right side of the barn, there is a long chicken coop in front of it. Behind it lies a large pigpen. This barn produced meat, milk, and eggs at the Utah School for the Deaf in Ogden, Utah. These buildings were demolished sometime around 1955
The lowing herd at the Utah School for the Deaf in Ogden, Utah, in 1903
The students and staff eventually moved into their permanent facility, which consisted of two buildings. The main building was a three-story structure made of brick and stone (Pace, 1947; Evans, 1999). It measured 142 feet in width and rose three stories above a basement. The first two floors were designated for classrooms and offices, while the upper floors housed dormitory rooms (Pace, 1946; Evans, 1999).
The Main Building of the Utah School for the Deaf in Ogden, Utah
The smaller two-story building, known as the Annex Building, is located behind the Main Building. It includes a dining hall, an assembly room, and a chapel. The second floor was originally designated for industrial classes but was later converted into classrooms and dormitory space for blind students. Additionally, the Annex houses a kitchen, pantries, and a small dining area (Pace, 1946; Evans, 1999).
The Main Building is located on the front of the Utah School for the Deaf and Blind. The Annex Building is behind the Main Building. Ogden, Utah, in the 1800s. Source: J. Willard Marriott Library of the University of Utah
Students under the age of thirty had the opportunity to graduate, and the school also offered vocational arts instruction (Evans, 1999).
Deaf and Blind students at the Utah School for the Deaf and Blind in Ogden, Utah, in 1896. Source: J. Willard Marriott Library of the University of Utah
Did You Know?
With the establishment of statehood, the Utah School for the Deaf inherited 100,000 acres of land, while the Utah School for the Blind received a comparable amount. Since the constitution stipulated that both schools would be managed together, the combined institution had a total of 200,000 acres of land—more than half the land area of the state of Rhode Island (The Silent Worker, March 1896).
Female students at the Utah School for the Deaf, in Ogden, Utah, in 1896
Fire Escape Cylinder
Rodney W. Walker, a 1933 graduate of the Utah School for the Deaf, recounts in his book "My Life Story" that students enjoyed sliding down a tall, dark fire escape cylinder located next to the Annex Building and behind the Main Building. Attached to the second and third floors, this structure featured a metal spiral slide that quickly allowed students to exit through a door at the bottom. The design aimed to expedite evacuation in the event of a fire (Walker, 2006, p. 27).
Rodney W. Walker. Source: The Utah Eagle, April 1955
Rodney observed that the fire escape cylinder was much taller than the slides found in public playgrounds. Students would climb the slide to reach the second, third, or even fourth floors and then slide down. They learned to stand up while sliding and to hold onto the center pole as they spiraled down. Occasionally, a mischievous student would notice someone climbing up the slide. They would wait for a moment and then pour some water from the third-floor level onto the slide. As a result, the boy would slip and slide down the slick surface as quickly as possible, landing at the base of the cylinder with his pants soaked (Walker, 2006, p. 27).
The Annex Building of the Utah School for the Deaf in Ogden, Utah. Source: Rodney W. Walker's My Life Story book
The fire escape stairs inspired many wild stories. For example, a common question among the students was, "What is the round tower behind the Blind building?"
Smokestack?
Devil's Pit?
Devil's Stove?
Don't Know? (USD Alumni Reunion, 2009).
Many students fondly remembered sliding down the fire escape and sharing stories about it.
Smokestack?
Devil's Pit?
Devil's Stove?
Don't Know? (USD Alumni Reunion, 2009).
Many students fondly remembered sliding down the fire escape and sharing stories about it.
A New Change in Superintendent
And Its Impact on Enrollment
And Its Impact on Enrollment
Frank W. Metcalf, who served as the superintendent of the Utah School for the Deaf and later the Utah School for the Deaf and Blind for over twelve years, resigned on April 12, 1901. His tenure saw significant growth, transforming the school from a department of the University of Utah with three teachers, a principal, and forty-one students, to an independent institution with a superintendent, eight teachers, and an enrollment of 76 students (Pace, 1946).
Dr. Frank M. Driggs became the second superintendent on June 15, 1901, succeeding Metcalf. He held this position for forty years until his retirement in March 1941 (Pace, 1946). As a newly appointed superintendent, he faced significant challenges with enrollment, as the early state law governing the school allowed any student up to the age of thirty to enroll at the USDB. This policy presented numerous difficulties for the institution (Evans, 1999).
Dr. Frank M. Driggs became the second superintendent on June 15, 1901, succeeding Metcalf. He held this position for forty years until his retirement in March 1941 (Pace, 1946). As a newly appointed superintendent, he faced significant challenges with enrollment, as the early state law governing the school allowed any student up to the age of thirty to enroll at the USDB. This policy presented numerous difficulties for the institution (Evans, 1999).
Frank M. Driggs. Source: The UAD Bulletin, Summer 1963
Around 1890, the age range of students at the Utah School for the Deaf began to decline significantly as younger students enrolled and older students gradually returned home. When Frank Driggs became superintendent, he established a new age limit for enrollment, setting it between six and twenty-one years old. This change marked a reversal from 1884 when only five out of fourteen students enrolled before the age of fifteen (Roberts, 1994).
First and second year students at the Utah School for the Deaf in Ogden, Utah. Source: Biennial Report of the Trustees and Superintendent of the Utah State School for the Deaf, Dumb, and Dumb and the Blind, 1901-1902
Class of 1902 of the Utah School for the Deaf. L-R: Elmo V. Kemp, Peter G. Slot, Elgin Jacobson, and Joseph Cameron, Jr. Source: The Utah Eagle, June 3, 1902 & Biennial Report of the Trustees and Superintendent of the Utah School for the Deaf and Dumb and the Blind, 1901-1902
Superintendent Driggs aimed to provide every Deaf child with a quality education and to prepare those who expressed a desire for higher education and demonstrated sufficient academic ability for admission to Gallaudet College (Driggs, 1905). He noted that in the early years of the Utah School for the Deaf, children aged six and older could enroll. The school's objective was to offer a comprehensive education, which included subjects such as writing, reading, arithmetic, geography, grammar, history, physiology, civics, physics, and more. The school also offered courses in manual training, physical training, and domestic science (Driggs, 1901).
Standing at left is Frank M. Driggs, Superintendent of the Utah School for the Deaf and Blind in Ogden, Utah, in 1903
In its early years, the school admitted many students with multiple disabilities, which posed significant challenges for the staff due to their lack of expertise in addressing these needs. Consequently, the school sent several students home within weeks due to their inability to learn effectively or their disruptive behavior. Others remained for a year or longer without showing any signs of progress (Roberts, 1994).
Teachers, instructors and supervisors at the Utah School for the Deaf in Ogden, Utah. Source: Biennial Report of the Trustees and Superintendent of the Utah State School for the Deaf, Dumb, and Dumb and the Blind, 1903-1904
One case involved a twenty-two-year-old English female student who was sent home for being "unable to perform at a second-grade level. She showed no desire to improve, and her influence on the younger girls was detrimental" (Evans, 1999, p. 47). Clara Viola Eddy, a Deaf teacher at the Utah School for the Deaf, shared another example of a thirty-two-year-old female student named Rebecca, who "had a violent temper" and once chased a peer with a knife, as follows:
"At that time students at the school ranged from six to thirty two years old of age. One girl named Rebecca was thirty two…Several of these students were in their twenties. These older students were often the most difficult to manage….Elmo Kemp, one of the star athletes, loved to tease and [he] began teasing her. Rebecca had a violent temper when aroused, [and] she chased Elmo around the table with [a] knife…
After everyone left the room I went to her to talk to her for a few minutes [sic]. Finally she accompanied me to her room and I was in her good graces" (Roberts, 1999, p. 44)."
"At that time students at the school ranged from six to thirty two years old of age. One girl named Rebecca was thirty two…Several of these students were in their twenties. These older students were often the most difficult to manage….Elmo Kemp, one of the star athletes, loved to tease and [he] began teasing her. Rebecca had a violent temper when aroused, [and] she chased Elmo around the table with [a] knife…
After everyone left the room I went to her to talk to her for a few minutes [sic]. Finally she accompanied me to her room and I was in her good graces" (Roberts, 1999, p. 44)."
Clara Viola Eddy in 1904. Source: The UAD Bulletin, Summer 1963
Due to various challenges, some parents chose to transfer their children to specialized schools or mental health institutions outside the state (Roberts, 1994).
Most parents lacked the education, experience, or resources to effectively support their children. They felt uncertain about what to do, so they enrolled their children at the Utah School for the Deaf for services, regardless of their age or multiple disabilities. Meanwhile, the school struggled to differentiate between students who were Deaf, had language deprivation, had mental health issues, or were autistic (Roberts, 1994).
Staff members pushed for the creation of a separate institution specifically for Deaf students with multiple disabilities amid these enrollment issues.
In response, Superintendent Driggs approached the legislature to emphasize the urgent need for a new, dedicated facility. In his report, he stated:
"Every year, we receive a number of applications for admission to our institution of feeble-minded children. These unfortunate boys and girls range in feeble-mindedness from slightly below the normal child to the idiotic, imbecile, and insane. Almost all the applicants are dumb, or partly so, and usually have perfect hearing…Nearly every dumb child with perfect hearing is feeble-minded" (Roberts, 1994, p. 44).
Despite Dr. Driggs' lobbying efforts, the legislature did not take action to establish a separate school for students with multiple disabilities until years later. It wasn't until 1907 that the state of Utah finally established the State Training School in American Fork, Utah. Following this, the number of students with multiple disabilities admitted to the Utah School for the Deaf gradually decreased (Roberts, 1994).
Most parents lacked the education, experience, or resources to effectively support their children. They felt uncertain about what to do, so they enrolled their children at the Utah School for the Deaf for services, regardless of their age or multiple disabilities. Meanwhile, the school struggled to differentiate between students who were Deaf, had language deprivation, had mental health issues, or were autistic (Roberts, 1994).
Staff members pushed for the creation of a separate institution specifically for Deaf students with multiple disabilities amid these enrollment issues.
In response, Superintendent Driggs approached the legislature to emphasize the urgent need for a new, dedicated facility. In his report, he stated:
"Every year, we receive a number of applications for admission to our institution of feeble-minded children. These unfortunate boys and girls range in feeble-mindedness from slightly below the normal child to the idiotic, imbecile, and insane. Almost all the applicants are dumb, or partly so, and usually have perfect hearing…Nearly every dumb child with perfect hearing is feeble-minded" (Roberts, 1994, p. 44).
Despite Dr. Driggs' lobbying efforts, the legislature did not take action to establish a separate school for students with multiple disabilities until years later. It wasn't until 1907 that the state of Utah finally established the State Training School in American Fork, Utah. Following this, the number of students with multiple disabilities admitted to the Utah School for the Deaf gradually decreased (Roberts, 1994).
Beginner class for deaf at the Utah School for the Deaf in Ogden, Utah. Source: Biennial Report of the Trustees and Superintendent of the Utah State School for the Deaf, Dumb, and Dumb and the Blind, 1903-1904
Advanced class for the deaf at the Utah School for the Deaf in Ogden, Utah. Source: Biennial Report of the Trustees and Superintendent of the Utah State School for the Deaf, Dumb, and Dumb and the Blind, 1903-1904
The library at the Utah School for the Deaf in Ogden, Utah, in 1903
In 1905, Superintendent Driggs also renamed the institution. In the Biennial Report for 1905-06, he made the following statement:
"From the fact that all dumb children who are not Deaf are feebleminded and are, therefore, not eligible for admission to the Utah School or the Deaf and Dumb, and because of the fact that we have no dumb children in the school, I would recommend that the Legislature be requested to eliminate the word "Dumb" from the name of the school making it be Utah School for the Deaf. This will be the correct name and meet public sentiment approval in this direction" (The Utah Eagle, June 6, 1905).
The legislative session of 1907 approved Superintendent Driggs' recommendation to change the school's name. The official name became the Utah State School for the Deaf (Pace, 1946).
It seems that Gallaudet College influenced Superintendent Driggs's views on the education of Deaf students. He recognized that Deaf individuals, regardless of the clarity of their speech, could be just as intelligent and capable as hearing individuals.
"From the fact that all dumb children who are not Deaf are feebleminded and are, therefore, not eligible for admission to the Utah School or the Deaf and Dumb, and because of the fact that we have no dumb children in the school, I would recommend that the Legislature be requested to eliminate the word "Dumb" from the name of the school making it be Utah School for the Deaf. This will be the correct name and meet public sentiment approval in this direction" (The Utah Eagle, June 6, 1905).
The legislative session of 1907 approved Superintendent Driggs' recommendation to change the school's name. The official name became the Utah State School for the Deaf (Pace, 1946).
It seems that Gallaudet College influenced Superintendent Driggs's views on the education of Deaf students. He recognized that Deaf individuals, regardless of the clarity of their speech, could be just as intelligent and capable as hearing individuals.
1907 Graduates of the Utah School for the Deaf and Blind. Willie Aicbol (Blind), Carol Bind (Blind), Ruin McDonald (Blind), Bernhard Uverson (Blind), Ivy Griggs (Deaf), Elsie Christiansen (Deaf), Lizzie Egginton (Deaf), Fred Low (Deaf), Mary Woolslayer (Deaf), Emma Emmertson, Rufus E. Briggs (Deaf). Source: The Utah Eagle, 1907
Did You Know?
According to the Kansas Star, Frank W. Metcalf, the superintendent of the Utah School for the Deaf, was replaced by Frank M. Driggs, a teacher at the school. The reason given for this change was that Metcalf was not a Mormon, while Driggs was (The Silent Worker, May 1901, p. 139).
During Superintendent Frank M. Driggs' administration, four new buildings were added to the Utah School for the Deaf and Blind campus: the Infirmary, Primary Hall, Driggs Hall (the girls' dormitory), and Woodbury Hall (the boys' dormitory) (Chronology of USDB).
During Superintendent Frank M. Driggs' administration, four new buildings were added to the Utah School for the Deaf and Blind campus: the Infirmary, Primary Hall, Driggs Hall (the girls' dormitory), and Woodbury Hall (the boys' dormitory) (Chronology of USDB).
The dining hall at the Utah School for the Deaf, Ogden, Utah, in 1903. Source: Biennial Report of the Trustees and Superintendent of the Utah School for the Deaf and Dumb and the Blind, 1903-1904
An Introduction of Combined System
In 1901, the Utah School for the Deaf in Ogden, under the leadership of Superintendent Frank M. Driggs, who replaced Frank W. Metcalf, adopted a teaching method known as the combined method. To help Deaf students learn, this approach incorporated manual alphabet, sign language, speech, and speech reading. State schools for the deaf across America widely used this method at the time (Robert, 1994).
"Combined System" at the Utah School for the Deaf, Ogden, Utah. Source: Biennial Report of the Trustees and Superintendent of the Utah State School for the Deaf, Dumb, and Dumb and the Blind, 1901-02
The appointment of Frank M. Driggs as superintendent of the Utah School for the Deaf in 1901 initiated a significant chapter in Deaf education. The school entrusted him with the task of identifying the most effective teaching methods for Deaf children and formulating policies that would benefit both the children and their parents. With unwavering commitment and a calm demeanor, he reassured parents, who, in their emotional state, would often ask, "Will my child be able to speak and read lips?" while pointing to their young Deaf child. His deep empathy and understanding of their concerns were evident, providing a sense of reassurance to the parents.
The classroom at the Utah School for the Deaf, Ogden, Utah, in 1903
Under the administration of Superintendent Driggs, the school published a statement about its teaching methods in 1902, explaining that the combined method was not just a method but the most effective way to educate students. Teachers believed education, including English acquisition, was more important than teaching speech and lip reading. When a child faced difficulties learning speech, educators used the manual method, which involved sign language. They viewed all the different communication approaches, such as speech, manual alphabet, writing, and sign language, as tools to help the student learn and succeed (Roberts, 1994, p. 61-62).
The alphabet in American Sign Language created by John Barrick. Source: Biennial Report of the Trustees and Superintendent of the Utah School for the Deaf and Dumb and the Blind: 1897-1898
As the superintendent, Frank Driggs, who knew sign language, had to make a difficult decision. He had to choose between oralism and the combined system, a long-standing point of debate in Deaf education. This decision was crucial not only to the Utah School for the Deaf but to the entire field of Deaf education. With the best interests of the students and the future of Deaf education in mind, including parents, Frank Driggs was responsible for this critical decision (UAD Bulletin, April 1959).
Superintendent Driggs, a supporter of teaching Deaf children to speak, was well aware of the complex conflict between the rigid oral approach, which excluded signing. He was determined to navigate this significant challenge, deeply rooted in the history of Deaf education. The alums remembered their painful and unpleasant experiences with the slow lessons in lip-reading and speech. However, they were able to communicate with Superintendent Driggs in sign language when visiting the school after graduation. Despite disagreeing with his methods and philosophies, they acknowledged that he had the best interests of Deaf education at heart during the forty years he dedicated to the field. The alums expressed profound gratitude to Frank M. Driggs for providing them with valuable job opportunities, especially in vocational education programs. While receiving oral instructions at school, they observed clear evidence of the success of the combined teaching method (UAD Bulletin, April 1959, p. 1).
Superintendent Driggs, a supporter of teaching Deaf children to speak, was well aware of the complex conflict between the rigid oral approach, which excluded signing. He was determined to navigate this significant challenge, deeply rooted in the history of Deaf education. The alums remembered their painful and unpleasant experiences with the slow lessons in lip-reading and speech. However, they were able to communicate with Superintendent Driggs in sign language when visiting the school after graduation. Despite disagreeing with his methods and philosophies, they acknowledged that he had the best interests of Deaf education at heart during the forty years he dedicated to the field. The alums expressed profound gratitude to Frank M. Driggs for providing them with valuable job opportunities, especially in vocational education programs. While receiving oral instructions at school, they observed clear evidence of the success of the combined teaching method (UAD Bulletin, April 1959, p. 1).
1912 graduates of the Utah School for the Deaf. Cora Hitesman, Eric Kingsbury, Naomi Wright, Leo Richey, George Preece (center), Maud Hall, Maree Hunter, Kenneth Olsen, Arthur Henkel. Source: The Utah Eagle, 1912
Did You Know?
Superintendent Frank M. Driggs of the Utah School for the Deaf is quoted below:
“I love the sign language. I know how to use it well. It was a great boon to the Deaf. They loved it dearly, too dearly sometimes. I wished every Deaf child could be taught to speak well and read the lips well. These things were wonderful accomplishments and much to be desired” (The Silent Worker, June 1927, p. 335).
“I love the sign language. I know how to use it well. It was a great boon to the Deaf. They loved it dearly, too dearly sometimes. I wished every Deaf child could be taught to speak well and read the lips well. These things were wonderful accomplishments and much to be desired” (The Silent Worker, June 1927, p. 335).
Deaf Employees at the Utah School for the Deaf
In the 1890s and early 1900s, the Utah School for the Deaf employed four Deaf teachers. They were Clara Viola Eddy, Luella Stiffler, Elizabeth DeLong, and Nephi Larsen. Clara, the sister of schoolteacher Frances Eddy, served as an art teacher and girls' supervisor. Luella taught for only a few years at the school in Salt Lake City, Utah. Elizabeth DeLong, a graduate of the Utah School for the Deaf in 1897 and later of Gallaudet in 1902, was the first female president of the Utah Association of the Deaf. She likely taught 'oral failures,' while Nephi taught carpentry (Evans, 1999).
Elizabeth DeLong. Source: FamilySearch.org
In 1911, the administration released Elizabeth DeLong as a teacher to pursue business opportunities. Elsie Christiansen, a 1907 graduate of the Utah School for the Deaf, succeeded her as a domestic arts and science teacher. Later, the school rehired Elizabeth to teach sewing and dressmaking while Elsie continued to teach domestic arts and science (Fay, 1911; Evans, 1999). Elizabeth taught domestic arts and science at the Utah School for the Deaf from 1902 to 1917, while Nephi Larsen taught carpentry from 1900 to 1917.
By the end of the 1910s, neither Elizabeth DeLong nor Nephi Larsen taught at the Utah School for the Deaf. This effectively ended the Deaf presence among the faculty, possibly due to increased advocacy of the oral method or a perception that Deaf people could not assume "important" positions as teachers. By 1920, there were one or two Deaf teachers, possibly more. For the Deaf students, the world was completely hearing due to "oral movement," a term used to describe the increasing emphasis on oral methods of communication and a lack of adult role models (Evan, 1999).
By the end of the 1910s, neither Elizabeth DeLong nor Nephi Larsen taught at the Utah School for the Deaf. This effectively ended the Deaf presence among the faculty, possibly due to increased advocacy of the oral method or a perception that Deaf people could not assume "important" positions as teachers. By 1920, there were one or two Deaf teachers, possibly more. For the Deaf students, the world was completely hearing due to "oral movement," a term used to describe the increasing emphasis on oral methods of communication and a lack of adult role models (Evan, 1999).
Nephi Larsen. Source: FamilySearch.org
Over time, there was a growing preference among hearing parents not to teach their children sign language. Many parents encouraged their children to focus on speaking, lip-reading, and communicating primarily through their residual hearing (Robert, 1994). In response to evolving needs, the Utah School for the Deaf established an oral program in 1943. This program focused on lip-reading, as well as spoken and written language (Pace, 1946), marking a significant shift in the history of Deaf education. Nonetheless, the students were allowed to utilize sign language in non-classroom settings such as recess, cafeteria, clubs, activities, and sports.
Fourth grade oral class at the Utah School for the Deaf, in Ogden, Utah, in 1919
In 1934, Kenneth C. Burdett, a graduate of the 1929 Utah School for the Deaf and the 1934 Gallaudet College, returned to his alma mater to become a teacher. He served at the school for four decades, holding the record as the longest-serving Deaf teacher in its history. Alongside him, Deaf teachers Donald Jensen, Dora B. Laramie, and Jerry Taylor joined the board. Following the implementation of a segregation policy in 1962, these Deaf teachers, like Elizabeth DeLong before them, faced challenges related to 'oral failure.' This policy prohibited interaction between students using oral language and those using sign language on school campuses. It also mandated the use of oral methods over sign language, significantly impacting teaching methods and the future of Deaf education, as detailed in the "Controversies Surrounding Communication and Educational Methods and the Interpretation of “Least Restrictive Environment” in Utah" section below.
Kenneth C. Burdett
Controversies Surrounding Communication and Educational Methods and the Interpretation of “Least Restrictive Environment” in Utah
Part III
Written & Compiled by Jodi Christel Becker
Edited by Bronwyn O’Hara
Co-Edited by Valerie G. Kinney
Published in 2006
Updated in 2025
Part III
Written & Compiled by Jodi Christel Becker
Edited by Bronwyn O’Hara
Co-Edited by Valerie G. Kinney
Published in 2006
Updated in 2025
Communication Methods of
Instruction at the Utah School for the Deaf
Instruction at the Utah School for the Deaf
In the late 1940s and early 1950s, Deaf students encountered significant challenges due to the introduction of an oral education program. Teachers primarily used the oral method for instruction, which prohibited the use of sign language until the ninth grade. Despite this ban, students displayed a strong commitment to communication by using sign language after school and in their dormitories, even at the risk of physical punishment in the classroom. Teachers often disciplined students for signing by hitting them with erasers or yardsticks (Celia May Laramie Baldwin, personal communication, April 15, 2012). Nevertheless, these students demonstrated resourcefulness and determination to use sign language in the face of adversity.
In the 1880s, Henry C. White was a lone advocate for sign language in Utah. By the 1950s, graduates of the Utah School for the Deaf had developed a strong, united community that actively supported sign language and residential school. They emerged as influential leaders within the Utah Deaf community, making a significant impact on the deaf educational system. They actively advocated for better education for Deaf children and expressed their concerns about the harmful effects of oral instruction. Their steadfast commitment to highlighting how these teaching methods undermined educational standards marked a significant historical moment. Through the Utah Association of the Deaf, they engaged with academic issues, gained a platform to express their concerns, advocated for change, and became more involved in the organization, which played a crucial role in the field of Deaf education.
Robert G. Sanderson and Joseph B. Burnett, both graduates of the Utah School for the Deaf, played a pivotal role in shaping teaching methods at the school. During this period, Robert Sanderson became a staunch advocate for the use of sign language in Deaf education. Drawing on their personal experiences with the manual method, the oral method, and the combined system, many members of the Utah Association of the Deaf expressed a preference for the combined method of instruction. Their influence was so significant that in 1955, the National Association of the Deaf reaffirmed its support for this combined approach during its convention (Burnett & Sanderson, The UAD Bulletin, 1955–1956). This important endorsement further solidified the impact of their work.
In the 1880s, Henry C. White was a lone advocate for sign language in Utah. By the 1950s, graduates of the Utah School for the Deaf had developed a strong, united community that actively supported sign language and residential school. They emerged as influential leaders within the Utah Deaf community, making a significant impact on the deaf educational system. They actively advocated for better education for Deaf children and expressed their concerns about the harmful effects of oral instruction. Their steadfast commitment to highlighting how these teaching methods undermined educational standards marked a significant historical moment. Through the Utah Association of the Deaf, they engaged with academic issues, gained a platform to express their concerns, advocated for change, and became more involved in the organization, which played a crucial role in the field of Deaf education.
Robert G. Sanderson and Joseph B. Burnett, both graduates of the Utah School for the Deaf, played a pivotal role in shaping teaching methods at the school. During this period, Robert Sanderson became a staunch advocate for the use of sign language in Deaf education. Drawing on their personal experiences with the manual method, the oral method, and the combined system, many members of the Utah Association of the Deaf expressed a preference for the combined method of instruction. Their influence was so significant that in 1955, the National Association of the Deaf reaffirmed its support for this combined approach during its convention (Burnett & Sanderson, The UAD Bulletin, 1955–1956). This important endorsement further solidified the impact of their work.
Robert G. Sanderson
Between 1955 and 1956, the Utah School for the Deaf announced that it would adopt an oral method to teach elementary classrooms under the administration of Superintendent Harold W. Green. Following this, a gradual transition to a combined teaching method was planned for the intermediate grades.
In 1956, Joseph B. Burnett, president of the Utah Association of the Deaf, spearheaded a strong campaign against the inclusion of speech instruction in Deaf education. The other officers of the UAD supported him, firmly believing that the combined method of instruction used at the Utah School for the Deaf was the most beneficial aspect of education for Deaf students.
In 1956, Joseph B. Burnett, president of the Utah Association of the Deaf, spearheaded a strong campaign against the inclusion of speech instruction in Deaf education. The other officers of the UAD supported him, firmly believing that the combined method of instruction used at the Utah School for the Deaf was the most beneficial aspect of education for Deaf students.
Joseph B. Burnett. Source: FamilySearch.org
As a result of this controversy, the Utah Association of the Deaf opposed Superintendent Green's plan, arguing that early speech training for Deaf children presented inherent disadvantages. They also contended that the oral philosophy violated the right to equal education for each deaf child and hindered their academic progress (Burnett & Sanderson, The UAD Bulletin, 1955–1956). This controversy had a profound impact on the education of Deaf children, underscoring the urgent need to address the issue.
Harold W. Green. Source: The Utah Eagle, October 1959
Around the same time, the Utah State Board of Education established a committee of eighteen members to examine the teaching methods used at the Utah School for the Deaf. Elmer H. Brown from Salt Lake City was appointed as the chairman of the committee. Among the members was Ray G. Wenger, a 1913 graduate of the Utah School for the Deaf. He was recognized as Utah's most prominent advocate for the Deaf and was the first Deaf representative to serve on the USDB Governor's Advisory Council, having been a member of the Governor's Advisory Committee for the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind since 1945. The Utah Association of the Deaf (UAD) welcomed Ray's appointment because he strongly supported the combined method in educational settings (Burnett & Sanderson, The UAD Bulletin, 1955–1956). Additionally, Ray was the first Deaf member of the advisory committee.
Ray G. Wenger
The UAD pledged its support for the investigation, provided it was conducted honestly, fairly, and impartially. However, the Utah Deaf community, whose input was crucial in this matter, expressed concerns about the investigation (Burnett & Sanderson, The UAD Bulletin, 1955–1956).
To prevent bias or prejudice from influencing the outcome of an investigation, the Utah Association of the Deaf, a strong advocate for Deaf education, requested an impartial consideration of all perspectives. The investigating committee, whose role was to ensure a fair and balanced outcome, listened to the Utah Association of the Deaf, which is primarily composed of graduates from the Utah School for the Deaf, to understand their views on educational approaches for Deaf children. The discussions also welcomed input from educators, parents, and the general public.
During the investigation, Deaf adults emphasized to the committee that the Utah School for the Deaf, the state's official residential school for the Deaf, offers the best possible education for Deaf students. This school provides an excellent vocational education program for Deaf students as they reach adolescence, giving them an advantage over hearing peers when preparing for future employment. Most Deaf students who participated in this program secured jobs shortly after graduation. Deaf leaders also noted that a residential school fosters a better social life for Deaf children. They expressed that parents should understand that relying solely on the oral method is often insufficient for effectively teaching their Deaf child in many areas, based on their own experiences of being enrolled in inadequate oral programs (Burnett & Sanderson, The UAD Bulletin, 1955–1956).
To prevent bias or prejudice from influencing the outcome of an investigation, the Utah Association of the Deaf, a strong advocate for Deaf education, requested an impartial consideration of all perspectives. The investigating committee, whose role was to ensure a fair and balanced outcome, listened to the Utah Association of the Deaf, which is primarily composed of graduates from the Utah School for the Deaf, to understand their views on educational approaches for Deaf children. The discussions also welcomed input from educators, parents, and the general public.
During the investigation, Deaf adults emphasized to the committee that the Utah School for the Deaf, the state's official residential school for the Deaf, offers the best possible education for Deaf students. This school provides an excellent vocational education program for Deaf students as they reach adolescence, giving them an advantage over hearing peers when preparing for future employment. Most Deaf students who participated in this program secured jobs shortly after graduation. Deaf leaders also noted that a residential school fosters a better social life for Deaf children. They expressed that parents should understand that relying solely on the oral method is often insufficient for effectively teaching their Deaf child in many areas, based on their own experiences of being enrolled in inadequate oral programs (Burnett & Sanderson, The UAD Bulletin, 1955–1956).
The Utah School for the Deaf Printing Department. Source: The Utah Eagle, March 1955
The graduates of the Utah School for the Deaf and members of the Utah Association of the Deaf were firmly committed to improving the academic skills of Deaf children in reading, writing, and mathematics. Their dedication to this cause is evident, and their efforts have significantly contributed to providing quality education for Deaf children. They emphasized that mastering these fundamental subjects is essential for acquiring important social skills, such as lip-reading and speech.
However, the group expressed urgent concerns about the lack of a clear direction for the educational program at the Utah School for the Deaf. They believe the school must establish concrete goals for students regarding college preparedness. Many Deaf high school students were unprepared for college and unaware of the benefits of pursuing higher education. Deaf adults have suggested that the school should start college preparation in the first year of high school and design the entire high school curriculum around the criteria for college entry (Burnett & Sanderson, The UAD Bulletin, 1955-1956).
However, the group expressed urgent concerns about the lack of a clear direction for the educational program at the Utah School for the Deaf. They believe the school must establish concrete goals for students regarding college preparedness. Many Deaf high school students were unprepared for college and unaware of the benefits of pursuing higher education. Deaf adults have suggested that the school should start college preparation in the first year of high school and design the entire high school curriculum around the criteria for college entry (Burnett & Sanderson, The UAD Bulletin, 1955-1956).
Jerry Taylor, teacher and his class. Source: The Utah School for the Deaf Program Book, 1960s
The officers of the Utah Association of the Deaf and graduates of the Utah School for the Deaf were committed to demonstrating to the hearing community that Deaf students are fully capable of receiving academic instruction and accessing a comprehensive education. During the investigative committee's discussions, the Deaf adults emphasized that they believed education was more important than speech. They reiterated this belief by stating, "Education is our priority."
"EDUCATION IS MORE IMPORTANT TO THE DEAF
THAN THE MERE ABILITY TO SPEAK AND
READ LIPS! And the most efficient and quickest
way to educate Deaf children is competent
application of the Combined Method."
(Burnett & Sanderson,
The UAD Bulletin, 1955-1956, p. 3).
THAN THE MERE ABILITY TO SPEAK AND
READ LIPS! And the most efficient and quickest
way to educate Deaf children is competent
application of the Combined Method."
(Burnett & Sanderson,
The UAD Bulletin, 1955-1956, p. 3).
When the investigation concluded, the results remained unknown. After substantial time and effort spent by Deaf adults and leaders in the Utah Deaf community presenting their invaluable insights to the educators and the committee, nothing changed. The Deaf advocates were taken back. In the aftermath, they observed that the Utah School for the Deaf was gradually shifting to offer two communication methodology programs at the school: an oral program and a simultaneous communication program, which involves using both voice and sign simultaneously. No one was listening to the Utah Deaf community or taking their suggestions seriously (Burnett & Sanderson, The UAD Bulletin, 1955–1956).
Kenneth C. Burdett in Algebra class, 1954. Left to right: Kenneth Kinner, Kay Kinner, Donna Mae Dekker, Shanna Christiansen, Carol McFee and Clara Bosshardt
Despite the study outcome, the Utah Association of the Deaf continued to advocate for Deaf education. On March 19, 1959, the UAD Committee on Deaf Education, consisting of graduates from the Utah School for the Deaf—including Ned C. Wheeler, G. Leon Curtis, Gladys Burnham Wenger, Arthur W. Wenger, and Robert G. Sanderson—visited the school to discuss its programs with the administration. The committee, formed to ensure the quality of education for Deaf children, faced challenges in evaluating the school’s various teaching methods. They could not determine whether these methods were effective or if the education being provided to Deaf children was adequate. Nevertheless, as alumni, the committee members believed they had the right to request that the administration keep them updated on the academic and professional achievements of the students.
Although the small oral day schools were expanding and raising some concerns for the Utah Association of the Deaf, particularly regarding their focus on speech and lip-reading over sign language, the UAD Committee for Deaf Education unanimously agreed that the Utah School for the Deaf remained the best option for a Deaf child to receive a well-rounded education and develop the necessary vocational skills to become a contributing member of the community (Sanderson, The UAD Bulletin, April 1959).
Although the small oral day schools were expanding and raising some concerns for the Utah Association of the Deaf, particularly regarding their focus on speech and lip-reading over sign language, the UAD Committee for Deaf Education unanimously agreed that the Utah School for the Deaf remained the best option for a Deaf child to receive a well-rounded education and develop the necessary vocational skills to become a contributing member of the community (Sanderson, The UAD Bulletin, April 1959).
Ray G. Wenger Addresses Congressional Committee
Henry C. White, a forward-thinking former teacher and principal of the Utah School for the Deaf, observed in 1885 that Deaf individuals should be given teaching positions. However, he also recognized the necessity for legal support and protection for Deaf adults seeking these opportunities. Ray and Arthur Wenger, graduates of the 1913 Utah School for the Deaf and known as "Utah's Famous Twin Team," showed remarkable determination in tackling this issue. They traveled to Los Angeles, California, on July 16, 1960, at their own expense to attend an important meeting. Ray was scheduled to speak before a U.S. House of Representatives committee about a federal bill to provide training for Deaf education teachers. However, the original bill did not include provisions to prevent discrimination against Deaf teachers seeking employment, and the proposed advisory committee could potentially oppose the combined system. Ray and Arthur arrived to prevent such discrimination.
The Utah Association of Deaf Officers lobbied to amend the bill, and Ray's testimony, with its powerful and effective presentation, added to the combined method's defense. Ray's testimony had a profound impact, leaving a lasting impression on the House Committee members, as evidenced by including his remarks in the congressional hearing report (UAD Bulletin, Fall 1960). Ray's words resonated with the association, influencing their decisions and shaping the future of Deaf education.
The Utah Association of Deaf Officers lobbied to amend the bill, and Ray's testimony, with its powerful and effective presentation, added to the combined method's defense. Ray's testimony had a profound impact, leaving a lasting impression on the House Committee members, as evidenced by including his remarks in the congressional hearing report (UAD Bulletin, Fall 1960). Ray's words resonated with the association, influencing their decisions and shaping the future of Deaf education.
Arthur W. Wenger & Ray G. Wenger
Did You Know?
In January 1921, Arthur W. Wenger wrote for The Silent Worker magazine:
At one time, the education of individuals who were Deaf or hard-of-hearing faced significant obstacles due to a belief that they did not require education. However, a change occurred as our boys and girls began to realize they were adrift on a raft without a paddle. In recent years, students have recognized the importance of higher education and have started enrolling in public high schools, colleges, and state universities, eager to be on the same social and business level as hearing individuals.
In June 1920, three of our students graduated from public high schools; one graduated from the high school at the School for the Deaf, and another completed his second year at the university. This year, we welcomed one senior from a public high school, the principal's office assistant, three students at the Utah Agricultural College, and one at the university. Last summer, three students attended the university's summer school. Next year, we anticipate at least three new entrants at the university and five at other institutions.
While classroom lectures in public schools often hold little meaning for Deaf students, our motivated learners have managed to keep up and succeed by diligently reading books and asking questions. This effort compensates for their disadvantage of being unable to read the lips of rapid speakers (Wenger, The Silent Worker, January 1921).
At one time, the education of individuals who were Deaf or hard-of-hearing faced significant obstacles due to a belief that they did not require education. However, a change occurred as our boys and girls began to realize they were adrift on a raft without a paddle. In recent years, students have recognized the importance of higher education and have started enrolling in public high schools, colleges, and state universities, eager to be on the same social and business level as hearing individuals.
In June 1920, three of our students graduated from public high schools; one graduated from the high school at the School for the Deaf, and another completed his second year at the university. This year, we welcomed one senior from a public high school, the principal's office assistant, three students at the Utah Agricultural College, and one at the university. Last summer, three students attended the university's summer school. Next year, we anticipate at least three new entrants at the university and five at other institutions.
While classroom lectures in public schools often hold little meaning for Deaf students, our motivated learners have managed to keep up and succeed by diligently reading books and asking questions. This effort compensates for their disadvantage of being unable to read the lips of rapid speakers (Wenger, The Silent Worker, January 1921).
Ray G. Wenger
Robert G. Sanderson Defends the Utah School for the Deaf
The proposal to mainstream all Deaf children was first discussed in the April 20, 1959, newspaper edition in Salt Lake City. In his article "It's Leave Home or Education Ends," William Smiley advocated for establishing a day school for Deaf children in Salt Lake City, utilizing an oral approach (Smiley, The Salt Lake Tribune, April 20, 1959).
William Smiley, 'It's Leave Home or Education End.' Source: The Salt Lake Tribune, April 20, 1959
In response to William Smiley's article, Robert G. Sanderson, known as "Sadie" and "Bob," a 1936 graduate of the Utah School for the Deaf who officially became a Deaf education advocate in 1955, presented a compelling argument on April 30, 1959, titled "Ogden School Best for Deaf Children." In an article, Bob defended the Utah School for the Deaf's use of sign language for communication. He emphasized the crucial role of sign language in the lives of Deaf children. Bob recognized the rights of parents to request special classes for their Deaf children in Salt Lake City, Utah. However, he opposed the notion that oral advocates deceive parents by emphasizing lip-reading and speech over education. Bob argued that a Deaf child attending the residential school in Ogden, Utah, received a better education compared to attending an oral day school. He also compared the education provided at the Utah School for the Deaf to that of a regular public school for hearing children. Bob highlighted the excellent academic instruction and vocational training available at the Utah School for the Deaf, urging parents to prioritize their child's education over their emotions when choosing a school. He also stressed that speech and lip-reading abilities would develop over time based on the child's capabilities, a crucial point often overlooked in the debate. In his conclusion, Bob emphasized that sign language is the natural and primary means of communication for Deaf children, and it was unreasonable for parents to deny their Deaf children the use of it. Bob stated that learning sign language would enable parents and children to communicate and bridge the language barrier sooner. He emphasized again that speech and lip-reading skills would develop over time based on each child's abilities (Sanderson, The Salt Lake Tribune, April 30, 1959).
Robert G. Sanderson, 'Ogden Schoo Best for Deaf Children.' Source: The Salt Lake Tribune, April 30, 1959
The Utah School for the Deaf graduates and Utah Association of the Deaf officials, G. Leon Curtis and Ray G. Wenger, also a member of the Advisory Council for the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind, wrote in support of Robert Sanderson. Their newspaper pieces were in response to William Smiley's article (above) and Elizabeth H. Spear's "The Case for Oral Education of the Deaf," in which she disagreed with Robert.
Elizabeth H. Spear. 'The Case for Oral Education of the Deaf.' Source: The Salt Lake Tribune, May 6, 1959
Leon and Ray highlighted in their writings that both speech lessons and sign language classes were available at the Utah School for the Deaf. They recommended that anyone interested attend the Utah School for the Deaf in Ogden, Utah (Curtis, The Salt Lake Tribune, May 5, 1959; Wenger, The Salt Lake Tribune, May 12, 1959). They also said Superintendent Robert W. Tegeder could arrange a campus tour. They also assured the students' cheerful expressions would prove that the Utah School for the Deaf was excellently developing happy, self-sufficient Deaf adults (Sanderson, The Salt Lake Tribune, May 2, 1959).
Ray G. Wenger. 'Educating Deaf Demands More Than Just 'Speech.' Source: The Salt Lake Tribune, May 12, 1959
G. Leon Curtis. Source: The Utah Eagle, April 1955
The First Concept of Mainstreaming
at the Stewart Training Program
at the Stewart Training Program
The concept of mainstreaming Deaf and hard-of-hearing students originated from the determination of parents in the Salt Lake area of Utah. Unwilling to send their children to the Utah School for the Deaf in Ogden, these parents collaborated with the Stewart Training School, a teacher training institution at the University of Utah, to establish a local oral day school. In the fall of 1956, the Stewart Training School opened its doors to provide an oral classroom for Deaf students (Jonathon Hodson, personal communication, January 31, 2022). This grassroots movement, initiated by parents, has since gained momentum in Utah, leading the Utah School for the Deaf to expand its outreach programs within school districts.
The Utah School for the Deaf's Oral Extension Program is located at 1431 South Eighth West Street, Salt Lake City, Utah, in conjunction with the James Whitcomb Riley Elementary School. Utahn, 1960. Source: https://science.utah.edu/science-u/stewart/
Paul Williams Hodson made a significant decision when he enrolled his five-year-old son, Jonathan, in the Stewart Training program. Jonathan's teacher, Miss Hunt, played a pivotal role in his life; her influence was so profound that she later taught at Riley Elementary School under the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind in 1959 (Jonathon Hodson, personal communication, January 31, 2022). The Stewart Training School, known within the oral community as a beacon of hope for parents of Deaf children, provided education based on oral skills, focusing on speech and listening instead of sign language (The Utah Eagle, October and November 1960).
The Utah School for the Deaf has established an Extension Division for Deaf Students in their Neighborhood Homes
In the late 1950s, the Stewart Training School became overcrowded, particularly among kindergarten-age students, making it increasingly difficult to serve Deaf and hard-of-hearing students (Jonathon Hodson, personal communication, May 29, 2011). Due to the overcrowding of the Stewart Training School, the Utah School for the Deaf in Ogden, Utah, faced opposition from parents who feared institutionalization, isolation, and segregation, as Dr. Bitter called it in his interview with the University of Utah in 1987 (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987). To address this concern, the Utah School for the Deaf sought assistance from Dr. Allen Bateman, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, to partner with the Salt Lake City School District to support the parents. This collaboration led to the development of the Extension Division of the Utah School for the Deaf, marking the beginning of mainstreaming for Deaf and hard-of-hearing students. Dr. Allen E. Bateman's positive response and support for the initiative were instrumental in its success (The Utah Eagle, October and November 1960; The Utah Eagle, January 1968).
Dr. Allen E. Bateman
In 1959, with the collaboration of the Utah State Board of Education, the legislature, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, and the Salt Lake City Schools District, Superintendent Robert W. Tegeder of the Utah School for the Deaf and the Blind established the first extension classroom for oral students in public schools. This allowed these students to continue their education at home (The Utah Eagle, January 1968; Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987). The Extension Division, which began in 1959, first offered oral classes to elementary school students (First Reunion of the Utah School for the Deaf Alumni, 1976; Utah School for the Deaf 100th Year Anniversary Alumni Reunion, 1984). At that time, students had the option to attend a local public school or the Utah School for the Deaf in Ogden, Utah, where they could get the necessary academic and vocational skills for graduation (The Utah Eagle, October and November 1960).
Robert W. Tegeder. Source: The Utah Eagle, October 1959
The teachers in the extension classrooms followed the curriculum of the Utah School for the Deaf at the elementary level. As students advanced to the upper grades, the Salt Lake City School District's curriculum gradually aligned with that of the Utah School for the Deaf (The Utah Eagle, January 1968). This educational transition also involved the integration of students into regular public schools.
With careful planning, students progressed from intensive training in speech, speech-reading, and listening skills to joining public school classes. Initially, they integrated with hearing students during recess and lunch and later participated in non-academic subjects such as physical education, art, industrial arts, and homemaking. Furthermore, the Extension Division assigned prepared students to more advanced academic classes for one or more periods during the day.
The Utah School for the Deaf eventually introduced the Total Communication Program in its Extension Division, following a process similar to that of oral students. The programs were funded by the Utah School for the Deaf, which also rented space from the local public school district (The Utah Eagle, January 1968; First Reunion of the Utah School for the Deaf Alumni, 1976; Utah School for the Deaf 100th Year Anniversary Alumni Reunion, 1984).
The Extension Division, established in 1959, was a resounding success. It expanded from one to over twenty classrooms in Salt Lake City, Ogden, Provo, Brigham City, Logan, and Vernal from 1961 to 1970. As part of its outreach programs, the Utah School for the Deaf collaborated with various public schools in different areas. The Extension Division team included teachers, nursery teachers, teacher aides, consultants, volunteers, and a curriculum coordinator. The Extension Division offered classes at preschool, kindergarten, elementary, junior high, and high schools (The Utah Eagle, January 1968; First Reunion of the Utah School for the Deaf Alumni, 1976; Utah School for the Deaf 100th Year Anniversary Alumni Reunion, 1984).
Since then, with the unwavering support of parents who passionately advocated for oral education and integration into mainstream schools, the school has been a leader in mainstreaming students who are Deaf or hard-of-hearing into local school districts all over Utah. This collective effort, along with Dr. Bitter's mission, spearheaded the mainstreaming movement and led to a significant shift in Deaf education (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987).
With careful planning, students progressed from intensive training in speech, speech-reading, and listening skills to joining public school classes. Initially, they integrated with hearing students during recess and lunch and later participated in non-academic subjects such as physical education, art, industrial arts, and homemaking. Furthermore, the Extension Division assigned prepared students to more advanced academic classes for one or more periods during the day.
The Utah School for the Deaf eventually introduced the Total Communication Program in its Extension Division, following a process similar to that of oral students. The programs were funded by the Utah School for the Deaf, which also rented space from the local public school district (The Utah Eagle, January 1968; First Reunion of the Utah School for the Deaf Alumni, 1976; Utah School for the Deaf 100th Year Anniversary Alumni Reunion, 1984).
The Extension Division, established in 1959, was a resounding success. It expanded from one to over twenty classrooms in Salt Lake City, Ogden, Provo, Brigham City, Logan, and Vernal from 1961 to 1970. As part of its outreach programs, the Utah School for the Deaf collaborated with various public schools in different areas. The Extension Division team included teachers, nursery teachers, teacher aides, consultants, volunteers, and a curriculum coordinator. The Extension Division offered classes at preschool, kindergarten, elementary, junior high, and high schools (The Utah Eagle, January 1968; First Reunion of the Utah School for the Deaf Alumni, 1976; Utah School for the Deaf 100th Year Anniversary Alumni Reunion, 1984).
Since then, with the unwavering support of parents who passionately advocated for oral education and integration into mainstream schools, the school has been a leader in mainstreaming students who are Deaf or hard-of-hearing into local school districts all over Utah. This collective effort, along with Dr. Bitter's mission, spearheaded the mainstreaming movement and led to a significant shift in Deaf education (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987).
The Utah School for the Deaf teacher is giving speech training to a student. Source: The Utah School for the Deaf Program Book, 1960s
In the Salt Lake area, the Extension Division of the Utah School for the Deaf accepted children with disabilities who were capable of learning academically, starting as young as two and a half years old. After preschool, Deaf students would either transfer to the residential campus in Ogden or continue their education in the Extension Oral Program. The decision about placement was made collaboratively by curriculum coordinators, instructors, and parents, taking into account the student's academic performance, home environment, and social development.
Typically, students transitioned from preschool to kindergarten, a process that required careful evaluation and planning. If a student demonstrated satisfactory progress in all areas, they could remain under the supervision of the Extension Division until graduating from high school. However, if a student needed more intensive speech and listening training, the Extension Division had the option to transfer them to the Ogden's residential campus, as there were not enough sections at each grade level to accommodate a wide range of proficiency in these oral skills (The Utah Eagle, January 1968).
Typically, students transitioned from preschool to kindergarten, a process that required careful evaluation and planning. If a student demonstrated satisfactory progress in all areas, they could remain under the supervision of the Extension Division until graduating from high school. However, if a student needed more intensive speech and listening training, the Extension Division had the option to transfer them to the Ogden's residential campus, as there were not enough sections at each grade level to accommodate a wide range of proficiency in these oral skills (The Utah Eagle, January 1968).
An oral class at the Utah School for the Deaf. Source: The Utah School for the Deaf Program Book, 1960s
The Oral and Mainstreaming
Movement is Flourishing in Utah
Movement is Flourishing in Utah
Mary Burch, a retired teacher from Kentucky, played a significant role in the development of oral Deaf education in Utah. Persuaded to come out of retirement, she established the first extension classroom in Salt Lake City in September 1959. Her previous experience at the Clarke School for the Deaf, a private oral school for the deaf in Northampton, Massachusetts, provided her with the skills necessary for this endeavor. The extension classroom she managed was highly successful during the academic year from September 1959 to May 1960 (Tegedar, The Utah Eagle, October 1959; The Utah Eagle, October and November 1960).
Mary Burch. Source: Utahn, 1960
The Utah School for the Deaf expanded its facilities due to its success. In 1960, two additional classrooms were added at Riley Elementary School in the Salt Lake City area. This expansion marked a significant moment in the history of Deaf education in Utah, reflecting a growing interest in assessing the effectiveness of teaching Deaf children using speech and listening skills.
The educators involved in this initiative—Grant B. Bitter, Tony Christopulos, Bruce Wallace, Duane Harrison, Thomas VanDrimmenlen, Albert Thurber, and Mary Burch—strongly advocated oral instruction, which they implemented in their classrooms. To ensure the program's success, they actively marketed the initiative to parents, inviting them to observe the classes and engaging them in the process. They aimed to secure parental support to further enhance their educational agenda (Ronald C. Burdett, personal communication, 2009).
As an example of mainstreaming expansion, Grant B. Bitter, a strong oral advocate, taught the first integrated class for oral students at Jordan Middle School, Salt Lake City School District, in cooperation with the Extension Division of the Utah School for the Deaf from 1962 to 1964. Following his doctorate, the Extension Division promoted him to Curriculum Coordinator, a role he held for two years from 1967 to 1969 (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987).
The educators involved in this initiative—Grant B. Bitter, Tony Christopulos, Bruce Wallace, Duane Harrison, Thomas VanDrimmenlen, Albert Thurber, and Mary Burch—strongly advocated oral instruction, which they implemented in their classrooms. To ensure the program's success, they actively marketed the initiative to parents, inviting them to observe the classes and engaging them in the process. They aimed to secure parental support to further enhance their educational agenda (Ronald C. Burdett, personal communication, 2009).
As an example of mainstreaming expansion, Grant B. Bitter, a strong oral advocate, taught the first integrated class for oral students at Jordan Middle School, Salt Lake City School District, in cooperation with the Extension Division of the Utah School for the Deaf from 1962 to 1964. Following his doctorate, the Extension Division promoted him to Curriculum Coordinator, a role he held for two years from 1967 to 1969 (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987).
The Utah School for the Deaf's Oral Extension Program at the James Whitcomb Riley Elementary School on 1431 South Eighth West Street, Salt Lake City, Utah. Source: Utahn, 1960
For the first time in history, Utah established certification standards for Deaf education teachers in 1958 (The Utah Eagle, April 1958). In 1962, Reid C. Miller, an oral advocate, assistant professor, and director, established the Teacher Training Program under the Speech Pathology and Audiology Department at the University of Utah, focusing primarily on oral education through a collaboration between the University of Utah and the Utah School for the Deaf (Tony Christopulos, personal communication, November 5, 1986; Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987).
The Department of Special Education later took over the Teacher Training Program in 1967 to help prepare future oral education teachers, known as an 'army of oral teachers,' for employment at the Utah School for the Deaf (The Utah Eagle, February 1968; Bitter, Utah's Hearing Impaired Children...At High Risk, 1986).
At the time, university policy changed, requiring doctorates for program directors at this level. The university let go of Reid C. Miller, who held a master's degree, and hired Dr. Bitter, who was the Curriculum Coordinator of the Extension Division of the Utah School for the Deaf, in 1968 to become an Assistant Professor and Coordinator of the Teacher Training Program after he completed his doctorate in 1967 (Utah Eagle, October 1967; Boyack, David County, 1970; Bitter, Summary Report for Tenure, 1985; Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987). From 1968 to 1969, Dr. Bitter served as both the Extension Division Coordinator and the Professor of the Teacher Training Program for a year. He resigned as an Extension Division coordinator and continued teaching the Teacher Training Program until his retirement in 1987 (Bitter, Utah's Hearing Impaired Children...At High Risk, 1986; Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987).
The Department of Special Education later took over the Teacher Training Program in 1967 to help prepare future oral education teachers, known as an 'army of oral teachers,' for employment at the Utah School for the Deaf (The Utah Eagle, February 1968; Bitter, Utah's Hearing Impaired Children...At High Risk, 1986).
At the time, university policy changed, requiring doctorates for program directors at this level. The university let go of Reid C. Miller, who held a master's degree, and hired Dr. Bitter, who was the Curriculum Coordinator of the Extension Division of the Utah School for the Deaf, in 1968 to become an Assistant Professor and Coordinator of the Teacher Training Program after he completed his doctorate in 1967 (Utah Eagle, October 1967; Boyack, David County, 1970; Bitter, Summary Report for Tenure, 1985; Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987). From 1968 to 1969, Dr. Bitter served as both the Extension Division Coordinator and the Professor of the Teacher Training Program for a year. He resigned as an Extension Division coordinator and continued teaching the Teacher Training Program until his retirement in 1987 (Bitter, Utah's Hearing Impaired Children...At High Risk, 1986; Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987).
Reid C. Miller. Source: Utonian: University of Utah, 1965
For Deaf education, the University of Utah provided licensed teachers with an emphasis on speaking and listening skills, whereas the Utah School for the Deaf provided student teaching facilities, internships, and daily on-site supervision for its student teachers (The Utah Eagle, February 1968; Bitter, Summary Report for Tenure, 1985). However, the Special Education Department did not plan any such Teacher Training Program for prospective teachers who would teach Deaf students in sign language using the simultaneous communication method. The State Board did not resolve this issue until 1984 (Utah, 1973; Campbell, 1977; Bitter, Utah's Hearing Impaired Children...At High Risk, 1986).
Standing is Mary Burch, teacher of the oral class at the Utah School for the Deaf's Extension Program in Salt Lake City, Utah. Front row, left to right: Paul Anderson, Sandra Kwawegen, Bryan Monson, Debra Hale, Barbara June Clay, and Jonathon Hodson. Source: The Utah Eagle, October 1959
From there, Dr. Bitter incorporated his oral and mainstreaming philosophy into the curriculum for the Teacher Training Program at the University of Utah. His daughter Colleen, who was deaf, and he wanted her to be able to speak. His ambition led him to play a key role in developing the oral teaching method. At the time, Utah had only one program for training Deaf education teachers. The main goal of this program was to train future teachers to teach Deaf children to speak and listen in the same way as hearing children. The curriculum focused solely on the oral method and did not include sign language training.
Dr. Grant B. Bitter. Source: The Utah Eagle, October 1967
In the UAD Spring 1964 Bulletin, Dr. Robert G. Sanderson stated that the University of Utah prioritized oral instruction in Deaf education. The university also attracted teachers trained in the oral instruction approach; many came from well-known oral Deaf schools, such as Clarke School for the Deaf and Lexington School for the Deaf (Sanderson, The UAD Bulletin, Spring 1964). The Teacher Training Program at the University of Utah quickly produced teachers of oral and mainstream education.
The University of Utah's Oral Teacher Preparation Program for the Utah School for the Deaf, 1973
Dr. Sanderson was not the only one who noticed the impact of having so many oral teachers at the Utah School for the Deaf. Both Dr. Jay J. Campbell, the husband of Beth Ann Stewart Campbell, who is a sign language interpreter, the Deputy Superintendent of the Utah State Office of Education, and a crucial ally of the Utah Deaf community, and Dr. Stephen C. Baldwin, the Curriculum Coordinator of the Total Communication Division at the Utah School for the Deaf, witnessed the impact on the school. Since 90% of Deaf children have hearing parents, they became advocates for the oral and mainstreaming movements. Many hearing parents were unfamiliar with sign language and wanted their Deaf child to learn how to speak (Baldwin, 1975, p. 1; Campbell, 1977). In contrast, most Deaf adults preferred simultaneous communication, which involved the use of sign language in classroom instruction. However, the University of Utah rejected the Utah Association for the Deaf's request to include simultaneous communication methods in the Teacher Training Program curriculum (Campbell, 1977). Despite this rejection, the Utah Deaf community's advocacy for simultaneous communication demonstrated their resilience and unwavering commitment to their preferred educational approach, earning respect from all who understood their challenges.
Dr. Jay J. Campbell. Source: The Salina Sun, May 21, 1970
Dr. Bitter taught the Teacher Training Program within the Special Education Department at the University of Utah for nineteen years, starting in 1968, focusing on oral education. His ambition to promote oral and mainstreaming sparked a heated controversy between oral and sign language, particularly with the Utah Association for the Deaf. Dr. Bitter's unwavering commitment also had a huge impact on the oral philosophy movement at the Utah School for the Deaf, as well as the integration of Deaf education into mainstream society.
'Interest in Sign Language on the Rise.' Source: The UAD Bulletin, Spring 1964
In the late 1960s and 1970s, a national shift in Deaf education was underway, moving from the oral method to Total Communication, which included the use of sign language. This change was greatly influenced by Dr. William C. Stokoe's research, which established American Sign Language (ASL) as an official language with its own syntax, morphology, and structure (Wikipedia: William Stokoe). Despite this groundbreaking work, many professionals in Utah's Deaf education field remained resistant to change and continued to advocate for the oral approach. Furthermore, the University of Utah's Teacher Training Program did not include sign language in its curriculum, highlighting the challenges faced during this transition period.
Dr. William C. Stokoe Jr. Source: Wikipedia
Did You Know?
Dr. Grant B. Bitter wrote his Summary Report for Tenure on March 15, 1985, for the Tenure Review Committee at the University of Utah. In his summary, he shared his experiences navigating the social, religious, and educational systems in search of the best options for his Deaf daughter.
Dr. Bitter explained that his daughter, Colleen, was born on November 5, 1954, with profound hearing loss. She was the fourth of nine children in the family. At the time of her birth, Dr. Bitter had transitioned from his role as an English teacher and assistant administrator in a junior high school to become an instructor in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' religious education system. When Colleen was 2½ years old, her hearing loss was detected. Dr. Bitter and his wife began searching urgently for answers and assistance. Thirty years ago, there was limited professional and family support available. They realized that they would need to create and build meaningful educational and social programs for Deaf children and sought to connect with other professionals and parents facing similar challenges.
Dr. Bitter became a passionate advocate for parents and families, promoting their rights and available options. His family's experiences motivated him to deliver presentations, publish materials, and conduct workshops.
His philosophy of advocacy emphasized the rights of Deaf individuals to live productively, free from intimidation and discrimination in educational programming, the job market, and social and religious environments. He believed his expertise in Deaf education enhanced his effectiveness in conferences, workshops, and classes.
Dr. Bitter expressed his frustration with the inadequate intervention strategies and inappropriate educational placements of that time. He and his wife were acutely aware of the human shortcomings in addressing disabilities. He reflected on how, at that time, institutionalizing Deaf children was still the most commonly recommended approach, which meant placement in a Deaf school that, in his view, confined children to a restrictive environment.
Dr. Bitter noted that, since the founding of the first Deaf school in Hartford, Connecticut, in 1817, Deaf individuals had been isolated from dynamic learning environments and left 'deaf and mute' in a silent world. He recognized the efforts of the National Association of the Deaf in advocating for sign language and state residential schools for the Deaf. He noted that sign language users and advocates formed a strong alliance against proponents of spoken language, who created private schools to develop their programs without interference.
Some advisors suggested that he and his wife teach their daughter sign language, arguing that attempting to teach Colleen to speak was impossible and would deny her identity as a Deaf person. Although this advice nearly swayed them towards using sign language, they ultimately decided against relying solely on the Deaf community and its advocates.
Despite recognizing their novice status and uncertainty, they continued searching for solutions. Colleen came from a large, talkative family, and her parents wanted her to benefit from spoken language. They understood that providing Colleen with appropriate educational programming would require more than just time and energy.
They were unconvinced that institutional placement in a Deaf school would be in her best interest, feeling no motivation to immerse her in a "Deaf world." They did not seek answers from the Deaf community and were disheartened by the lack of professional support for parents during such a critical time. The harsh judgments of certain professionals, seemingly equipped with all the answers, shocked them. Additionally, they found the passivity of some religious leaders and teachers disheartening, as they often attributed disabilities to supernatural causes, suggesting that these conditions were given for a special reason by a kind and loving God. Unfortunately, such attitudes did little to improve their daughter's life (Bitter, A Summary Report for Tenure, 1985).
Dr. Bitter explained that his daughter, Colleen, was born on November 5, 1954, with profound hearing loss. She was the fourth of nine children in the family. At the time of her birth, Dr. Bitter had transitioned from his role as an English teacher and assistant administrator in a junior high school to become an instructor in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' religious education system. When Colleen was 2½ years old, her hearing loss was detected. Dr. Bitter and his wife began searching urgently for answers and assistance. Thirty years ago, there was limited professional and family support available. They realized that they would need to create and build meaningful educational and social programs for Deaf children and sought to connect with other professionals and parents facing similar challenges.
Dr. Bitter became a passionate advocate for parents and families, promoting their rights and available options. His family's experiences motivated him to deliver presentations, publish materials, and conduct workshops.
His philosophy of advocacy emphasized the rights of Deaf individuals to live productively, free from intimidation and discrimination in educational programming, the job market, and social and religious environments. He believed his expertise in Deaf education enhanced his effectiveness in conferences, workshops, and classes.
Dr. Bitter expressed his frustration with the inadequate intervention strategies and inappropriate educational placements of that time. He and his wife were acutely aware of the human shortcomings in addressing disabilities. He reflected on how, at that time, institutionalizing Deaf children was still the most commonly recommended approach, which meant placement in a Deaf school that, in his view, confined children to a restrictive environment.
Dr. Bitter noted that, since the founding of the first Deaf school in Hartford, Connecticut, in 1817, Deaf individuals had been isolated from dynamic learning environments and left 'deaf and mute' in a silent world. He recognized the efforts of the National Association of the Deaf in advocating for sign language and state residential schools for the Deaf. He noted that sign language users and advocates formed a strong alliance against proponents of spoken language, who created private schools to develop their programs without interference.
Some advisors suggested that he and his wife teach their daughter sign language, arguing that attempting to teach Colleen to speak was impossible and would deny her identity as a Deaf person. Although this advice nearly swayed them towards using sign language, they ultimately decided against relying solely on the Deaf community and its advocates.
Despite recognizing their novice status and uncertainty, they continued searching for solutions. Colleen came from a large, talkative family, and her parents wanted her to benefit from spoken language. They understood that providing Colleen with appropriate educational programming would require more than just time and energy.
They were unconvinced that institutional placement in a Deaf school would be in her best interest, feeling no motivation to immerse her in a "Deaf world." They did not seek answers from the Deaf community and were disheartened by the lack of professional support for parents during such a critical time. The harsh judgments of certain professionals, seemingly equipped with all the answers, shocked them. Additionally, they found the passivity of some religious leaders and teachers disheartening, as they often attributed disabilities to supernatural causes, suggesting that these conditions were given for a special reason by a kind and loving God. Unfortunately, such attitudes did little to improve their daughter's life (Bitter, A Summary Report for Tenure, 1985).
Dr. Grant B. Bitter,
the Father of Mainstreaming
the Father of Mainstreaming
Under the leadership of Dr. Grant B. Bitter, a firm advocate for oral and mainstream education, Utah's groundbreaking movement to mainstream all Deaf children began in the 1960s. Dr. Bitter's efforts earned him the title of 'Father of Mainstreaming.' This movement was in stark contrast to the historical significance of Dr. Martha Hughes Cannon, America's first female state senator and a member of the Board of Trustees of the Utah School for the Deaf and Blind, who in 1896, spearheaded a proposal for the 'Act Providing for Compulsory Education of Deaf, Dumb, and Blind Citizens,' which made attendance at the Utah School for the Deaf and Blind mandatory (Martha Hughes Cannon, Wikipedia, April 20, 2024). Her legislation led to its successful passage in 1896 and marked a turning point in the education of Deaf and Blind children. However, Dr. Bitter advocated for mainstreaming all Deaf children, paving the way for widespread acceptance of this approach in 1975 with the passage of Public Law 94-142, now known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Dr. Grant B. Bitter. Source: The Utah Eagle, 1961
His daughter, Colleen, was born deaf in 1954, which was another reason for his dedication to the advancement of both oral and mainstream education. Dr. Bitter supported the idea of mainstreaming for all Deaf and hard-of-hearing children for two main reasons: his own Deaf daughter and his internship experience at the Lexington School for the Deaf. During his master's degree studies, he interned at Lexington School for the Deaf, an oral school, and was shocked to see young children having to leave their parents for a week, often crying and screaming. His role as a father of a Deaf child, as well as his experience, inspired him to advocate for mainstreaming, allowing Deaf children to attend local public schools at home (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987).
Colleen Bitter Addie. Source: The Salt Lake Tribune Obituary, July 24, 2003
In the 1970s, Dr. Stephen C. Baldwin, a Deaf educator who served as the Total Communication Division Curriculum Coordinator at the Utah School for the Deaf, shared his observations of Dr. Bitter. Dr. Bitter, a firm advocate of oral and mainstream philosophy, was particularly vocal about his beliefs. His influence, as Dr. Baldwin noted, was profound. Dr. Bitter was a hard-core oralist and one of the top figures in oral Deaf education, and no one was more persistent than him in promoting an oral and mainstream approach. Dr. Baldwin recalled how Dr. Bitter's criticism of the growing use of sign language had a significant impact, arguing that it hindered the development of oral skills and contributed to lower enrollment in residential schools, which he believed isolated Deaf individuals from mainstream society (Baldwin, 1990). Dr. Bitter likely disagreed with Dr. Martha Hughes Cannon and her team's proposal to mandate education for Deaf children at the state institution.
Dr. Stephen C. Baldwin. Source: The Utah Eagle, April 1975
Dr. Bitter's advocacy for the oral and mainstreaming movements sparked a long-standing feud with the Utah Association for the Deaf, a group comprised mainly of graduates from the Utah School for the Deaf, particularly Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, a prominent Deaf community leader in Utah who became Deaf at the age of 11 and was a staunch supporter of sign language and state schools for the deaf. The intense animosity between these two giants was due to the ongoing dispute over oral and sign language in Utah's deaf educational system. Their struggle was akin to a chess game, with each maneuvering politically to gain the upper hand in the deaf educational system. As a top figure in oral Deaf education, Dr. Bitter played a significant role in shaping Deaf education policies, advocating for an oral and mainstream approach. Dr. Bitter and Dr. Sanderson, as did the Utah Association for the Deaf, engaged in disagreements during the listening and speaking demonstration panels, picket protests, education committee meetings, and board meetings. Dr. Bitter has also formally demanded the termination of Dr. Robert Sanderson and Dr. Jay J. Campbell, two esteemed advocates for sign language, due to what he perceives as their interference with his mission to promote oral and mainstream education. He has also expressed dissatisfaction with Beth Ann Stewart Campbell's television interpretation of news in sign language, as he felt it did not align with his educational goals. Finally, he has asked Della L. Loveridge, a Utah legislator and respected chairperson of the committee, to resign due to her decision to invite representatives from the Utah Association for the Deaf, which he perceived as a drift from the committee's focus. Dr. Bitter held significant power as a parental figure and used parental influence and leverage to advocate for oralism, making it challenging for the Utah Association for the Deaf to oppose him. The Utah Association for the Deaf demonstrated remarkable resilience in response to the challenges posed by Dr. Bitter's opposition. This period was a significant turning point in their history and played an impactful role in shaping Deaf education policies. Their strength and determination not only helped them overcome these obstacles but also served to inspire others along the way.
Dr. Robert G. Sanderson. Source: Gallaudet University Archives
Dr. Bitter had an extensive career in teaching and curriculum development. He earned his bachelor's degree from the University of Utah and initially worked as a religious education teacher. From 1950 to 1958, he taught the seminary class for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Following this, he received a scholarship to the Lexington School for the Deaf, affiliated with Columbia University in New York City, where he earned a master's degree and a special education certificate while interning at the school from 1961 to 1962. After completing his master's degree, he returned to Utah. His journey began at the Extension Division of the Utah School for the Deaf in Salt Lake City, Utah, where he worked as a teacher from 1962 to 1964 (Bitter, Summary Report for Tenure, 1985; Bitter, Utah's Hearing-Impaired Children...At High Risk, 1986; Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987).
After completing his doctorate in audiology, rehabilitation, and educational administration with a focus on special education at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan, in the summer of 1967, Dr. Bitter returned to Utah following three years of study. From 1967 to 1969, he served as the Curriculum Coordinator for the Extension Division in Salt Lake City, Utah Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987; Obituary: Grant Bunderson Bitter, Deseret News, July 2, 2000). He resigned from this position in 1969 due to increasing job demands (The UAD Bulletin, Summer 1968). In addition to his leading role, Dr. Bitter held part-time positions as the Coordinator for the Seminary program for Deaf high school students with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and as the Director of the oral-only component of the Teacher Training Program under the Department of Speech and Audiology at the University of Utah, which was established in 1962 (University of Utah, November 28, 1977; Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987; Obituary: Grant Bunderson Bitter, Deseret News, July 2, 2000). This oral-only component aimed to teach Deaf individuals to communicate using spoken language, reflecting Dr. Bitter's belief in oralism.
After completing his doctorate in audiology, rehabilitation, and educational administration with a focus on special education at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan, in the summer of 1967, Dr. Bitter returned to Utah following three years of study. From 1967 to 1969, he served as the Curriculum Coordinator for the Extension Division in Salt Lake City, Utah Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987; Obituary: Grant Bunderson Bitter, Deseret News, July 2, 2000). He resigned from this position in 1969 due to increasing job demands (The UAD Bulletin, Summer 1968). In addition to his leading role, Dr. Bitter held part-time positions as the Coordinator for the Seminary program for Deaf high school students with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and as the Director of the oral-only component of the Teacher Training Program under the Department of Speech and Audiology at the University of Utah, which was established in 1962 (University of Utah, November 28, 1977; Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987; Obituary: Grant Bunderson Bitter, Deseret News, July 2, 2000). This oral-only component aimed to teach Deaf individuals to communicate using spoken language, reflecting Dr. Bitter's belief in oralism.
Dr. Grant B. Bitter. Source: Deseret News, March 18, 1974
In 1968, Dr. Bitter's passion for oral Deaf education led him to become the director and professor of the Teacher Training Program in the Department of Special Education at the University of Utah. He focused primarily on oral education and held this position until 1987, a year after the program was closed. Additionally, Dr. Bitter served as the coordinator of the Deaf Seminary Program under the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Utah (Bitter, Summary Report for Tenure, 1985; Bitter, Utah's Hearing-Impaired Children... At High Risk, 1986; Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987; Obituary: Grant Bunderson Bitter, Deseret News, July 2, 2000).
Dr. Bitter strongly believed in oralism, which is the conviction that Deaf individuals should learn to speak. This belief was not merely theoretical for him; he actively supported the cause by founding the Oral Deaf Association of Utah (ODAU) in 1970. This initiative reflected his commitment to oral Deaf education. In 1981, he also established the Utah Registry of Oral Interpreters. Additionally, Dr. Bitter served as the chair of the Utah Chapter of the Alexander Graham Bell Association, where he led efforts to support and advocate for oral Deaf individuals, further demonstrating his dedication to this mission (Bitter, Summary Report for Tenure, 1985; Bitter, Utah's Hearing-Impaired Children... At High Risk, 1986).
Dr. Bitter strongly believed in oralism, which is the conviction that Deaf individuals should learn to speak. This belief was not merely theoretical for him; he actively supported the cause by founding the Oral Deaf Association of Utah (ODAU) in 1970. This initiative reflected his commitment to oral Deaf education. In 1981, he also established the Utah Registry of Oral Interpreters. Additionally, Dr. Bitter served as the chair of the Utah Chapter of the Alexander Graham Bell Association, where he led efforts to support and advocate for oral Deaf individuals, further demonstrating his dedication to this mission (Bitter, Summary Report for Tenure, 1985; Bitter, Utah's Hearing-Impaired Children... At High Risk, 1986).
'New Curriculum Coordinator for the Extension Division.' Source: The UAD Bulletin, Summer 1969
Dr. Bitter was also a prominent lobbyist on Utah Capitol Hill, effectively collaborating with legislators. He continuously emphasized the importance of adequately preparing Deaf and hard-of-hearing people for life in an English-speaking environment. Dr. Bitter said teaching Deaf people the skills necessary to live a 'normal' life was crucial. His influence in Utah during the 1900s was comparable to that of an early pioneer of oralism, Alexander Graham Bell, who had an impact on Deaf education in the United States during the 1800s. Dr. Bitter's advocacy for the full integration of Deaf people into mainstream society was unwavering, and he saw speech as the means to achieve this (Baldwin, 1990).
Dr. Bitter's impact on oral Deaf education is undeniable. His nationwide public appearances, which include workshops for oral interpreters at the University of Cincinnati and the University of Utah, highlight his dedication to advancing the field. From 1974 to 1978, he held leadership roles in the Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf, serving as the chairperson of the Governmental Relations Committee and leading the International Parents' Organization. These positions underscore his influence and contributions. Additionally, his collaboration with the Utah Congressional Team, including Senator Orrin G. Hatch, who was the Chairman of the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, further exemplifies his reach and impact (Bitter, Summary Report for Tenure, 1985; Bitter, Utah's Hearing-Impaired Children... At High Risk, 1986).
As a parent of nine children, Dr. Bitter's personal life profoundly influenced his professional work. His extensive work on several oral education publications, audiovisuals, and videotape products was driven by his desire to improve the lives of Deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals. The release of his seminal work, 'The Hearing Impaired: New Perspectives in Educational and Social Management,' in 1987 marked a significant milestone in oral Deaf education.
Dr. Bitter's impact on oral Deaf education is undeniable. His nationwide public appearances, which include workshops for oral interpreters at the University of Cincinnati and the University of Utah, highlight his dedication to advancing the field. From 1974 to 1978, he held leadership roles in the Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf, serving as the chairperson of the Governmental Relations Committee and leading the International Parents' Organization. These positions underscore his influence and contributions. Additionally, his collaboration with the Utah Congressional Team, including Senator Orrin G. Hatch, who was the Chairman of the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, further exemplifies his reach and impact (Bitter, Summary Report for Tenure, 1985; Bitter, Utah's Hearing-Impaired Children... At High Risk, 1986).
As a parent of nine children, Dr. Bitter's personal life profoundly influenced his professional work. His extensive work on several oral education publications, audiovisuals, and videotape products was driven by his desire to improve the lives of Deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals. The release of his seminal work, 'The Hearing Impaired: New Perspectives in Educational and Social Management,' in 1987 marked a significant milestone in oral Deaf education.
Alexander Graham Bell. Source: Wikipedia
Dr. Bitter and many other parents strongly supported oral education and opted not to send their Deaf children to Ogden's residential campus. In response to this demand, the Utah School for the Deaf established an Extension Division in Salt Lake City in 1959. This initiative allowed Deaf students to attend classes closer to their homes, paving the way for the mainstreaming movement. Dr. Bitter taught Deaf students in the USD Extension-Salt Lake City program from 1960 to 1962 (Utahn, 1963). During this time, he likely advocated for the growth of mainstreaming and the inclusion of all Deaf students in public schools. With his advocacy, the Utah School for the Deaf quickly established Extension Divisions throughout the state to provide day programs for Deaf students in heavily populated areas.
The demographics of Deaf students at the Utah School for the Deaf began to change in 1961 as the proportion of Deaf individuals with multiple disabilities increased. Improvements in hearing aids allowed many Deaf individuals to communicate more effectively with hearing people. Additionally, the number of individuals who became Deaf later in life began to decline, while the number of those born Deaf increased.
Many Deaf students at the Utah School for the Deaf had developed a solid foundation in language before losing their hearing. However, the rising number of Deaf individuals born to hearing parents has negatively impacted their language development. A significant advancement for the Deaf community was the establishment of the National Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf in 1964. This created a formal system for training and certifying interpreters, which greatly improved access to education and services for Deaf individuals.
The Utah Deaf community previously relied on individuals who were hard-of-hearing and had learned written and spoken language before using hearing aids. Many of those who lost their hearing later in life maintained strong speaking abilities. However, the Utah Association of the Deaf anticipated a decline in the number of such individuals in the future. They also expected an increase in Deaf individuals with multiple disabilities, which would further complicate the situation (The UAD Bulletin, Spring 1961).
As more Deaf children without disabilities integrated into mainstream education, the number of Deaf students with disabilities at Ogden's residential campus increased in the 1960s and 1970s. The Utah Association of the Deaf's prediction about this trend proved accurate. The Utah School for the Deaf established self-contained deaf classes in local public schools to facilitate mainstreaming. Deaf students who excelled academically or were at the same level as their peers had the option to enroll in full inclusion programs within their school districts. The Utah Association of the Deaf and the Utah Deaf community expressed ongoing dissatisfaction with the quality of education at the Utah School for the Deaf, a topic that was discussed during Institutional Council meetings (Bronwyn O'Hara, personal communication, August 27, 2009). They continued to advocate for improved educational opportunities for Deaf students, highlighting the persistent challenges faced by the Utah Deaf community.
The demographics of Deaf students at the Utah School for the Deaf began to change in 1961 as the proportion of Deaf individuals with multiple disabilities increased. Improvements in hearing aids allowed many Deaf individuals to communicate more effectively with hearing people. Additionally, the number of individuals who became Deaf later in life began to decline, while the number of those born Deaf increased.
Many Deaf students at the Utah School for the Deaf had developed a solid foundation in language before losing their hearing. However, the rising number of Deaf individuals born to hearing parents has negatively impacted their language development. A significant advancement for the Deaf community was the establishment of the National Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf in 1964. This created a formal system for training and certifying interpreters, which greatly improved access to education and services for Deaf individuals.
The Utah Deaf community previously relied on individuals who were hard-of-hearing and had learned written and spoken language before using hearing aids. Many of those who lost their hearing later in life maintained strong speaking abilities. However, the Utah Association of the Deaf anticipated a decline in the number of such individuals in the future. They also expected an increase in Deaf individuals with multiple disabilities, which would further complicate the situation (The UAD Bulletin, Spring 1961).
As more Deaf children without disabilities integrated into mainstream education, the number of Deaf students with disabilities at Ogden's residential campus increased in the 1960s and 1970s. The Utah Association of the Deaf's prediction about this trend proved accurate. The Utah School for the Deaf established self-contained deaf classes in local public schools to facilitate mainstreaming. Deaf students who excelled academically or were at the same level as their peers had the option to enroll in full inclusion programs within their school districts. The Utah Association of the Deaf and the Utah Deaf community expressed ongoing dissatisfaction with the quality of education at the Utah School for the Deaf, a topic that was discussed during Institutional Council meetings (Bronwyn O'Hara, personal communication, August 27, 2009). They continued to advocate for improved educational opportunities for Deaf students, highlighting the persistent challenges faced by the Utah Deaf community.
Did You Know?
The Osmond family, renowned in the entertainment industry from Utah, whose parents, George and Olive Osmond, had two oldest sons: George Virl Jr., commonly known as "Virl," and Thomas Rulon, referred to as "Tom." Both sons are deaf, and their parents actively supported the oral method of communication for Deaf individuals.
Olive Osmond homeschooling her son, Thomas (left), and George Virl (right). Source: The Osmond Station Network
*****
Lisa Richards' Artwork
Features Dr. Grant B. Bitter
Features Dr. Grant B. Bitter
Lisa Richards, born in 1959, is seen in photographs practicing her speech in the oral program at Lafayette Elementary School in 1964. In 2022, she reflected on her formative years during the Bitter era through her drawings, emphasizing its impact on Utah's Deaf educational system. Her experience as a student at the Utah School for the Deaf in the 1960s and 1970s embodies themes of personal growth and resilience.
In 1964, Lisa Richards read the group news to the rest of the faculty at the oral class for the Utah School for the Deaf at Lafayette Elementary School
On February 24, 2020, Lisa courageously shared a video recounting her experiences in the oral program of the Utah School for the Deaf's Extension Division. This program was established during a time when Dr. Grant B. Bitter was a dedicated advocate for oral and mainstream education for Deaf and hard-of-hearing students, allowing Deaf children to learn to speak and attend classes closer to home.
Drawn by Lisa Richards in 2022, a former student of the Oral Program at the Utah School for the Deaf
Drawn by Lisa Richards, a former student of the Oral Program at the Utah School for the Deaf
Although Lisa faced numerous challenges under Dr. Bitter's influence, her decision to share her story demonstrates the incredible healing power of storytelling. It serves as a vital reminder of the importance of preserving the history of Deaf education in Utah, ensuring that the experiences of the Deaf community are not forgotten.
*****
SECTION I:
The Beginning of the Dark Chapter
in Deaf Education in Utah
The Beginning of the Dark Chapter
in Deaf Education in Utah
The Implementation of the Dual-Track Program,
Commonly Known as "Y" System
at the Utah School for the Deaf
Commonly Known as "Y" System
at the Utah School for the Deaf
In the fall of 1962, the Utah Deaf community was taken aback by the revolutionary changes at the Utah School for the Deaf. The introduction of the dual-track program, commonly known as the 'Y' system, took many by surprise and reverberated throughout the community. This unexpected change had a profound impact on the education of Deaf children, evoking a strong sense of empathy within the community. The Utah Association of the Deaf, which advocated for sign language, was unaware that the Utah Council for the Deaf had spearheaded the change, advocating for speech-based instruction and successfully pushing for its implementation at the Utah School for the Deaf in Ogden, Utah (The UAD Bulletin, Fall-Winter 1962). It is believed that Dr. Bitter was a member of this council. The dual-track program provided an oral program in one department and a simultaneous communication program in another department, which was later replaced by a combined system. However, the dual-track policy mandated that all Deaf children begin with the oral program (The Utah Eagle, February 1968; Gannon, 1981). The Utah State Board of Education, a key player in educational policy, approved this policy reform on June 14, 1962, with endorsement from the Special Study Committee on Deaf Education (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, June 14, 1962; Wright, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, October 19, 1970). The newly hired superintendent, Robert W. Tegeder, accepted the parents' proposals and initiated changes to the school system (The UAD Bulletin, Fall-Winter, 1962; Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987). This new program not only affected the lives of Deaf children but also placed significant burdens on their families.
Two-Way Program to be Instituted this fall at the Utah School for the Deaf. Source: The Ogden Standard-Examiner, June 14, 1962
The 'Y' system, part of the dual-track program, imposed significant restrictions and challenges on students and their families. This system separated learning into two distinct channels: the oral department, which focused on speech, lipreading, amplified sound, and reading, and the simultaneous communication department, which emphasized instruction through the manual alphabet, signs, speech, and reading. Initially, all Deaf children were required to enroll in the oral program for the first six years of their schooling (The Utah Eagle, February 1968). Following this period, a committee would assess each child's progress and determine their placement (The Utah Eagle, February 1968). The 'Y' system favored the oral mechanism over the sign language approach, severely limiting families' choices in the school system. The school's preference for the oral mechanism was based on the belief that speech was crucial for Deaf children's integration into the hearing world, a philosophy that was prevalent in the oral educational community at the time. Parents and Deaf students were left with no freedom to choose the program until the child entered 6th or 7th grade, at which point they could either continue in the oral department or transition to the simultaneous communication department (The Utah Eagle, February 1968; Dr. Grant B. Bitter's Paper, 1970s; Deanne Kinner Montgomery, personal communication, May 4, 2024).
The placement of transferred students in the signing program labeled them as 'oral failures' (The UAD Bulletin, Spring 1965). There was a discussion about the age at which students can transfer to a simultaneous communication program. According to the 'First Reunion of the Utah School for the Deaf Alumni Program Book, 1976,' this would be when they were 10–12 years old or entered sixth grade. However, according to the Utah Eagle's February 1968 issue, students must remain in the oral program for the first six years of school, which may be in the 6th or 7th grade. So, I am using between the 6th and 7th grades, rather than based on their age. Their birth date, progression, and other factors could determine their placement. This system had profound and lasting effects on the academic and social development of Deaf students, which should be considered in any evaluation of its impact.
The placement of transferred students in the signing program labeled them as 'oral failures' (The UAD Bulletin, Spring 1965). There was a discussion about the age at which students can transfer to a simultaneous communication program. According to the 'First Reunion of the Utah School for the Deaf Alumni Program Book, 1976,' this would be when they were 10–12 years old or entered sixth grade. However, according to the Utah Eagle's February 1968 issue, students must remain in the oral program for the first six years of school, which may be in the 6th or 7th grade. So, I am using between the 6th and 7th grades, rather than based on their age. Their birth date, progression, and other factors could determine their placement. This system had profound and lasting effects on the academic and social development of Deaf students, which should be considered in any evaluation of its impact.
The "Y" System of the Dual-Track Program Starting in the Oral Program at the Utah School for the Deaf
The implementation of the 'Y' system had a profound impact on the Utah School for the Deaf, leading to significant changes. The school had to hire more oral teachers and establish speech as the primary mode of communication, marking a significant shift in the school's approach. The dual-track program initially placed all elementary school students in the oral department, transferring them to the simultaneous communication department only if they failed in the oral program. This approach was based on the belief that early development of oral skills was crucial for Deaf students, with sign language learning considered a secondary focus. The change in focus and the increased hiring of oral teachers had a significant impact on the school's learning environment, altering its dynamics and atmosphere (The Utah Eagle, February 1968; Deanne Kinner Montgomery, personal communication, May 4, 2024).
The Utah School for the Deaf has utilized a combined method in its classrooms since 1902. This method included a mix of manual signing, speech, and listening until the 1950s. The establishment of more extension classrooms highlighted parents' desire for their children to enhance their speaking and listening skills. As a result, signing was prohibited in oral classes. This restriction applied to Deaf students until the ninth grade, but they were allowed to sign after school and in the dorms. Elementary school students received basic instruction in speaking skills from hearing teachers, while Deaf high school students received instruction exclusively from Deaf teachers (Celia May Laramie Baldwin, personal communication, April 15, 2012).
The dual-track program shifted its approach for prospective teachers from sign language to the oral method, prioritizing speech as the primary mode of communication for Deaf students in classrooms. The administrators at the Utah School for the Deaf considered the dual-track program to be more advantageous than a single-track system (The Utah Eagle, February 1968; Wright, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, October 19, 1970). According to them, the oral program required a "pure oral mindset." In 1968, the Utah School for the Deaf was one of the few residential schools in the country to offer an exclusively oral program for elementary students (The Utah Eagle, February 1968). By 1973, the Utah School for the Deaf was the only school in the United States that provided parents and Deaf students with both methods of communication through the dual-track system (Laflamme, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, September 5, 1973).
The Utah School for the Deaf has utilized a combined method in its classrooms since 1902. This method included a mix of manual signing, speech, and listening until the 1950s. The establishment of more extension classrooms highlighted parents' desire for their children to enhance their speaking and listening skills. As a result, signing was prohibited in oral classes. This restriction applied to Deaf students until the ninth grade, but they were allowed to sign after school and in the dorms. Elementary school students received basic instruction in speaking skills from hearing teachers, while Deaf high school students received instruction exclusively from Deaf teachers (Celia May Laramie Baldwin, personal communication, April 15, 2012).
The dual-track program shifted its approach for prospective teachers from sign language to the oral method, prioritizing speech as the primary mode of communication for Deaf students in classrooms. The administrators at the Utah School for the Deaf considered the dual-track program to be more advantageous than a single-track system (The Utah Eagle, February 1968; Wright, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, October 19, 1970). According to them, the oral program required a "pure oral mindset." In 1968, the Utah School for the Deaf was one of the few residential schools in the country to offer an exclusively oral program for elementary students (The Utah Eagle, February 1968). By 1973, the Utah School for the Deaf was the only school in the United States that provided parents and Deaf students with both methods of communication through the dual-track system (Laflamme, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, September 5, 1973).
Speech training at the Utah School for the Deaf. Source: The Utah School for the Deaf Program Book, 1960s
The 'Y' system, used as a decision-making tool, played a crucial role in determining a student's educational placement in the dual-track program. Its influence on Deaf education was profound. For instance, in the oral department, a Deaf student would progress from preschool to sixth grade. After that, a committee would evaluate the student's speaking ability, school performance, test results, and family environment to decide whether to continue in the oral program or transfer to the simultaneous communication program (The Utah Eagle, February 1968; Wright, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, October 19, 1970). Regardless of whether they studied on the Ogden campus or in the Extension Division classrooms, established in 1959 to promote mainstreaming for Deaf children, the program expected all Deaf children to enroll in the entire oral department (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, October 19, 1970; The Utah Eagle, February 1968). As a result, the Salt Lake Extension Program became almost as big as Ogden's residential school. Unfortunately, these regulatory changes had a detrimental impact on Ogden's residential school for many years, raising concerns about the future of Deaf education.
Dr. Grant B. Bitter. Source: The Ogden Standard-Examiner, August 24, 1974
At the time, teachers were required to obtain a bachelor's degree in Deaf education from an accredited teacher center and receive certification. Teachers who taught simultaneous communication also needed to be proficient in sign language (The Utah Eagle, February 1968).
The new 'Y' policy at the Utah School for the Deaf resulted in a sudden shortage of oral teachers (The Utah Eagle, November 1962). To fill this gap, the Utah School for the Deaf employed the University of Utah's Teacher Training Program, an 'army of oral teachers.' Gallaudet College guided teachers in the simultaneous communication department, whereas the University of Utah assisted teachers in the oral department (The Utah Eagle, February 1968). Dr. Bitter is likely to get the idea for the new policy from his internship at the Lexington School for the Deaf, an oral school in New York, during his master's degree studies (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987). The shortage of oral teachers and the subsequent employment of the University of Utah's Teacher Training Program significantly altered the school's teaching staff and methods, reflecting the broader changes in the school's approach to Deaf education. This adaptability of the training programs reassured the educational community about the resilience of the system in the face of challenges.
The new 'Y' policy at the Utah School for the Deaf resulted in a sudden shortage of oral teachers (The Utah Eagle, November 1962). To fill this gap, the Utah School for the Deaf employed the University of Utah's Teacher Training Program, an 'army of oral teachers.' Gallaudet College guided teachers in the simultaneous communication department, whereas the University of Utah assisted teachers in the oral department (The Utah Eagle, February 1968). Dr. Bitter is likely to get the idea for the new policy from his internship at the Lexington School for the Deaf, an oral school in New York, during his master's degree studies (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987). The shortage of oral teachers and the subsequent employment of the University of Utah's Teacher Training Program significantly altered the school's teaching staff and methods, reflecting the broader changes in the school's approach to Deaf education. This adaptability of the training programs reassured the educational community about the resilience of the system in the face of challenges.
The Effects of the Dual-Track and
Two-Track Programs on the Kinner Family
Two-Track Programs on the Kinner Family
This section describes Kenneth L. Kinner's experiences as a 1954 graduate of the Utah School for the Deaf and how it affected the family. Kenneth had a Deaf daughter named Deanne, who was born in 1961, a year before the implementation of the dual-track program at the Utah School for the Deaf. Kenneth's firsthand experience with the new dual-track program, which began in the fall of 1962, required his daughter to start the oral program at four and a half in 1965, despite her first language being American Sign Language (ASL). This program aimed solely at teaching speech skills, which forced parents like Kenneth and his wife, Ilene Coles, a 1959 graduate who preferred sign language, to enroll their children in it. Students who were unable to learn how to speak were eventually enrolled in the simultaneous communication department, a part of the dual-track program that focused on teaching both sign language and speech. However, in the "Y" system channel, a policy mandated that parents wait until their child completed their first six years of education or was 12 years old to enroll in sign language education in the simultaneous communication department, preventing Deanne from switching to the program she wanted until she turned 12. The oral program's goal was to enable all students to excel in their oral abilities, marking the start of a new war against the system (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011). Deanne shared that she had wanted to switch to the simultaneous communication program during her childhood, but due to the "Y" policy, her father kept telling her that he could not transfer her until she turned 12. Only after reaching this age could she finally switch to the program she desired (Deanne Kinner Montgomery, personal communication, May 4, 2024).
One incident in the oral program was that while a substitute oral teacher was writing on the blackboard and talking, Deanne, who was seven, was reading from the textbook. She could hear constant sounds with her hearing aid, but she couldn't read lips from the back of the teacher's head. Often, Deanne would read from the book and then answer the teacher's questions. However, this time, the teacher kept calling her name while she was looking down and reading. Typically, she couldn't identify the caller due to the continuous background noise. After repeatedly calling her name, the teacher hit her with a stick and asked, "Why didn't you hear me when I called your name?" Deanne was stunned, but she remained calm until recess. Once outside, she hurriedly walked to her father's workplace, showing her arm to him while crying. His boss saw her crying and instructed her father to take her to school, where Ken reported the incident. The school apologized (Deanne Kinner Montgomery, personal communication, May 4, 2024). This incident nonetheless prompted a need for change.
One incident in the oral program was that while a substitute oral teacher was writing on the blackboard and talking, Deanne, who was seven, was reading from the textbook. She could hear constant sounds with her hearing aid, but she couldn't read lips from the back of the teacher's head. Often, Deanne would read from the book and then answer the teacher's questions. However, this time, the teacher kept calling her name while she was looking down and reading. Typically, she couldn't identify the caller due to the continuous background noise. After repeatedly calling her name, the teacher hit her with a stick and asked, "Why didn't you hear me when I called your name?" Deanne was stunned, but she remained calm until recess. Once outside, she hurriedly walked to her father's workplace, showing her arm to him while crying. His boss saw her crying and instructed her father to take her to school, where Ken reported the incident. The school apologized (Deanne Kinner Montgomery, personal communication, May 4, 2024). This incident nonetheless prompted a need for change.
Deanne, Kenneth, Ilene, and Duane (center) Kinner, 1976
After nearly ten years of battle, the newly formed "two-track program" replaced the dual-track system in 1970, thereby eliminating the "Y" system. The two-track system allowed parents to choose between oral and total communication methods of instruction for their Deaf child aged between 2½ and 21. This new two-track approach allowed their Deaf son, Duane, who was 11 years younger than Deanne, to enter the total communication program at the age of three in 1975 (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011).
When Deanne was ten years old, her parents quickly removed her from the oral program in the fall of 1971, under the new two-track system, and placed her in the total communication program. This change in the educational system was considered a big step forward. Testing revealed that Deanne, who had grown up with language access at home, was at or above the academic level. Despite being placed with middle-and-high-school-aged kids who were performing below academic level, she persevered. Her friends, who had hearing parents, remained in the oral program. Deanne, the youngest student in the total communication program, found herself placed with the 15, 16, and 17 year-old students who had been deprived of language in the oral program. This environment had a profound impact on her emotional, social, and educational growth. She was exposed to inappropriate information for her age and was forced to mature and persevere quickly in the two-track program, a challenge that she faced with remarkable strength.
Although Duane grew up with total communication and was free to communicate in ASL, the trend toward mainstreaming grew, and enrollment at the Utah School for the Deaf declined. With Deanne's encouragement, using her trauma from childhood experiences as evidence, she helped convince her parents to transfer Duane to the Idaho School for the Deaf in 1987. Duane thrived in this new environment, benefiting from a better education and access to peers who were his age. Furthermore, several of his age group classmates from the Utah School for the Deaf transferred out of state to attend residential schools across the United States, where they were able to get better education, social opportunities, extracurricular activities, and so on (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011; Deanne Kinner Montgomery, personal communication, May 4, 2024).
It is important to acknowledge the challenges that Deaf students and their families encounter when advocating for their right to access educational opportunities that meet their academic and social needs. These challenges often involve navigating complex educational systems, promoting the use of effective communication methods, and ensuring access to suitable learning environments. More details about the two-track program and the challenges it presented can be found further down the webpage.
When Deanne was ten years old, her parents quickly removed her from the oral program in the fall of 1971, under the new two-track system, and placed her in the total communication program. This change in the educational system was considered a big step forward. Testing revealed that Deanne, who had grown up with language access at home, was at or above the academic level. Despite being placed with middle-and-high-school-aged kids who were performing below academic level, she persevered. Her friends, who had hearing parents, remained in the oral program. Deanne, the youngest student in the total communication program, found herself placed with the 15, 16, and 17 year-old students who had been deprived of language in the oral program. This environment had a profound impact on her emotional, social, and educational growth. She was exposed to inappropriate information for her age and was forced to mature and persevere quickly in the two-track program, a challenge that she faced with remarkable strength.
Although Duane grew up with total communication and was free to communicate in ASL, the trend toward mainstreaming grew, and enrollment at the Utah School for the Deaf declined. With Deanne's encouragement, using her trauma from childhood experiences as evidence, she helped convince her parents to transfer Duane to the Idaho School for the Deaf in 1987. Duane thrived in this new environment, benefiting from a better education and access to peers who were his age. Furthermore, several of his age group classmates from the Utah School for the Deaf transferred out of state to attend residential schools across the United States, where they were able to get better education, social opportunities, extracurricular activities, and so on (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011; Deanne Kinner Montgomery, personal communication, May 4, 2024).
It is important to acknowledge the challenges that Deaf students and their families encounter when advocating for their right to access educational opportunities that meet their academic and social needs. These challenges often involve navigating complex educational systems, promoting the use of effective communication methods, and ensuring access to suitable learning environments. More details about the two-track program and the challenges it presented can be found further down the webpage.
The Main Building
of the Utah School for the Deaf
of the Utah School for the Deaf
In 1962, the Utah School for the Deaf introduced the dual-track program in the Main Building, known as the "Y" System. At that time, the U-shaped Main Building on Ogden's residential campus housed the oral and simultaneous communication departments in separate wings. As shown in the picture above, the oral department was on the left, while the simultaneous communication department was on the right. Sources: Utahn, 1957; The Utah Eagle, February 1968
In 1962, the Utah School for the Deaf introduced the
dual-track program in the Main Building, known as
the "Y" System. At that time, the U-shaped Main
Building on Ogden's residential campus housed the
oral and simultaneous communication departments
in separate wings. As shown in the picture above,
the oral department was on the left, while the
simultaneous communication department was on the right (Utahn, 1957; The Utah Eagle, February 1968).
dual-track program in the Main Building, known as
the "Y" System. At that time, the U-shaped Main
Building on Ogden's residential campus housed the
oral and simultaneous communication departments
in separate wings. As shown in the picture above,
the oral department was on the left, while the
simultaneous communication department was on the right (Utahn, 1957; The Utah Eagle, February 1968).
The Student Protest of 1962
at the Utah School for the Deaf
at the Utah School for the Deaf
On June 14, 1962, the Utah State Board of Education approved the implementation of a dual-track program, which resulted in the division of the Ogden campus into two distinct departments during the summer break (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, June 14, 1962). This dual-track program was designed to offer a more customized education for Deaf students, with one track emphasizing oral communication and the other focused on sign language. It also divided Ogden's residential campus into an oral department and a simultaneous communication department, each with its own classrooms, dining halls, dormitory facilities, recess periods, and extracurricular activities. The school prohibited interaction between oral and sign language students (The Utah Eagle, February 1968; Wright, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, October 19, 1970). However, due to low student enrollment in competitive sports, the athletic program combined both departments. The team had oral and sign language coaches to communicate with their respective students (The Utah Eagle, February 1968). This unique situation highlights the challenges and complexities of implementing the dual-track program.
During the 1962–63 school year, the Utah School for the Deaf implemented changes without informing the Deaf students. When the students arrived at school in August, they were shocked to discover these changes. The dual-track program at Ogden's residential campus introduced drawbacks due to the strict social segregation environment. The oral program prohibited Deaf students from interacting with their peers in the signing department, resulting in significantly limited social interaction. Consequently, friends in different programs were unable to see one another during class or recess. One notable example of the program's damaging effects was the school's decision to separate a high school couple, causing profound emotional trauma for the students involved. The new social segregation policy under the dual-track program caused profound emotional and mental trauma for many students, highlighting the human cost of the policy.
These changes also caused a lot of anger among older students, as well as many disagreements between veteran teachers and the Utah Deaf community. Barbara Schell Bass, a long-serving Deaf teacher at the Utah School for the Deaf, said that the students' physical and methodological separation had painful consequences. Many teachers lost their friendships due to philosophical disagreements, classmates isolated themselves from each other, and administrators struggled to divide their loyalties (Bass, 1982).
The dual-track program's 'Y' segregation system, which separated students who used spoken language from those who used sign language, led to significant dissatisfaction and prompted protests. High school students voiced their concerns about this system, but the administration dismissed their objections. Students organized strikes in 1962 and again in 1969 to oppose the new dual-track policy. Their passionate protests highlighted their belief that the system created a 'wall' preventing interaction between oral and sign language students, a belief that underscored their strong sense of injustice. Despite the intensity of their arguments, the school administration continued the dual-track policy, ignoring the students' concerns.
During the 1962–63 school year, the Utah School for the Deaf implemented changes without informing the Deaf students. When the students arrived at school in August, they were shocked to discover these changes. The dual-track program at Ogden's residential campus introduced drawbacks due to the strict social segregation environment. The oral program prohibited Deaf students from interacting with their peers in the signing department, resulting in significantly limited social interaction. Consequently, friends in different programs were unable to see one another during class or recess. One notable example of the program's damaging effects was the school's decision to separate a high school couple, causing profound emotional trauma for the students involved. The new social segregation policy under the dual-track program caused profound emotional and mental trauma for many students, highlighting the human cost of the policy.
These changes also caused a lot of anger among older students, as well as many disagreements between veteran teachers and the Utah Deaf community. Barbara Schell Bass, a long-serving Deaf teacher at the Utah School for the Deaf, said that the students' physical and methodological separation had painful consequences. Many teachers lost their friendships due to philosophical disagreements, classmates isolated themselves from each other, and administrators struggled to divide their loyalties (Bass, 1982).
The dual-track program's 'Y' segregation system, which separated students who used spoken language from those who used sign language, led to significant dissatisfaction and prompted protests. High school students voiced their concerns about this system, but the administration dismissed their objections. Students organized strikes in 1962 and again in 1969 to oppose the new dual-track policy. Their passionate protests highlighted their belief that the system created a 'wall' preventing interaction between oral and sign language students, a belief that underscored their strong sense of injustice. Despite the intensity of their arguments, the school administration continued the dual-track policy, ignoring the students' concerns.
Barbara Schell Bass. Photo by Robert L. Bonnell
Over half of the high school students staged a strike on the third Friday of September 14, 1962, a significant date in the history of the Utah School for the Deaf, over the social segregation between oral and sign language students on Ogden's residential campus. Johnny P. Murray, a senior, was the leader protesting against the segregation policy. He recalled a strange visit from Tony Christopulos, who was the principal of the Utah School for the Deaf, an oral advocate, and one of Dr. Bitter's right-hand men. Dr. Bitter, a key figure in the implementation of the dual-track program, was a teacher at the Utah School for the Deaf at the time. Tony visited Johnny's home just before the start of the school year and asked his parents if they wanted their son to join the oral program. After Tony left, Johnny's parents asked him whether he wanted to enroll in the oral program. Johnny replied with a clear 'No' (Johnny P. Murray, personal communication, August 14, 2009).
Johnny finally understood the reason behind the odd visit on the first day of school. The school administration had recently introduced a new policy called 'Y,' which allowed parents of older students attending the Utah School for the Deaf to choose their child's placement. The administration contacted all parents to learn about their placement preferences. However, the 'Y' policy, which seemingly offered a choice, was actually a tool for the administration to push more students into the oral program, thereby promoting social segregation. This was a significant concern for the students, as it could potentially lead to the loss of their well-liked and respected Deaf teachers (Johnny P. Murray, personal communication, August 14, 2009).
Johnny finally understood the reason behind the odd visit on the first day of school. The school administration had recently introduced a new policy called 'Y,' which allowed parents of older students attending the Utah School for the Deaf to choose their child's placement. The administration contacted all parents to learn about their placement preferences. However, the 'Y' policy, which seemingly offered a choice, was actually a tool for the administration to push more students into the oral program, thereby promoting social segregation. This was a significant concern for the students, as it could potentially lead to the loss of their well-liked and respected Deaf teachers (Johnny P. Murray, personal communication, August 14, 2009).
Johnny P. Murray
The students were worried about the dual-track program and its potential effects. They were especially concerned about possibly losing their well-liked and respected Deaf teachers. These teachers included Donald Jensen, Jerry Taylor, Kenneth C. Burdett, father of Ronald Burdett, sophomore, and Dora B. Laramie, mother of Celia May "C.M." Laramie Baldwin, also sophomore (Johnny Murray, personal communication, August 14, 2009; Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011).
Deaf teachers of the Utah School for the Deaf
Johnny P. Murray, a senior, president of the Student Council, and strike leader, organized a protest against the policy of segregating oral and sign language. He rallied twenty-five high school students from the simultaneous communication program to join this cause. They dedicated a week to preparation, creating posters with messages such as "Strike," "Unfair," and "Listen to Us," using shoe polish on wooden sticks (Nellie Sausedo, personal communication, 2007; Celia May Laramie Baldwin, personal communication, April 1, 2024).
On the morning of Friday, September 14, 1962, after attending a seminary class taught by G. Leon Curtis, a Deaf instructor and key figure in the Utah Deaf community (who was unaware of their protest plans), the students quickly gathered in the gym to collect their signs. At 8:30 a.m., they marched through the hallways of the Main Building, demonstrating their unity and determination (The Ogden Standard Examiner, September 14, 1962; Nellie Sausedo, personal communication, 2007).
The Deaf teachers at the Utah School for the Deaf were taken by surprise by the protest (The Ogden Standard Examiner, September 14, 1962; Nellie Sausedo, personal communication, 2007; Celia May Laramie Baldwin, personal communication, April 1, 2024). Ronald C. Burdett noticed his father, Kenneth C. Burdett, smiling subtly during the protest, indicating his understanding of the demonstration's purpose. However, Kenneth was hesitant to fully support the protest due to concerns about its potential impact on his job (Ronald C. Burdett, personal communication, 2007).
On the morning of Friday, September 14, 1962, after attending a seminary class taught by G. Leon Curtis, a Deaf instructor and key figure in the Utah Deaf community (who was unaware of their protest plans), the students quickly gathered in the gym to collect their signs. At 8:30 a.m., they marched through the hallways of the Main Building, demonstrating their unity and determination (The Ogden Standard Examiner, September 14, 1962; Nellie Sausedo, personal communication, 2007).
The Deaf teachers at the Utah School for the Deaf were taken by surprise by the protest (The Ogden Standard Examiner, September 14, 1962; Nellie Sausedo, personal communication, 2007; Celia May Laramie Baldwin, personal communication, April 1, 2024). Ronald C. Burdett noticed his father, Kenneth C. Burdett, smiling subtly during the protest, indicating his understanding of the demonstration's purpose. However, Kenneth was hesitant to fully support the protest due to concerns about its potential impact on his job (Ronald C. Burdett, personal communication, 2007).
Kenneth C. Burdett
|
Ronald C. Burdett
|
The hearing teachers were particularly shocked and dismayed by the students' decision to strike in support of their cause, creating a tense atmosphere. They believed the students were being foolish for going on strike. Thomas Van Drimmelen, one of the teachers, was particularly unsettled. In a moment of frustration, he lunged forward, attempting to pull Celia May Laramie Baldwin out of the march. Just as tensions escalated, Celia's mother, Dora Bonoit Laramie, intervened and shouted, "Don't touch C.M.!" (Nellie Sausedo, personal communication, 2007). This moment highlighted the students' bravery and commitment to their beliefs, inspiring everyone around them.
Dora Bonoit Laramie
|
Celia May Laramie Baldwin
|
Thomas Van Drimmelen
The Ogden Standard-Examiner reported that by noon on September 14, 1962, the whereabouts of some students were unknown. While marching from the Utah School for the Deaf campus to Lorin Farr Park, two teachers searched for them. The students had hidden behind trees as the teachers' car passed by to avoid being discovered. They discussed going to a movie theater but found it was closed at 10 a.m. Instead, they went to Ronald Burdett's backyard to relax and hang out. Feeling hungry, they pooled their money and sent someone to the nearby grocery store at 26th and Quincy Avenue to buy cookies and punch for their lunch (The Ogden Standard Examiner, September 14, 1962; Nellie Sausedo, personal communication, 2007; Ronald C. Burdett, personal communication, 2007).
When Kenneth Burdett returned home from work, he was surprised to find the students there. Concerned for their safety and worried about the potential loss of his job, he quickly took them back to the Utah School for the Deaf. After that, the students returned to their homes for the weekend (Ronald C. Burdett, personal communication, 2009).
When Kenneth Burdett returned home from work, he was surprised to find the students there. Concerned for their safety and worried about the potential loss of his job, he quickly took them back to the Utah School for the Deaf. After that, the students returned to their homes for the weekend (Ronald C. Burdett, personal communication, 2009).
Seniors
Juniors
Sophomores
'Students of the Utah School for the Deaf on strike.' Source: Ogden Standard-Examiner, September 14, 1962
Tony Christopoulos, the principal of the Utah School for the Deaf, suggested in an article in the Ogden Standard-Examiner that the recent student protest was initiated by unhappy parents. He stated that these parents had influenced their children's decision to strike. Furthermore, Tony clarified that only the Deaf students in the simultaneous communication department were dissatisfied with the changes, while the fifty-two Deaf students in the oral department did not participate in the protest (Ogden Standard-Examiner, September 14, 1962). The simultaneous communication students protested independently to express their wish to stay united as they had been before the changes.
Tony Christopulos. Source: The Utah Eagle, October 1959
'Dissatisfied students of the Utah School for the Deaf ended the strike.' Source: Ogden Standard-Examiner, September 15, 1962
On Monday, September 17, 1962, Superintendent Robert W. Tegeder arranged a meeting with students to discuss the strike. During the meeting, Superintendent Tegeder, torn between his duty and personal beliefs, asked the students why they went on strike. The students, with a courage that would inspire generations to come, questioned the existence of two departments on campus and the disparity in the number of students enrolled in each department, as quoted: "Why do we have two departments on campus?" and "Why does the oral department have more students than the simultaneous communication department?" Despite his disagreement with the changes, he had to support the new policy. He couldn't think of any other response except saying, "Oh well!" (Nellie Sausedo, personal communication, 2007).
Superintendent Robert W. Tegeder highlighted in an article in the Ogden Standard-Examiner that the walkout of twenty-five students at the Utah School for the Deaf was not only an act of defiance but also a strong statement of their needs. The students, who felt limited in their social interactions and dissatisfied with the school's separate facilities, decided to take matters into their own hands. Their bravery in standing up for their rights is truly inspiring. They yearned for more social interaction with the fifty-two other students in the oral program and expressed unhappiness with the separation of the classrooms, dormitory rooms, and playground areas. Superintendent Tegeder shared their feelings and admitted, "I'm dissatisfied with many of these myself." He further explained that some students had been living in dorms together for eight years, and the new teaching program forced them to separate from their old friends, which had taken an emotional toll on them (Ogden Standard Examiner, September 14, 1962).
Superintendent Robert W. Tegeder highlighted in an article in the Ogden Standard-Examiner that the walkout of twenty-five students at the Utah School for the Deaf was not only an act of defiance but also a strong statement of their needs. The students, who felt limited in their social interactions and dissatisfied with the school's separate facilities, decided to take matters into their own hands. Their bravery in standing up for their rights is truly inspiring. They yearned for more social interaction with the fifty-two other students in the oral program and expressed unhappiness with the separation of the classrooms, dormitory rooms, and playground areas. Superintendent Tegeder shared their feelings and admitted, "I'm dissatisfied with many of these myself." He further explained that some students had been living in dorms together for eight years, and the new teaching program forced them to separate from their old friends, which had taken an emotional toll on them (Ogden Standard Examiner, September 14, 1962).
Nellie Sausedo
Nellie Sausedo, a junior and one of the protestors, recalled when she and some students protested against the school's policy of segregating them into dormitories, dining rooms, and classes such as physical education, cooking, sewing, printing, and school events. The students disliked this separation and longed for the days when everyone could be in the same room. Their determination to fight against the signing restrictions and the unacceptable segregation system was unwavering. Nellie, one of the protesters, expressed that "No one listened" (Nellie Sausedo, personal communication, 2007). Despite the students' intervention efforts, the school administration continued to implement the dual-track policy.
Regardless of the circumstances, Johnny P. Murray made significant contributions during his time at the school. He had the courage to lead a united student strike challenging the segregation policy between oral and sign language. We appreciate his bravery and the difference he made. After his passing in 2024, his life has left an indelible mark on our community.
After implementing the dual-track program and concluding a student protest, Tony Christopulos asked high school Deaf students from the simultaneous communication program to promote unity and acceptance in light of the new 'Y' system changes. The 'Y' system changes refer to a shift in educational approach, encouraging students to integrate into the hearing world. During the meeting, Tony used a chalkboard to illustrate the concepts of the 'Deaf World' and the 'Hearing World.' He warned students against isolating themselves in the Deaf World, which he marked with an X. Instead, he emphasized the importance of integrating into the Hearing World, which he circled (Ronald C. Burdett, personal communication, 2007). Tony's college education, which focused heavily on oral instruction, shaped his perspective on integrating Deaf students into the hearing world.
Following the 1962 protest against social segregation between oral and sign language students on Ogden's residential campus, Dr. Grant B. Bitter, a steadfast advocate for oral and mainstream education, and his oral supporters suspected that the Utah Association of the Deaf had organized the student strike. The Utah State Board of Education conducted an investigation but found no evidence of any connection between the students and the Utah Association for the Deaf (Sanderson, The UAD Bulletin, Summer 1963; Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011). In the face of societal segregation, the simultaneous communication students demonstrated their unwavering determination and courage by staging their protests, a clear display of their strength and commitment to their cause.
Dr. Robert G. Sanderson denied any involvement in a strike during his tenure as president of the Utah Association of the Deaf from 1960 to 1963. He maintained that the strike was a spontaneous reaction by students who felt that the conditions, restrictions, and personalities at the Utah School for the Deaf had become intolerable (Sanderson, The UAD Bulletin, Summer 1963). In the Fall-Winter 1962 issue of the UAD Bulletin, the Utah Association of the Deaf expressed its support for a classroom test of the dual-track program at the Utah School for the Deaf. However, they openly opposed complete social isolation, interference with religious activities, crippling the sports program, and intense pressure on children in the oral program to comply with the 'no signing' rule, which prohibited the use of sign language in the oral program (UAD Bulletin, Fall-Winter 1962, p. 2). The implementation of the dual-track program marked a dark chapter in the history of Deaf education in Utah.
Regardless of the circumstances, Johnny P. Murray made significant contributions during his time at the school. He had the courage to lead a united student strike challenging the segregation policy between oral and sign language. We appreciate his bravery and the difference he made. After his passing in 2024, his life has left an indelible mark on our community.
After implementing the dual-track program and concluding a student protest, Tony Christopulos asked high school Deaf students from the simultaneous communication program to promote unity and acceptance in light of the new 'Y' system changes. The 'Y' system changes refer to a shift in educational approach, encouraging students to integrate into the hearing world. During the meeting, Tony used a chalkboard to illustrate the concepts of the 'Deaf World' and the 'Hearing World.' He warned students against isolating themselves in the Deaf World, which he marked with an X. Instead, he emphasized the importance of integrating into the Hearing World, which he circled (Ronald C. Burdett, personal communication, 2007). Tony's college education, which focused heavily on oral instruction, shaped his perspective on integrating Deaf students into the hearing world.
Following the 1962 protest against social segregation between oral and sign language students on Ogden's residential campus, Dr. Grant B. Bitter, a steadfast advocate for oral and mainstream education, and his oral supporters suspected that the Utah Association of the Deaf had organized the student strike. The Utah State Board of Education conducted an investigation but found no evidence of any connection between the students and the Utah Association for the Deaf (Sanderson, The UAD Bulletin, Summer 1963; Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011). In the face of societal segregation, the simultaneous communication students demonstrated their unwavering determination and courage by staging their protests, a clear display of their strength and commitment to their cause.
Dr. Robert G. Sanderson denied any involvement in a strike during his tenure as president of the Utah Association of the Deaf from 1960 to 1963. He maintained that the strike was a spontaneous reaction by students who felt that the conditions, restrictions, and personalities at the Utah School for the Deaf had become intolerable (Sanderson, The UAD Bulletin, Summer 1963). In the Fall-Winter 1962 issue of the UAD Bulletin, the Utah Association of the Deaf expressed its support for a classroom test of the dual-track program at the Utah School for the Deaf. However, they openly opposed complete social isolation, interference with religious activities, crippling the sports program, and intense pressure on children in the oral program to comply with the 'no signing' rule, which prohibited the use of sign language in the oral program (UAD Bulletin, Fall-Winter 1962, p. 2). The implementation of the dual-track program marked a dark chapter in the history of Deaf education in Utah.
Dr. Robert G. Sanderson
Did You Know?
In 1959, 97% of the teachers at the Utah School for the Deaf were members of the Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf (Christopulos, The Utah Eagle, November 1960).
Utah Association of the Deaf Meets Wilburn N. Ball,
State Superintendent of Public Instruction
State Superintendent of Public Instruction
During a student protest and a change in policy at the Utah School for the Deaf, a group of officers and members from the Utah Association of the Deaf, each with their own unique expertise, became concerned about the urgent need to address the implementation of an oral philosophy in classrooms. The group, which included Robert G. Sanderson, G. Leon Curtis, Ned C. Wheeler, Robert L. Welsh, W. David Mortensen, Joseph B. Burnett, Kenneth L. Kinner, and Gladys Burnham Wenger, who was hard-of-hearing and served as an interpreter, believed it was important to address these concerns with the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Dr. Wilburn N. Ball. They requested that the changes already taking place in the Utah School for the Deaf be reconsidered and emphatically stressed the importance of sign language for Deaf children.
Dr. Wilburn N. Ball. Source: Utahn, 1961
The group expressed their dissatisfaction with the dual-track program, which began with all children participating in the oral program. They disagreed with this approach and remained committed to maintaining a signing atmosphere on campus, as it is crucial for preserving Deaf culture. They wanted to convey their concerns to Dr. Wilburn.
In response, Dr. Wilburn presented a stack of letters from parents of Deaf children. He randomly selected one and began reading it aloud. The letter from the parent expressed a desire to enroll their Deaf child in the oral program. Although the UAD officers were surprised by this perspective, they remained steadfast in their goal of preserving the signing atmosphere.
It was later revealed that the oral program at the Utah School for the Deaf had encouraged parents to write letters to State Superintendent Wilburn, expressing their support for the new 'Y' system policy. Administrators who favored oral education strongly defended the changes made at Ogden's residential campus. Unfortunately, the Utah Association of the Deaf found itself in a challenging position, as parents overwhelmingly preferred oral education for their Deaf children (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011). Despite this, the Utah Association of the Deaf remained steadfast, demonstrating their commitment to advocating for the best education for Deaf children and reassuring all stakeholders about the future of Deaf education.
In response, Dr. Wilburn presented a stack of letters from parents of Deaf children. He randomly selected one and began reading it aloud. The letter from the parent expressed a desire to enroll their Deaf child in the oral program. Although the UAD officers were surprised by this perspective, they remained steadfast in their goal of preserving the signing atmosphere.
It was later revealed that the oral program at the Utah School for the Deaf had encouraged parents to write letters to State Superintendent Wilburn, expressing their support for the new 'Y' system policy. Administrators who favored oral education strongly defended the changes made at Ogden's residential campus. Unfortunately, the Utah Association of the Deaf found itself in a challenging position, as parents overwhelmingly preferred oral education for their Deaf children (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011). Despite this, the Utah Association of the Deaf remained steadfast, demonstrating their commitment to advocating for the best education for Deaf children and reassuring all stakeholders about the future of Deaf education.
Officers & Members
of the Utah Association of the Deaf
of the Utah Association of the Deaf
Robert G. Sanderson
|
Ned C. Wheeler
|
Joseph B. Burnett
|
W. David Mortensen
|
G. Leon Curtis
|
Robert L. Welsh
|
Kenneth L. Kinner
|
Gladys Burnham Wenger
|
Limited Educational Choices
at the Utah School for the Deaf
at the Utah School for the Deaf
The educational journey for Deaf children in the Salt Lake area was challenging. Oral day schools were available for those who wanted their children to learn to speak and use hearing aids. However, families who preferred simultaneous communication had limited options. All children were placed in the oral program until 6th or 7th grade, regardless of their speaking and hearing ability or limitation. After that, parents could enroll their children in the residential school in Ogden for the simultaneous communication program, regardless of their location. This often meant that the child had to live away from home, which was distressing for many parents. The only alternative was to withdraw the children from their current school and enroll them in a public school. However, this decision often resulted in the denial of requests for a sign language interpreter. This limited choice, particularly the lack of sign language interpreters, significantly affected the children's education and overall well-being (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011).
The educators who worked with Deaf students in the 1960s were deeply dedicated to their cause. They believed that English proficiency was crucial for success in a hearing world. With the best intentions, they advocated for an oral approach focused on training students' speech and listening skills. However, they overlooked the potential of sign language as a tool for teaching English to Deaf students. Additionally, their methods were not always practical or effective, and they did not realize their approach could be oppressive or discriminatory. This oversight also led to an increasing number of Deaf students with multiple disabilities taking over Ogden's residential school to meet their needs (The UAD Bulletin, Spring 1961).
During this time, oral day schools often accepted Deaf students with average abilities to assess their potential for oral skills. These schools believed that early training in these skills was crucial. However, the lengthy process of evaluating their oral abilities, which took around eight years, led to identifying some students who struggled with speaking much later, typically in 6th or 7th grade. This struggle with speaking, a fundamental skill for communication, was a significant challenge for these students. By this time, they had already been labeled as 'oral failures' before being placed in a signing program. Unfortunately, the advocates of the 'Y' System, a dual-track program that aimed to teach oral and sign language separately, did not consider the lost time, which resulted in students missing out on critical early years of language learning essential for brain development. When these students entered middle school, their lack of exposure to sign language left them language-deprived, placing them at a significant disadvantage that impacted their overall educational experience. This unintended consequence of the 'Y' System's approach underscores the systemic issues present in Deaf education and the urgent need for change.
The educators who worked with Deaf students in the 1960s were deeply dedicated to their cause. They believed that English proficiency was crucial for success in a hearing world. With the best intentions, they advocated for an oral approach focused on training students' speech and listening skills. However, they overlooked the potential of sign language as a tool for teaching English to Deaf students. Additionally, their methods were not always practical or effective, and they did not realize their approach could be oppressive or discriminatory. This oversight also led to an increasing number of Deaf students with multiple disabilities taking over Ogden's residential school to meet their needs (The UAD Bulletin, Spring 1961).
During this time, oral day schools often accepted Deaf students with average abilities to assess their potential for oral skills. These schools believed that early training in these skills was crucial. However, the lengthy process of evaluating their oral abilities, which took around eight years, led to identifying some students who struggled with speaking much later, typically in 6th or 7th grade. This struggle with speaking, a fundamental skill for communication, was a significant challenge for these students. By this time, they had already been labeled as 'oral failures' before being placed in a signing program. Unfortunately, the advocates of the 'Y' System, a dual-track program that aimed to teach oral and sign language separately, did not consider the lost time, which resulted in students missing out on critical early years of language learning essential for brain development. When these students entered middle school, their lack of exposure to sign language left them language-deprived, placing them at a significant disadvantage that impacted their overall educational experience. This unintended consequence of the 'Y' System's approach underscores the systemic issues present in Deaf education and the urgent need for change.
J. Boyd Nielson. Source: The Utah Eagle, October 1969
Oral educators believed it was never too late for a Deaf teenager to learn sign language. They assumed these teenagers could quickly pick it up in middle school after transferring out of the oral program. However, this assumption proved to be incorrect. Oral advocates promoted this view to maintain a positive public image. Unfortunately, Deaf students had limited opportunities to achieve true linguistic proficiency. By postponing sign language instruction until middle school, those labeled as "oral failures" were required to learn an oral-spoken language first. As a result, their natural language—sign language—was neglected, hindering their ability to reach their academic potential.
The most tragic aspect is that no one sought to understand the reasons behind their academic struggles. The prevailing assumption was that Deaf students lacked intelligence, but the educational system's flawed approach led to their failure. The personal stories of Deaf students highlight the human impact of this misguided system—a tragedy that must be addressed.
The most tragic aspect is that no one sought to understand the reasons behind their academic struggles. The prevailing assumption was that Deaf students lacked intelligence, but the educational system's flawed approach led to their failure. The personal stories of Deaf students highlight the human impact of this misguided system—a tragedy that must be addressed.
Kenneth C. Burdett teaching math, 1960
Principal Tony Christopulos, a key figure in the educational system, played a pivotal role in shaping the educational system. He appointed Kenneth C. Burdett, a 1929 Utah School for the Deaf graduate and a respected member of the Utah Deaf community, as the curriculum coordinator for the simultaneous communication department. Another key figure, J. Boyd Nielsen, who advocated for oral education, held a similar position in the oral department and was one of Dr. Bitter's right-hand men. Dr. Bitter himself was a significant figure in Deaf education and played a vital role in shaping the educational framework of that era.
Kenneth identified a flaw in the 'Y' educational system, which consisted of a dual-track program designed to teach oral and sign language separately. This system allowed students to choose their preferred mode of communication after completing either 6th or 7th grade. However, this approach had unintended consequences. After the implementation of the 'Y' system, Kenneth found himself unable to assist the most promising students in achieving their academic goals. Instead, he ended up focusing on helping those who had struggled and failed in the oral program. Unfortunately, the Deaf students, who were already below grade level by the time they were ready to graduate, needed his support the most. These students faced significant challenges in communicating in both English and sign language due to their limited proficiency in either language (Ronald C. Burdett, personal communication, 2009). This situation suggested that the structure of the school's 'Y' system was fundamentally detrimental to the students' success.
Kenneth identified a flaw in the 'Y' educational system, which consisted of a dual-track program designed to teach oral and sign language separately. This system allowed students to choose their preferred mode of communication after completing either 6th or 7th grade. However, this approach had unintended consequences. After the implementation of the 'Y' system, Kenneth found himself unable to assist the most promising students in achieving their academic goals. Instead, he ended up focusing on helping those who had struggled and failed in the oral program. Unfortunately, the Deaf students, who were already below grade level by the time they were ready to graduate, needed his support the most. These students faced significant challenges in communicating in both English and sign language due to their limited proficiency in either language (Ronald C. Burdett, personal communication, 2009). This situation suggested that the structure of the school's 'Y' system was fundamentally detrimental to the students' success.
Did You Know?
In 2005, the Utah School for the Deaf held its reunion at the Robert G. Sanderson Community Center of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing. During the event, Ronald "Ron" Burdett and Celia May Laramie Baldwin discussed the 1962 student strike, a significant event that had a profound and lasting impact on the school's history. They shared their experiences with the alums in attendance. At the time of the strike, the teachers were unaware of Johnny P. Murray's role as the leader, as the students had chosen not to reveal their identities. Duane Harrison, a retired hearing teacher from the Utah School for the Deaf, learned about Ron's announcement during the reunion and remarked, "Now I know who started the strike" (Johnny P. Murray, personal communication, September 2007).
Duane Harrison
*****
The Videos of the
1962 Student Protest
1962 Student Protest
In 1962, the Utah School for the Deaf implemented a dual-track program policy that prohibited students who communicated orally from interacting with those who used sign language. We have included videos of former students from the school who protested against this segregation system on the Ogden's residential campus. It's important to acknowledge that participants' memories may vary due to the passage of time. They shared their stories as they remember them, which has helped us understand and appreciate their compelling experiences.
Your story has the power to inspire and educate others. We would love to hear from you if you were a protester in 1962 or 1969. If you have any videos of yourself from that time, please email them to me at [email protected]. Additionally, I would be happy to record a video of you recounting your experience as a protester. Thank you for considering sharing your impactful story with us.
Your story has the power to inspire and educate others. We would love to hear from you if you were a protester in 1962 or 1969. If you have any videos of yourself from that time, please email them to me at [email protected]. Additionally, I would be happy to record a video of you recounting your experience as a protester. Thank you for considering sharing your impactful story with us.
In 1962, Ronald C. Burdett, a 1965 graduate,
participated in a student strike with other high school
students at the Utah School for the Deaf.
participated in a student strike with other high school
students at the Utah School for the Deaf.
Standing is Wallace Bruce, an oral teacher with students, Ronald C. Burdett (left) and Thomas Rulon Osmond (right), listening to the music, 1959
Celia May Laramie Baldwin, a 1965 graduate
of the Utah School for the Deaf, participated in a
student strike with other high school students in 1962.
of the Utah School for the Deaf, participated in a
student strike with other high school students in 1962.
Celia May Laramie Baldwin, age 4 in 1951. 'U' Workshop Brings Hopes. Source: Newspaper unknown
Nelle Sausedo, a 1967 graduate of the
Utah School for the Deaf, was one of the students
who participated in the 1962 student strike.
Utah School for the Deaf, was one of the students
who participated in the 1962 student strike.
Nellie Sausedo. Source: The Utah Eagle, November 1977
Acknowledgment
I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to Nellie Sausedo, a remarkable individual who graduated from the Utah School for the Deaf in 1967. Her contribution to this webpage is truly invaluable, as she shared her personal experience of the 1962 student strike at the school. Her story gave us a unique perspective on establishing the dual-track program, which divided the oral and sign language departments. Nellie was known for having an "elephant mind," and her enthusiasm for sharing stories about the school and its impact on students like herself is truly inspiring. If it weren't for her, this webpage would not have happened. Nellie, we are immensely grateful to you for playing a significant role in preserving and sharing this important story. Thank you so much, Nellie!
Did You Know?
When the Utah School for the Deaf split its educational program into two groups—oral and simultaneous communication—it resulted in traumatic experiences for students like Rosa Marie Flores Rathbun. Rosa Marie Flores Rathbun was not the only one to experience separation from her classmates and friends. The students were confused about the school's decision. Rosa believed that the division was based on how skilled or inept the children were perceived to be.
Rosa became a Deaf Mentor in October 1993. As an adult reflecting on her past, she wished that the Deaf Mentor Program had existed earlier. She believed that such a program would have alleviated the pain and frustration caused by the program's division.
Through her work mentoring hearing parents, Rosa realized how much guidance and support these parents need to feel comfortable with their Deaf children. Deaf Mentors play a crucial role in teaching parents how to communicate with their children from a very young age (Rathbun, UAD Bulletin, December 1994).
Rosa became a Deaf Mentor in October 1993. As an adult reflecting on her past, she wished that the Deaf Mentor Program had existed earlier. She believed that such a program would have alleviated the pain and frustration caused by the program's division.
Through her work mentoring hearing parents, Rosa realized how much guidance and support these parents need to feel comfortable with their Deaf children. Deaf Mentors play a crucial role in teaching parents how to communicate with their children from a very young age (Rathbun, UAD Bulletin, December 1994).
Rosa Marie Flores Rathbum
Acknowledgment
I would like to thank my father-in-law, Kenneth L. Kinner, for sharing information about the dual-track and two-track programs at the Utah School for the Deaf, as well as the impact of the "Y" system. As the father of two Deaf children, Deanne and Duane, his first-hand experience within the system was a valuable source of information. While documenting historical events, I became fascinated by the segregation programs at Ogden's residential campus and explored them further; however, I could not find any documents that validated the existence of the "Y" system that Ken had mentioned. My search led me to Dr. Grant B. Bitter's papers that he donated to the J. Willard Marriott Library at the University of Utah. His paper played a crucial role in validating the existence of the "Y" system, shedding light on a previously unknown aspect of Deaf education history. One of his papers stated, "Thus there would be a true dual system rather than the present 'Y' system that forces all parents to place their children under oral programs until the 6th grade or 7th grade year." The date on which Dr. Bitter wrote his paper about this program is unknown. It appears that Dr. Bitter penned his paper in the early 1970s to prepare for the meeting that followed the replacement of the dual-track program with a two-track program, which eliminated the "Y" system in 1970. So, I'm grateful to Ken for telling me about the "Y" system and how it affected many families. Otherwise, we would not have known about it or understood what "Y" means when we ran across Dr. Bitter's paper.
Kenneth L. Kinner
When Steven W. Noyce became superintendent of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind in 2009, his support for oral and mainstream education raised concerns within the Utah Deaf community. As a parent of Deaf children, I was worried that Superintendent Noyce would carry on Dr. Grant B. Bitter's legacy by promoting oral education and mainstreaming all Deaf children in Utah. I raised this issue with Steven Noyce and Associate Superintendent Jennifer Howell in a letter on November 3, 2009. I knew that Steven, a former student of Dr. Bitter's Oral Training Program at the University of Utah and a longtime employee at the Utah School for the Deaf, was well aware of the controversy between the oral and sign language approaches. To protect the ASL/English bilingual program, I detailed Dr. Grant B. Bitter's controversial history of oral and mainstreaming advocacy, as well as the profound impact of the dual-track and two-track programs at the Utah School for the Deaf. I recommended providing an equal balance between the ASL/English bilingual and listening and spoken language options for families of Deaf children, emphasizing the importance of this balanced approach in ensuring the best education for our children. I also requested preventive measures to avoid similar issues resurfacing. Steven acknowledged the accuracy of the information and said, "This is the most accurate paper I have ever read." This acknowledgment of the paper's credibility underscores the importance of our advocacy efforts. I owe a debt of gratitude to my father-in-law, Kenneth L. Kinner, for sharing this crucial history with me. His insights and knowledge have proven invaluable in our advocacy efforts for Deaf education. Without his help, we would not have been able to oppose the oral agenda. Thank you, Ken!
Dr. Grant B. Bitter's paper. Source: J. Willard Marriott Library at the University of Utah
*****
Students' Successes Among Those Who Used Sign Language
During a time of significant change, Celia May Laramie and Ronald C. Burdett were finishing their junior year at the Utah School for the Deaf. Both Celia May and Ronald were curious about Gallaudet College, so they attended its 100th reunion in 1964. Gallaudet is the only liberal arts university for the Deaf in the United States. After their visit, they were enthusiastic about the prospect of attending college (Celia May Baldwin, personal communication, April 15, 2012). They enrolled in a college preparatory course at Gallaudet to prepare for college-level work the following year. After successfully passing their entrance exams, they traveled to Washington, D.C., and Gallaudet in the summer of 1965 (UAD Bulletin, Fall 1966). Their parents encouraged them to "take the plunge."
Both graduated from Gallaudet in 1970 and went on to earn master's degrees at various universities across the country. They enjoyed successful careers:
Ronald Burdett became a professor and dean of Deaf Studies and Special Services at Ohlone College in Fremont, California. He later served as the coordinator of the Sanderson Community Center of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing in St. George, Utah. Eventually, he became the Vice President of Community Relations at Sorenson Communications in Salt Lake City, Utah.
Both graduated from Gallaudet in 1970 and went on to earn master's degrees at various universities across the country. They enjoyed successful careers:
Ronald Burdett became a professor and dean of Deaf Studies and Special Services at Ohlone College in Fremont, California. He later served as the coordinator of the Sanderson Community Center of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing in St. George, Utah. Eventually, he became the Vice President of Community Relations at Sorenson Communications in Salt Lake City, Utah.
Ronald C. Burdett. Photo in courtesy of Sorenson Communications Inc
Celia May Laramie Baldwin worked as a teacher at the Utah School for the Deaf before becoming a teacher, principal, and dean of Student Life at the California School for the Deaf in Fremont, California. She also served as the interim chairperson of the Gallaudet University Board of Trustees.
Ron and Celia May show how Deaf students can thrive when they use sign language. They are great examples of how successful signers can go to college and inspire young Deaf people, proving what they can achieve with access to a sign language!
Ron and Celia May show how Deaf students can thrive when they use sign language. They are great examples of how successful signers can go to college and inspire young Deaf people, proving what they can achieve with access to a sign language!
Celia May Laramie Baldwin. Source: The UAD Bulletin, Fall 1969
The Impact of Oral Education
on the Utah School for the Deaf
on the Utah School for the Deaf
In 1962, the University of Utah established an oral training program within the Special Education Department as part of the implementation of the dual-track program. The Utah School for the Deaf utilized this program to expand its oral program (The Utah Eagle, February 1968). This program, often referred to as an "army of oral teachers," created employment opportunities at the school. Ogden's residential campus and all extension classrooms also adopted the oral education approach. However, the surplus of orally trained teachers led to a shift away from sign language and non-academic training, raising concerns among Deaf education professionals and families who advocated for the use of sign language.
The Utah School for the Deaf fully embraced the philosophy and teaching methods of oral education, emphasizing the importance of early exposure to speaking and listening for effective communication and for the development of listening skills in children. In 1963, the Conference of Executives of American Schools for the Deaf commended the University of Utah's Oral Deaf Education Department (Survey of Program for Preparation of Teachers of the Deaf at the University of Utah, 1963). The University of Utah's Oral Deaf Education Department received this recognition during a period when oral education dominated Deaf education, both in Utah and nationwide.
The Utah School for the Deaf fully embraced the philosophy and teaching methods of oral education, emphasizing the importance of early exposure to speaking and listening for effective communication and for the development of listening skills in children. In 1963, the Conference of Executives of American Schools for the Deaf commended the University of Utah's Oral Deaf Education Department (Survey of Program for Preparation of Teachers of the Deaf at the University of Utah, 1963). The University of Utah's Oral Deaf Education Department received this recognition during a period when oral education dominated Deaf education, both in Utah and nationwide.
Did You Know?
In 1985, Dr. Grant B. Bitter reported in his Summary of Tenure Report that his teacher training program at the University of Utah was highly respected both nationally and internationally. Since its inception in 1962, approximately 145 graduates have entered the job market. Although the program was relatively small compared to others, Dr. Bitter believed in its quality, with an average of 5 to 7 graduates per year.
Dr. Bitter further noted that about one-third of the teaching and supervisory staff at the Utah School for the Deaf, as well as many educators in various Utah school districts, were graduates of his program. These individuals were employed across approximately 25 states and had taught or were teaching in countries such as Africa, Australia, Canada, Finland, Japan, and Mexico (Bitter, Summary Report for Tenure, 1985).
Dr. Bitter further noted that about one-third of the teaching and supervisory staff at the Utah School for the Deaf, as well as many educators in various Utah school districts, were graduates of his program. These individuals were employed across approximately 25 states and had taught or were teaching in countries such as Africa, Australia, Canada, Finland, Japan, and Mexico (Bitter, Summary Report for Tenure, 1985).
Attack on a Different Front
In October 1962, parents who supported sign language informed the Utah Association of the Deaf (UAD) about a letter advocating and endorsing the implementation of oral education at the Utah School for the Deaf. This letter was addressed to the parents of Deaf children enrolled in the Oral Program at the Utah School for the Deaf and its extension classrooms. The UAD published the entire letter on page 3 of the Fall-Winter 1962 issue of the UAD Bulletin. It remains unclear who wrote the 'Open Letter' to parents or who served on the council that promoted it.
The UAD Bulletin
UTAH COUNCIL FOR THE DEAF
Dear Parents,
After several years of work, the Utah School for the Deaf finally inaugurated this year a dual program which gives parents a choice as to the type of education their children are to receive at the school. For the first time, parents who chose the oral program have found their children in an oral environment not only in the classrooms but in the dormitories, playgrounds, and dining rooms.
The staff has made a sincere effort to encourage oral communication at all times.
As a parent who has indicated an interest in having your child receive a strong oral program, we are sure that you are alarmed at recent events which have transpired at the Utah School for the Deaf in Ogden.
It is apparent that certain individuals in the adult deaf groups and some of the older group of students who are long-time trouble-makers in the non-oral department at the school have dedicated themselves to killing this program before it has a chance to prove its merits. To many parents who are somewhat undecided, they have made an aggressive campaign in order to cloud the issues. They make no attempt to hide their plan to foment disunity at the school and press for dismissal of the administrators and some school personnel who are trying to help us with the program. From information we have obtained, it is clear that they intend to make it impossible for Riley School to develop its present program.
If there is a change of administration at the State School, there is serious doubt whether any orally-trained or -inclined replacement teachers would be willing to come into a state where the education of the deaf is in the hands of a few antagonistic deaf alumni and a few disgruntled parents. Through control of hiring replacement teachers, an unsympathetic administration would be able to destroy the program without coming into the open.
After having planned and put into operation the present fine program, we will not willingly nor quietly lose what we have put forth so much effort to accomplish.
The State Board of Education is being subjected to tremendous pressure from the adult Deaf. One board member wants to eliminate or seriously hamper efforts to maintain the oral department at the State School for the Deaf. He has made no secret of his dislike for the day school program in Salt Lake City and any further expansion in oral education.
If we are to save the present oral program, it is imperative that you make your feelings known individually to the following board members:
(Names and addresses of nine board members, plus Dr. Marion G. Merkeley and Dr. Marsden B. Stokes are listed).
It may be necessary for us to appear in person before the board to demand that the adults deaf terminate entirely their efforts to control and administer the education program of our children in the Utah Schools and that the administration be left in the hands of those trained and hired for that job.
Trained oral teachers and administrators will not and cannot remain in our schools when they are subjected to continual harassment, personal attack, and degradation.
Once again, we are fighting for the survival of the present program. Write your letter now!
Sincerely yours,
Utah Council of the Deaf
(The UAD Bulletin, Fall-Winter 1962)
After several years of work, the Utah School for the Deaf finally inaugurated this year a dual program which gives parents a choice as to the type of education their children are to receive at the school. For the first time, parents who chose the oral program have found their children in an oral environment not only in the classrooms but in the dormitories, playgrounds, and dining rooms.
The staff has made a sincere effort to encourage oral communication at all times.
As a parent who has indicated an interest in having your child receive a strong oral program, we are sure that you are alarmed at recent events which have transpired at the Utah School for the Deaf in Ogden.
It is apparent that certain individuals in the adult deaf groups and some of the older group of students who are long-time trouble-makers in the non-oral department at the school have dedicated themselves to killing this program before it has a chance to prove its merits. To many parents who are somewhat undecided, they have made an aggressive campaign in order to cloud the issues. They make no attempt to hide their plan to foment disunity at the school and press for dismissal of the administrators and some school personnel who are trying to help us with the program. From information we have obtained, it is clear that they intend to make it impossible for Riley School to develop its present program.
If there is a change of administration at the State School, there is serious doubt whether any orally-trained or -inclined replacement teachers would be willing to come into a state where the education of the deaf is in the hands of a few antagonistic deaf alumni and a few disgruntled parents. Through control of hiring replacement teachers, an unsympathetic administration would be able to destroy the program without coming into the open.
After having planned and put into operation the present fine program, we will not willingly nor quietly lose what we have put forth so much effort to accomplish.
The State Board of Education is being subjected to tremendous pressure from the adult Deaf. One board member wants to eliminate or seriously hamper efforts to maintain the oral department at the State School for the Deaf. He has made no secret of his dislike for the day school program in Salt Lake City and any further expansion in oral education.
If we are to save the present oral program, it is imperative that you make your feelings known individually to the following board members:
(Names and addresses of nine board members, plus Dr. Marion G. Merkeley and Dr. Marsden B. Stokes are listed).
It may be necessary for us to appear in person before the board to demand that the adults deaf terminate entirely their efforts to control and administer the education program of our children in the Utah Schools and that the administration be left in the hands of those trained and hired for that job.
Trained oral teachers and administrators will not and cannot remain in our schools when they are subjected to continual harassment, personal attack, and degradation.
Once again, we are fighting for the survival of the present program. Write your letter now!
Sincerely yours,
Utah Council of the Deaf
(The UAD Bulletin, Fall-Winter 1962)
'The Utah Council for the Deaf.' Source: The UAD Bulletin, Fall-Winter 1962, p. 3
The Utah Association of the Deaf
Responds to the Utah Council for the Deaf
Responds to the Utah Council for the Deaf
The Utah Association of the Deaf (UAD) expressed concerns regarding a letter published by the Utah Council for the Deaf. They feared it could negatively impact the Utah School for the Deaf, as well as its administrators, teachers, students, and Deaf adults. Since both the Utah State Board of Education and the State Superintendent of Public Instruction received copies of the letter, the UAD deemed it unnecessary to dispute its contents.
However, to reassure parents and clarify the situation, the UAD chose to respond to the Utah Council for the Deaf's open letter by publishing an article titled "Who's For the Deaf?" in the Fall-Winter 1962 issue of The UAD Bulletin. This article provided a Deaf perspective in response to the Council's letter. The UAD felt that members of the Council, who had firsthand experience in the Deaf school system, might better understand the UAD's viewpoints on the matter.
According to the UAD, the Utah Council for the Deaf lacked an understanding of what it is like to live with hearing loss, as there were no Deaf members to share their experiences. While the Council established goals for all Deaf individuals, the UAD believed their focus was primarily on undermining educational approaches that did not align with their views.
The UAD emphasized that, as an organization representing Deaf and hard-of-hearing adults, it advocated for a fair assessment of the Utah School for the Deaf's dual-track program, including an evaluation of the oral program. They criticized the strict prohibition against signing in front of oral students, which led to their complete isolation. This segregation also affected religious activities, hindered athletic programs, and placed significant pressure on oral students to refrain from using sign language both inside and outside of the classroom. The Utah Council of the Deaf labeled Deaf students who opposed this segregated environment as "troublemakers," a characterization that the UAD found insensitive and disrespectful.
Furthermore, the UAD rejected the accusation that Deaf adults were aggressively trying to conceal the issues at hand. They argued that Deaf adults with college degrees were providing guidance to parents who struggled to understand the implications of their decisions regarding their children's education.
The Utah Council of the Deaf described the Deaf community as "antagonistic" and referred to hearing parents who disagreed with them as "disgruntled," which the UAD considered defamatory. This negative characterization of those who opposed their views raised questions about the Council's willingness to consider the perspectives of the Utah Association of the Deaf, the Deaf community, or signing parents. It appeared that they had little interest in collaborating to find solutions.
The Utah Council of the Deaf claimed that an attack occurred against Riley Elementary School's oral day school program; however, this assertion was both unexpected and false. The UAD clarified that they do not oppose the Riley School's Deaf Day program or any effective programs that train Deaf education teachers. Instead, the UAD expressed opposition to Deaf day schools that lack qualified staff, provide insufficient grade advancement, and fail to offer vocational training opportunities and social activities.
The UAD raised concerns about various oral programs in Utah day schools that employ untrained staff and hoped these issues would not affect Riley. Unfortunately, the Utah Council for the Deaf misinterpreted this warning as a call to end the Riley School's Oral Program, which misrepresented the facts. The UAD did not threaten the school's oral program.
In response to the Utah Council of the Deaf's statement that "Trained oral teachers and administrators will not and cannot remain in our schools when they are subject to constant harassment, personal attacks, and degradation," the UAD acknowledged the persecution faced by some sign language teachers but had not been informed about any issues regarding oral language teachers. They urged parents to "demand that deaf adults cease their efforts to control and oversee our children's education program entirely." This response reflects the UAD's longstanding policy advocating for the quality of Deaf education, particularly regarding sign language. The UAD believed that Deaf students in their schools deserve the best possible education to become self-sufficient and valued members of the community.
The UAD felt it was their duty and right as citizens to educate the public about Deaf concerns and provide progressive information regarding Deaf education. They would rather not see graduates from Utah schools become welfare recipients. Deaf adults in the community recognized the potential for better outcomes for young Deaf individuals. They were eager to share their insights with the State Office of Education and the Utah School for the Deaf.
The UAD agreed with the Utah Council for the Deaf that the Utah State Board of Education should oversee and supervise the Deaf educational program at the Utah School for the Deaf. Superintendent Robert W. Tegeder was responsible for its implementation. The UAD clarified that Deaf individuals did not have control over or operate the educational program, as it was assumed by the Utah Council for the Deaf (The UAD Bulletin, Fall-Winter 1962, p. 2–3).
However, to reassure parents and clarify the situation, the UAD chose to respond to the Utah Council for the Deaf's open letter by publishing an article titled "Who's For the Deaf?" in the Fall-Winter 1962 issue of The UAD Bulletin. This article provided a Deaf perspective in response to the Council's letter. The UAD felt that members of the Council, who had firsthand experience in the Deaf school system, might better understand the UAD's viewpoints on the matter.
According to the UAD, the Utah Council for the Deaf lacked an understanding of what it is like to live with hearing loss, as there were no Deaf members to share their experiences. While the Council established goals for all Deaf individuals, the UAD believed their focus was primarily on undermining educational approaches that did not align with their views.
The UAD emphasized that, as an organization representing Deaf and hard-of-hearing adults, it advocated for a fair assessment of the Utah School for the Deaf's dual-track program, including an evaluation of the oral program. They criticized the strict prohibition against signing in front of oral students, which led to their complete isolation. This segregation also affected religious activities, hindered athletic programs, and placed significant pressure on oral students to refrain from using sign language both inside and outside of the classroom. The Utah Council of the Deaf labeled Deaf students who opposed this segregated environment as "troublemakers," a characterization that the UAD found insensitive and disrespectful.
Furthermore, the UAD rejected the accusation that Deaf adults were aggressively trying to conceal the issues at hand. They argued that Deaf adults with college degrees were providing guidance to parents who struggled to understand the implications of their decisions regarding their children's education.
The Utah Council of the Deaf described the Deaf community as "antagonistic" and referred to hearing parents who disagreed with them as "disgruntled," which the UAD considered defamatory. This negative characterization of those who opposed their views raised questions about the Council's willingness to consider the perspectives of the Utah Association of the Deaf, the Deaf community, or signing parents. It appeared that they had little interest in collaborating to find solutions.
The Utah Council of the Deaf claimed that an attack occurred against Riley Elementary School's oral day school program; however, this assertion was both unexpected and false. The UAD clarified that they do not oppose the Riley School's Deaf Day program or any effective programs that train Deaf education teachers. Instead, the UAD expressed opposition to Deaf day schools that lack qualified staff, provide insufficient grade advancement, and fail to offer vocational training opportunities and social activities.
The UAD raised concerns about various oral programs in Utah day schools that employ untrained staff and hoped these issues would not affect Riley. Unfortunately, the Utah Council for the Deaf misinterpreted this warning as a call to end the Riley School's Oral Program, which misrepresented the facts. The UAD did not threaten the school's oral program.
In response to the Utah Council of the Deaf's statement that "Trained oral teachers and administrators will not and cannot remain in our schools when they are subject to constant harassment, personal attacks, and degradation," the UAD acknowledged the persecution faced by some sign language teachers but had not been informed about any issues regarding oral language teachers. They urged parents to "demand that deaf adults cease their efforts to control and oversee our children's education program entirely." This response reflects the UAD's longstanding policy advocating for the quality of Deaf education, particularly regarding sign language. The UAD believed that Deaf students in their schools deserve the best possible education to become self-sufficient and valued members of the community.
The UAD felt it was their duty and right as citizens to educate the public about Deaf concerns and provide progressive information regarding Deaf education. They would rather not see graduates from Utah schools become welfare recipients. Deaf adults in the community recognized the potential for better outcomes for young Deaf individuals. They were eager to share their insights with the State Office of Education and the Utah School for the Deaf.
The UAD agreed with the Utah Council for the Deaf that the Utah State Board of Education should oversee and supervise the Deaf educational program at the Utah School for the Deaf. Superintendent Robert W. Tegeder was responsible for its implementation. The UAD clarified that Deaf individuals did not have control over or operate the educational program, as it was assumed by the Utah Council for the Deaf (The UAD Bulletin, Fall-Winter 1962, p. 2–3).
Who's for the Deaf?' Source: The UAD Bulletin, Fall-Winter 1962, p. 2
Who's for the Deaf?' Source: The UAD Bulletin, Fall-Winter 1962, p. 3
Who's for the Deaf?' Source: The UAD Bulletin, Fall-Winter 1962, p. 3
An Oral Advocate Parent Wrote a Letter to Robert G. Sanderson,
President of the Utah Association for the Deaf
President of the Utah Association for the Deaf
Despite the Utah Association for the Deaf's response in the fall-winter of 1962, which clarified the harmful effects of the Utah Council for the Deaf's Open Letter on the Utah School for the Deaf and the broader Utah Deaf community, one parent remained misinformed. On April 25, 1963, D'On Reese, the mother of a Deaf son named Norman, who was enrolled in the Oral Program at the Utah School for the Deaf in Ogden, Utah, expressed her concerns in a letter to Robert G. Sanderson. She believed that the Utah Association for the Deaf was still working to undermine oralism. Her letter, along with Robert's response, was published in the UAD Bulletin during the summer of 1963. The letters are included below.
Robert G. Sanderson, UAD President. Source: The UAD Bulletin, Summer 1993
Dear Mr. Sanderson:
I really enjoy reading your UAD Bulletin. I’ve never seen so much nonsense put together. It really makes for funny reading.
Why don’t you put your time to good use, instead of just trying to find ways of get rid of oralism?
I have a son in the oral department of the Utah School for the Deaf. And I have not heard one parent that has a child in that school say anything against oralism. It’s just you adult Deaf.
I don’t know what satisfaction it gives you to try to stop oralism. As long as I’m alive, (I’m a lot younger than you) you’ll have me to fight, if you expect to get rid of oralism.
The only time that I feel bad about my son being deaf is for fear he might meet up with ignorant people like you.
When you wrote to Dr. Greenaway at the Yorkshire School for the Deaf, did you inform him that the parents at our school are perfectly satisfied with what they have?
Did you tell him that it’s just you meddling outsiders, that are afraid that our children might be getting something better than you did, that are upset?
Did you tell him that you went to the school board members last fall and tried to stop our oral program?
Did you tell him that you got ahold of our students last fall and staged a walk -out to get rid of oralism?
Did you tell him that you circulated a letter to our legislators to try and get our budget for the school cut so that we can’t have qualified teachers?
Where has all of this gotten you?
Our oral department is still there and I think it will be there after you’re long gone.
Do you see us oral parents going around trying to chop your fingers off so you can’t sign?
I’m perfectly willing to let the simultaneous dept. stay at our school.
Those people who are too lazy to learn to talk need it.
We’re not bothering you so why don’t you leave us alone?
We are the ones that brought these deaf children into the world. We are the ones who have stayed awake at nights trying to decide what’s best for them. We’ve looked at both sides of the ways to teach our children and we have come to the conclusion that oralism is best.
Are you willing for me to tell you how to educate your hearing children?
According to you I have every right to because I can hear and you can’t.
We have a wonderful administration at our school and very good teachers. Now if you’ll just leave them and our children alone, we’ll be most grateful.
When we need your help, we’ll ask for it.
Sincerely yours,
D’On Reese
Smithfield, R.F.D. #1 Utah
(The UAD Bulletin, Summer 1963, p. 2 & 14)
I really enjoy reading your UAD Bulletin. I’ve never seen so much nonsense put together. It really makes for funny reading.
Why don’t you put your time to good use, instead of just trying to find ways of get rid of oralism?
I have a son in the oral department of the Utah School for the Deaf. And I have not heard one parent that has a child in that school say anything against oralism. It’s just you adult Deaf.
I don’t know what satisfaction it gives you to try to stop oralism. As long as I’m alive, (I’m a lot younger than you) you’ll have me to fight, if you expect to get rid of oralism.
The only time that I feel bad about my son being deaf is for fear he might meet up with ignorant people like you.
When you wrote to Dr. Greenaway at the Yorkshire School for the Deaf, did you inform him that the parents at our school are perfectly satisfied with what they have?
Did you tell him that it’s just you meddling outsiders, that are afraid that our children might be getting something better than you did, that are upset?
Did you tell him that you went to the school board members last fall and tried to stop our oral program?
Did you tell him that you got ahold of our students last fall and staged a walk -out to get rid of oralism?
Did you tell him that you circulated a letter to our legislators to try and get our budget for the school cut so that we can’t have qualified teachers?
Where has all of this gotten you?
Our oral department is still there and I think it will be there after you’re long gone.
Do you see us oral parents going around trying to chop your fingers off so you can’t sign?
I’m perfectly willing to let the simultaneous dept. stay at our school.
Those people who are too lazy to learn to talk need it.
We’re not bothering you so why don’t you leave us alone?
We are the ones that brought these deaf children into the world. We are the ones who have stayed awake at nights trying to decide what’s best for them. We’ve looked at both sides of the ways to teach our children and we have come to the conclusion that oralism is best.
Are you willing for me to tell you how to educate your hearing children?
According to you I have every right to because I can hear and you can’t.
We have a wonderful administration at our school and very good teachers. Now if you’ll just leave them and our children alone, we’ll be most grateful.
When we need your help, we’ll ask for it.
Sincerely yours,
D’On Reese
Smithfield, R.F.D. #1 Utah
(The UAD Bulletin, Summer 1963, p. 2 & 14)
'D'On Reese.' Source: The UAD Bulletin, Summer 1963, p. 2
'D'On Reese.' Source: The UAD Bulletin, Summer 1963, p. 14
Utah Association for the Deaf President Robert G. Sanderson
Responds to a Parent's Letter
Responds to a Parent's Letter
Dear Mrs. Reese:
Thank you very much for your letter of April 25. As you requested, we shall publish it in full, verbatim.
The UAD welcomes expressions of opinions from parents, teachers, professional educators, and individuals of every philosophy. The pages of the UAD Bulletin are always open to those who wish to be heard.
Membership in the Association entitles one to attend meetings, propose and discuss policies and actions. Where a majority of the membership does not agree with the policies and actions of the officers, they may exercise the American right of “voting them out” at regularly scheduled elections. We would welcome your attendance at our forthcoming convention and would give you and any other parent an opportunity to be heard at the proper time and in proper order; the same privileges are extended to all registered members.
Contrary to the belief of oralists that the adult deaf oppose oral instruction, we certainly do not. It has its place in the curriculum, for those who can benefit from it, along with reading, writing, arithmetic, history, geography, science, and all of the other subjects a school must teach. What the adult deaf do oppose is disproportionate attention to speech and lip-reading aspects, to the extent that the assimilation of subject matter becomes so difficult and so delayed that the total education of the deaf child suffers.
We adult deaf are interested in seeing deaf children acquire the best possible education as well as seeing them learn to speak. As we have learned in our personal lives, covering in the aggregate hundreds of years of experience in coping with the multitudinous socio-economic problems of deafness on a day-to-day basis, speech and lip-reading, while useful, solve no basic problems. The quality and the amount of education received, academically and vocationally, are what count.
I sincerely hope that your deaf son can profit by total oralism. Some children can and some cannot and any professional educator, if he is honest, will tell you so. If it should become apparent to you that your boy’s progress is not what it should be or what you expect or that his happiness (which is so close to your heart) is at stake, then perhaps your love for him would suggest another approach – one that guarantees to him an immediate means of expressing himself. The satisfaction of early and full self expression cannot be overestimated in its value to a well-adjusted child.
It should be remembered that we deaf adults had parents, many of whom once felt as you do, so we understand and appreciate your position.
Where the official position of the Association is concerned, I would suggest that you ascertain the facts with reference to other matters you mention in your letter. However, any member of our association, regardless of his office, may act individually as his conscience so dictates since he is also a taxpayer with those certain rights and privileges we value here in America. If any of our members choose to petition legislators against further spending on education, building, or any other phase of government and has his reasons, he is a free agent. His personal stand is not necessarily that of the association.
I must deny, publicly and categorically, in the strongest possible terms, that the Utah Association for the Deaf had anything to do with the student strike at the school last fall. The strike was spontaneous – a reaction of the students against conditions, restrictions, and personalities, which they felt, had become intolerable. The State Board of Education investigated and failed to turn up any connection between the students and the UAD. Severe pressures brought to bear on student leaders also failed to establish any connection. There was one coincidence: A member of our association happened to be at the school on a business matter (verifiable) and out of this coincidence some rather wild rumors grew.
I honestly believe that the adult deaf and parents of deaf children should work together closely toward the better education of deaf children. Working at cross-purposes merely ensures continuing and futile disputes.
Sincerely yours,
Robert G. Sanderson
President
(Sanderson, The UAD Bulletin, Summer 1963, p. 14)
Thank you very much for your letter of April 25. As you requested, we shall publish it in full, verbatim.
The UAD welcomes expressions of opinions from parents, teachers, professional educators, and individuals of every philosophy. The pages of the UAD Bulletin are always open to those who wish to be heard.
Membership in the Association entitles one to attend meetings, propose and discuss policies and actions. Where a majority of the membership does not agree with the policies and actions of the officers, they may exercise the American right of “voting them out” at regularly scheduled elections. We would welcome your attendance at our forthcoming convention and would give you and any other parent an opportunity to be heard at the proper time and in proper order; the same privileges are extended to all registered members.
Contrary to the belief of oralists that the adult deaf oppose oral instruction, we certainly do not. It has its place in the curriculum, for those who can benefit from it, along with reading, writing, arithmetic, history, geography, science, and all of the other subjects a school must teach. What the adult deaf do oppose is disproportionate attention to speech and lip-reading aspects, to the extent that the assimilation of subject matter becomes so difficult and so delayed that the total education of the deaf child suffers.
We adult deaf are interested in seeing deaf children acquire the best possible education as well as seeing them learn to speak. As we have learned in our personal lives, covering in the aggregate hundreds of years of experience in coping with the multitudinous socio-economic problems of deafness on a day-to-day basis, speech and lip-reading, while useful, solve no basic problems. The quality and the amount of education received, academically and vocationally, are what count.
I sincerely hope that your deaf son can profit by total oralism. Some children can and some cannot and any professional educator, if he is honest, will tell you so. If it should become apparent to you that your boy’s progress is not what it should be or what you expect or that his happiness (which is so close to your heart) is at stake, then perhaps your love for him would suggest another approach – one that guarantees to him an immediate means of expressing himself. The satisfaction of early and full self expression cannot be overestimated in its value to a well-adjusted child.
It should be remembered that we deaf adults had parents, many of whom once felt as you do, so we understand and appreciate your position.
Where the official position of the Association is concerned, I would suggest that you ascertain the facts with reference to other matters you mention in your letter. However, any member of our association, regardless of his office, may act individually as his conscience so dictates since he is also a taxpayer with those certain rights and privileges we value here in America. If any of our members choose to petition legislators against further spending on education, building, or any other phase of government and has his reasons, he is a free agent. His personal stand is not necessarily that of the association.
I must deny, publicly and categorically, in the strongest possible terms, that the Utah Association for the Deaf had anything to do with the student strike at the school last fall. The strike was spontaneous – a reaction of the students against conditions, restrictions, and personalities, which they felt, had become intolerable. The State Board of Education investigated and failed to turn up any connection between the students and the UAD. Severe pressures brought to bear on student leaders also failed to establish any connection. There was one coincidence: A member of our association happened to be at the school on a business matter (verifiable) and out of this coincidence some rather wild rumors grew.
I honestly believe that the adult deaf and parents of deaf children should work together closely toward the better education of deaf children. Working at cross-purposes merely ensures continuing and futile disputes.
Sincerely yours,
Robert G. Sanderson
President
(Sanderson, The UAD Bulletin, Summer 1963, p. 14)
Robert G. Sanderson. Source: The UAD Bulletin, Summer 1963, p. 14
Robert G. Sanderson. Source: The UAD Bulletin, Summer 1963, p. 14
Dr. Robert G. Sanderson. Source: The UAD Bulletin, Fall-Winter 1962
Did You Know?
When Deaf visitors from out of state learned about the dual-track program at the Utah School for the Deaf, they often expressed disbelief. They questioned why the state school for the deaf oversees the oral program instead of the public schools. After all, they believed that if parents wanted their children to be fully integrated into the hearing world, Deaf children should attend public schools without needing additional support from the state school (UAD Bulletin, February 1996). This skepticism highlighted a broader debate about the most effective educational approaches for Deaf children and the role of specialized institutions. Many advocates argued that programs at dedicated schools were essential for providing tailored support that public schools often could not offer.
The Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf
Conference in Salt Lake City, Utah
Conference in Salt Lake City, Utah
The Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf (AGB) is dedicated to supporting and empowering individuals affected by hearing loss. Its mission is to enhance the educational, vocational, and social opportunities of Deaf children and adults in a hearing world. To achieve this, the organization assists with speech therapy, lip-reading instruction, and amplification for those with residual hearing.
During the biennial meeting of the Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf in June 1964, held in Salt Lake City, Utah, a new component was inaugurated specifically for orally trained Deaf adults. The aim was for Deaf adults educated in the oral method to share their experiences and provide advice to parents of children attending any of the state's oral programs. This initiative was a unique concept for the national AGB Association, making Utah the first state to implement it.
Notably, the new component included Deaf adults from outside of Utah, including Dr. H. Latham Breunig, who was elected chairman of the Oral Deaf Adult Section; Dr. James C. Marsters, the keynote speaker; Dr. Richard Thompson; and H. William Bernstein. This new section of the AGB provided a platform for adults who are Deaf or hard-of-hearing and choose to communicate in spoken language, speech reading, or hearing amplification to share their experiences.
During a panel discussion at the AGB convention, six oral Deaf adults shared their personal stories and discussed their challenges with a large audience. Parents of Deaf children who attended the event had the opportunity to engage with orally trained Deaf adults during luncheons.
G. Leon Curtis, the president of the Utah Association for the Deaf, also participated in this meeting. He was the younger brother of Afton Curtis, the wife of Kenneth C. Burdett. Other UAD members, including Eugene W. Petersen, Robert G. Sanderson, and Ray G. Wenger, spoke with the founders of the oral Deaf community: Breunig, Marsters, Thompson, and Bernstein. Each of these individuals credited their career success to their oral education. However, the Utah Deaf advocates were concerned that these oral Deaf adults might unduly influence parents to support the oral methodology.
During the biennial meeting of the Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf in June 1964, held in Salt Lake City, Utah, a new component was inaugurated specifically for orally trained Deaf adults. The aim was for Deaf adults educated in the oral method to share their experiences and provide advice to parents of children attending any of the state's oral programs. This initiative was a unique concept for the national AGB Association, making Utah the first state to implement it.
Notably, the new component included Deaf adults from outside of Utah, including Dr. H. Latham Breunig, who was elected chairman of the Oral Deaf Adult Section; Dr. James C. Marsters, the keynote speaker; Dr. Richard Thompson; and H. William Bernstein. This new section of the AGB provided a platform for adults who are Deaf or hard-of-hearing and choose to communicate in spoken language, speech reading, or hearing amplification to share their experiences.
During a panel discussion at the AGB convention, six oral Deaf adults shared their personal stories and discussed their challenges with a large audience. Parents of Deaf children who attended the event had the opportunity to engage with orally trained Deaf adults during luncheons.
G. Leon Curtis, the president of the Utah Association for the Deaf, also participated in this meeting. He was the younger brother of Afton Curtis, the wife of Kenneth C. Burdett. Other UAD members, including Eugene W. Petersen, Robert G. Sanderson, and Ray G. Wenger, spoke with the founders of the oral Deaf community: Breunig, Marsters, Thompson, and Bernstein. Each of these individuals credited their career success to their oral education. However, the Utah Deaf advocates were concerned that these oral Deaf adults might unduly influence parents to support the oral methodology.
G. Leon Curtis. Source: The UAD Bulletin, Winter, 1964
Moreover, UAD leaders were surprised to discover that the oral Deaf adults believed that UAD members were trying to hold back Deaf children's education by teaching them sign language. The UAD representatives clarified that this impression was inaccurate. President Curtis pointed out that many successful Deaf individuals received their education through a combined method that includes both oral instruction and the use of fingerspelling and signs. He explained that while the UAD did not object to the oral method when a Deaf child was making satisfactory progress, issues arose when a child struggled with it. In such cases, a prompt and honest reassessment of the child's educational placement was necessary, a situation the UAD felt was not being adequately addressed at the University of Utah. They believed that timely intervention was crucial to avoid wasting educational years on ineffective oral-based instruction (The Utah Bulletin, Summer 1964, p. 2).
Eugene W. Petersen. Source: The Utah Eagle, April 1955
Controversy at the Parent Teacher Association Functions
During the 1969–1970 school year, the Utah School for the Deaf Parent-Teacher Association (PTA) faced tensions and divisions. Deaf parents gathered in Ogden, Utah, for regular PTA meetings, using sign language to communicate and participate. However, the parents who favored rigorous spoken communication felt uncomfortable watching them sign. This situation sparked conflict between PTA President Linda C. Harrop, a parent of a Deaf child named Troy, who favored oral instruction, and PTA Vice President Kenneth L. Kinner, a parent of two Deaf children, Deanne and Duane, who supported the simultaneous communication philosophy.
There were also disagreements regarding communication philosophy and the structure of the meetings. The front row of seating was reserved for hearing parents, while Deaf parents were asked to sit in the back row with their sign language interpreter to avoid distracting young oral children from seeing sign language. In an attempt to shield their children from exposure to sign language, some parents went so far as to cover them with their coats.
As a result of these dynamics, Deaf parents who advocated for sign language felt unable to express their concerns about educational matters. This sense of oppression negatively impacted students caught in the middle of the conflict between the two groups (Dr. Jay J. Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007; Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011).
There were also disagreements regarding communication philosophy and the structure of the meetings. The front row of seating was reserved for hearing parents, while Deaf parents were asked to sit in the back row with their sign language interpreter to avoid distracting young oral children from seeing sign language. In an attempt to shield their children from exposure to sign language, some parents went so far as to cover them with their coats.
As a result of these dynamics, Deaf parents who advocated for sign language felt unable to express their concerns about educational matters. This sense of oppression negatively impacted students caught in the middle of the conflict between the two groups (Dr. Jay J. Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007; Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011).
Did You Know?
Marjorie Parkin Winegar was a key advocate for enhancing oral education for the deaf in Utah. Appointed by Governor Cal Rampton, she served on the Board of Education for the Alexander Graham Bell Association, where she helped develop and integrate oral curricula for Deaf students in public schools. Additionally, she was the first president of the Parent Teacher Association (PTA) for the Utah School for the Deaf's Extension Divisions in Salt Lake City, Utah. Marjorie lived in Bountiful, Utah. (Obituary: Marjorie Parkin Winegar, Deseret News, October 21, 2001).
The Walkout Strike of 1969
at the Utah School for the Deaf
at the Utah School for the Deaf
Since 1962, the dual-track system at the Utah School for the Deaf has become increasingly complicated. The school maintained separate classrooms, dining halls, dormitory facilities, recess periods, and extracurricular activities for students enrolled in oral and sign language programs. A report in the February 1968 issue of The Utah Eagle described the dual-track program as demanding and challenging, with extended hours of work. The school emphasized that parents, teachers, and administrators must not only cooperate but also fully collaborate for the program to succeed.
One of the biggest challenges was scheduling classes and activities to ensure that all students, regardless of their division, could actively participate in separate classrooms and extracurricular activities that fostered their communicative skills and academic achievement. Additionally, facilities for two separate twenty-four-hour programs were necessary for the dual-track approach to be successful. Collaboration among parents and staff was essential for achieving these goals (The Utah Eagle, February 1968).
One of the biggest challenges was scheduling classes and activities to ensure that all students, regardless of their division, could actively participate in separate classrooms and extracurricular activities that fostered their communicative skills and academic achievement. Additionally, facilities for two separate twenty-four-hour programs were necessary for the dual-track approach to be successful. Collaboration among parents and staff was essential for achieving these goals (The Utah Eagle, February 1968).
Oral Senior Student Council members, from left to right, are Laura Fisher, Pete Mazza, Kathleen Allen, Miss Starr, Advisor, Paul Arthur, Mr. Andersen, Advisor, Rebecca Call, and Tedi Ann Ercanbrack. Source: The Utah Eagle, February 1969
In February 1968, The Utah Eagle reported that the school continued to provide separate facilities for students who either used oral methods or sign language. The objective was to help all students develop their communication skills to their fullest potential. While extracurricular activities were generally divided between the two groups, the athletic program uniquely combined student-athletes from both programs, as there were not enough students in each group to form complete teams (The Utah Eagle, February 1968; Dale R. Cook, Paul Arthur, and Linda Snodgrass James, personal communication, May 29, 2011). After a failed protest in 1962, students at Ogden's residential school demonstrated remarkable resilience in the face of logistical challenges. However, dissatisfaction with the ongoing social segregation of the dual-track program grew, ultimately sparking the protest in 1969.
For six years, the dual-track program had prohibited interaction between oral and signing students on campus. Many students from both programs were tired of the restrictive "no signing" rule imposed by the oral method and the resulting social divide and decided to take action. Between 1966 and 1968, a group of these students met with Principal Tony Christopulos, an advocate for oral education, to propose combining the two departments into one. They felt that the segregation was unnecessary and burdensome. Although Tony listened to the students' concerns and requests, he did not take any action to address the situation (Raymond Monson, personal communication, November 9, 2010). It is not surprising that the students eventually chose to protest.
In May 1969, Paul Arthur, the Student Council president for the oral department, and Smiley Briseno, the Student Council president for the simultaneous communication department, planned a walkout protest. Inspired by the infamous 1962 student strike, the two leaders collaborated with other students to develop a protest strategy. This strike became a significant event in the history of student activism, demonstrating students' collective voice and their ability to effect change. Many participants in the 1969 protest had witnessed the 1962 strike as children, which motivated their own efforts (Raymond Monson, personal communication, November 9, 2010). Arthur and Briseno were the key figures leading the walkout.
For six years, the dual-track program had prohibited interaction between oral and signing students on campus. Many students from both programs were tired of the restrictive "no signing" rule imposed by the oral method and the resulting social divide and decided to take action. Between 1966 and 1968, a group of these students met with Principal Tony Christopulos, an advocate for oral education, to propose combining the two departments into one. They felt that the segregation was unnecessary and burdensome. Although Tony listened to the students' concerns and requests, he did not take any action to address the situation (Raymond Monson, personal communication, November 9, 2010). It is not surprising that the students eventually chose to protest.
In May 1969, Paul Arthur, the Student Council president for the oral department, and Smiley Briseno, the Student Council president for the simultaneous communication department, planned a walkout protest. Inspired by the infamous 1962 student strike, the two leaders collaborated with other students to develop a protest strategy. This strike became a significant event in the history of student activism, demonstrating students' collective voice and their ability to effect change. Many participants in the 1969 protest had witnessed the 1962 strike as children, which motivated their own efforts (Raymond Monson, personal communication, November 9, 2010). Arthur and Briseno were the key figures leading the walkout.
Paul Arthur, Source: The Utah Eagle, April 1968
Three weeks before their high school graduation, students from the oral and simultaneous communication program, fueled by determination, secretly created posters in their dorm rooms. After an early morning seminary class of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, over 100 middle and high school students courageously walked off campus to protest in the flag area outside the Main Building on the Ogden campus. This protest attracted more oral communication students than the 1962 protest, demonstrating their unwavering commitment.
However, Principal Christopulos, who opposed ending the campus's social separation for oral advocacy reasons, was displeased with the students' walkout. He issued an order threatening to revoke the seniors' diplomas if they continued. The seniors were terrified because they needed their diplomas to continue their studies or enter the workforce. The principal's stance created a one-sided dialogue, as he was adamant about maintaining social separation on campus. The situation escalated when Superintendent Robert W. Tegeder canceled the seniors' graduation banquet and refused to listen to student appeals to end social segregation. Fearing punishment and jeopardizing their graduation, the seniors ultimately decided to call off the strike (Dale R. Cook, Paul Arthur, and Linda Snodgrass James, personal communication, May 29, 2011).
Simultaneous Student Council Officers, left to right, Dora Laramie, Advisor; Bridget Laramie, Treasurer; Smiley Briseno, President; Maria Garcia, Secretary; Thomas Van Drimmenlen, Advisor, and Henry Armijo, Vice President, discuss Christmas decorations for the Simultaneous wing of the school building. Source: The Utah Eagle, December 1968
On the Ogden Campus, a walkout took place at the flag area outside the Main Building, as shown in the picture below.
The Main Building of the Utah School for the Deaf, Ogden, Utah
*****
The Video of the
1969 Student Walkout
1969 Student Walkout
Paul Arthur, a 1969 graduate of the Utah School for the Deaf,
was part of the student strike in 1969.
was part of the student strike in 1969.
*****
Raymond Monson’s
Drawing of Dr. Grant B. Bitter
Drawing of Dr. Grant B. Bitter
Raymond Monson, a 1971 graduate of the Utah School for the Deaf, was only 11 years old when he witnessed the student strike at the school in Ogden, Utah, in 1962. He has a deeply personal story to share. After graduating from the Utah School for the Deaf in 1971, he worked at Don Glen's construction company during the summer of 1969. Recently, he formed a friendship with Jonathon Hodson, a Deaf individual who participated in the oral program in the Salt Lake area and also worked for Don Glen. Their shared experiences have brought them closer. During a conversation, they discussed the recent student walkout protest and its failure, as well as the negative impact that Dr. Grant B. Bitter had on Deaf education in Utah.
Raymond vividly remembered Dr. Bitter and his influence on the oral and sign language segregation policy at the Utah School for the Deaf. Dr. Bitter's impact extended beyond the school, affecting the Deaf Seminary Program of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. His support for the policy of segregating the oral and simultaneous communication departments angered Raymond and profoundly affected the signing students, highlighting the injustice of the situation. According to Raymond, Dr. Bitter and the school's oral teachers held a negative attitude toward students who used sign language. The dual-track program also had a ripple effect on the Ogden Branch for the Deaf, located just two blocks away from the residential campus and the seminary class.
Raymond vividly remembered Dr. Bitter and his influence on the oral and sign language segregation policy at the Utah School for the Deaf. Dr. Bitter's impact extended beyond the school, affecting the Deaf Seminary Program of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. His support for the policy of segregating the oral and simultaneous communication departments angered Raymond and profoundly affected the signing students, highlighting the injustice of the situation. According to Raymond, Dr. Bitter and the school's oral teachers held a negative attitude toward students who used sign language. The dual-track program also had a ripple effect on the Ogden Branch for the Deaf, located just two blocks away from the residential campus and the seminary class.
Raymond Monson, Source: Utahn, 1971
Raymond compared Dr. Bitter to the wall that separated West Berlin from East Berlin during the Cold War. He felt that Dr. Bitter failed to recognize the challenges faced by Deaf students in the oral system, particularly those who could not speak and were prohibited from using sign language. Raymond likened the strict restrictions of oral Deaf education to the oppressive nature of East Germany's communism, equating Deaf students' freedom to communicate in sign language with the freedom experienced by West Germans in a democratic society. He firmly believed that Dr. Bitter did not have the authority to force Deaf students into the oral system, which ultimately led to divisions among Deaf adults.
Raymond's memories of school are marred by the way teachers treated students who used sign language. Instead of including them, the oral teachers separated them from their peers, which made their experience more challenging. He compares this unfair treatment to racial injustice, emphasizing how wrong it was.
In August 1962, the Utah School for the Deaf implemented a dual-track program, leading to Raymond's transfer to the oral program. This initiative aimed to integrate Deaf students into mainstream society but faced opposition from the Utah Deaf community. Raymond felt devastated by his placement and could not understand why it was happening. He missed his classmates who communicated using sign language and desperately wanted to interact with them. Later, Raymond's mother, Marjorie, who was also deaf, discovered that Tony Christopulos, an oral advocate and the school principal, had contacted Raymond's hearing father, Fred, to ask if he wanted Raymond to enroll in the oral program. Without consulting Marjorie, Fred made the decision and allowed the transfer.
Raymond struggled with the challenging oral program and was unhappy with the curriculum. Although he did not fully understand the barriers to his communication, his mother persuaded him to continue in the program for his father's sake, adding emotional weight to his story. The image of 11-year-old Raymond and other oral students watching out the school window during the 1962 student strike deepened his emotional journey.
As Raymond grew older, he discovered that many other Deaf individuals shared his negative feelings about Dr. Grant Bitter. To cope with their frustration, they often made jokes about him. This use of humor, common within the Utah Deaf community, served not only as a way to express their feelings but also as a means of uniting against a common source of frustration. One of his friends, C. Roy Cochran, who graduated from the Utah School for the Deaf in 1961 and was the father of two Deaf children, Don and Lisa, found a humorous way to diffuse his anger toward Dr. Bitter. Roy proposed renaming Dr. Bitter, PhD, to "Mr. Bitter, Pin Head Department," a suggestion that quickly became a community joke. Raymond found the idea so funny that Roy "commanded" him to rename Dr. Bitter as "Mr. Bitter, Pin Head Department." Despite the ongoing conflicts with Dr. Bitter, this humorous approach became a powerful tool for unity and hope within the Utah Deaf community, inspiring them to stand together in the face of adversity and showcasing the strength found in shared experiences.
Raymond's memories of school are marred by the way teachers treated students who used sign language. Instead of including them, the oral teachers separated them from their peers, which made their experience more challenging. He compares this unfair treatment to racial injustice, emphasizing how wrong it was.
In August 1962, the Utah School for the Deaf implemented a dual-track program, leading to Raymond's transfer to the oral program. This initiative aimed to integrate Deaf students into mainstream society but faced opposition from the Utah Deaf community. Raymond felt devastated by his placement and could not understand why it was happening. He missed his classmates who communicated using sign language and desperately wanted to interact with them. Later, Raymond's mother, Marjorie, who was also deaf, discovered that Tony Christopulos, an oral advocate and the school principal, had contacted Raymond's hearing father, Fred, to ask if he wanted Raymond to enroll in the oral program. Without consulting Marjorie, Fred made the decision and allowed the transfer.
Raymond struggled with the challenging oral program and was unhappy with the curriculum. Although he did not fully understand the barriers to his communication, his mother persuaded him to continue in the program for his father's sake, adding emotional weight to his story. The image of 11-year-old Raymond and other oral students watching out the school window during the 1962 student strike deepened his emotional journey.
As Raymond grew older, he discovered that many other Deaf individuals shared his negative feelings about Dr. Grant Bitter. To cope with their frustration, they often made jokes about him. This use of humor, common within the Utah Deaf community, served not only as a way to express their feelings but also as a means of uniting against a common source of frustration. One of his friends, C. Roy Cochran, who graduated from the Utah School for the Deaf in 1961 and was the father of two Deaf children, Don and Lisa, found a humorous way to diffuse his anger toward Dr. Bitter. Roy proposed renaming Dr. Bitter, PhD, to "Mr. Bitter, Pin Head Department," a suggestion that quickly became a community joke. Raymond found the idea so funny that Roy "commanded" him to rename Dr. Bitter as "Mr. Bitter, Pin Head Department." Despite the ongoing conflicts with Dr. Bitter, this humorous approach became a powerful tool for unity and hope within the Utah Deaf community, inspiring them to stand together in the face of adversity and showcasing the strength found in shared experiences.
C. Roy Cochran. Source: Utahn, 1960
In the summer of 1969, after completing his sophomore year, Raymond created a cartoon of Dr. Bitter to express his dissatisfaction with the oral program at work. His Deaf coworker, Jonathon Hodson, watched him drawing it and found it funny. Raymond then showed the drawing to his mother and his hard-of-hearing brother, Brian, who both laughed at it. Following this, Raymond expressed his intention to mail the picture to Dr. Bitter's home. His mother was concerned that he might get into trouble since he was still in high school, but Raymond felt compelled to share his feelings through humor. Ultimately, his mother supported his decision, and they agreed that he would not sign his name to the picture.
With remarkable courage for his age, Raymond not only created the cartoon but also typed a letter to accompany the drawing. His mother helped him correct his grammar, recognizing the importance of his expression. He then took the bold step of mailing the cartoon to Dr. Bitter, using the local phone book to find the address.
With remarkable courage for his age, Raymond not only created the cartoon but also typed a letter to accompany the drawing. His mother helped him correct his grammar, recognizing the importance of his expression. He then took the bold step of mailing the cartoon to Dr. Bitter, using the local phone book to find the address.
Raymond Monson’s Drawing of Dr. Grant B. Bitter. Source: Dr. Grant B. Bitter Paper. J. Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah
A week later, Jonathon informed Raymond that a copy of his drawing was on his family's dinner table, although he promised to keep it a secret. Dr. Bitter became interested in identifying the artist and sought to distribute copies as part of his effort to track down the individual responsible for the artwork. Raymond's mother cautioned him not to boast about his creation.
When school resumed in the fall of 1969, leaders of the Utah Association for the Deaf announced that Dr. Bitter was upset about a picture created by an anonymous artist that humorously depicted him. Dr. Bitter blamed the Utah Association for the Deaf for the drawing and called a meeting of the Oral Deaf Association of Utah to identify the artist. In response, the association rallied together in solidarity for Dr. Bitter, determined to identify the creator of the drawing.
When school resumed in the fall of 1969, leaders of the Utah Association for the Deaf announced that Dr. Bitter was upset about a picture created by an anonymous artist that humorously depicted him. Dr. Bitter blamed the Utah Association for the Deaf for the drawing and called a meeting of the Oral Deaf Association of Utah to identify the artist. In response, the association rallied together in solidarity for Dr. Bitter, determined to identify the creator of the drawing.
Jonathon Hudson
Raymond later reported that, despite Dr. Bitter's efforts, they were unable to identify the artist of the picture. W. David Mortensen, a prominent leader of the Utah Association for the Deaf, advised Dr. Bitter to drop the matter altogether (Raymond Monson, personal communication, November 1, 2010; Jonathan Hodson, personal communication, May 29, 2011).
Fortunately, Dr. Bitter's generous donation led me to discover Raymond's drawing in the University of Utah's J. Willard Marriott Library. The mystery surrounding the artist's identity piqued my interest, prompting me to explore humor as a coping mechanism within the Utah Deaf community. During my research, Jonathon Hodson, a fourth cousin of Deanne and Duane Kinner, provided me with valuable information that led me to reach out to Raymond to understand the inspiration behind the drawing, as detailed on this webpage.
Fortunately, Dr. Bitter's generous donation led me to discover Raymond's drawing in the University of Utah's J. Willard Marriott Library. The mystery surrounding the artist's identity piqued my interest, prompting me to explore humor as a coping mechanism within the Utah Deaf community. During my research, Jonathon Hodson, a fourth cousin of Deanne and Duane Kinner, provided me with valuable information that led me to reach out to Raymond to understand the inspiration behind the drawing, as detailed on this webpage.
W. David Mortensen. Photo by Robert L. Bonnell
The Perspectives of Dr. Grant B. Bitter on the Deaf Community
In 1970, Dr. Grant B. Bitter elaborated on his philosophy of keeping Deaf individuals who use sign language separate from those who communicate orally. He recommended genetic counseling for Deaf parents and suggested counseling for the Deaf community to help them develop appropriate behaviors, attitudes, and expectations (Grant B. Bitter Papers, personal communication, 1970). In response, the Utah Association for the Deaf sent him an anonymous note, disparaging him for allegedly establishing the Oral Deaf Association of Utah—a group advocating for oralism—solely for financial gain.
Under the leadership of Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, the Utah Association for the Deaf took a proactive approach to demonstrate their support for Total Communication, which was replacing the term Simultaneous Communication. In January or February of 1970, Dr. Sanderson wrote to Dr. Bitter, expressing concern about the lack of guidance counseling for Deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals and addressing the "history and problems of deafness" (Robert G. Sanderson, personal communication, 1970). Dr. Bitter replied with an offer to work with Bob to provide opportunities for him to deliver meaningful presentations to university students (Grant B. Bitter, personal communication, March 3, 1970). However, in his response, Dr. Bitter did not mention that Total Communication could be included in these presentations.
It was clear that Dr. Sanderson was deeply concerned about students in the University of Utah's Teacher Training Program, which emphasized oral communication. These students were being taught that the Deaf signing community was a divergent group with various problems that required counseling. Dr. Sanderson aimed to clarify to Dr. Bitter that Deaf parents did not need genetic counseling and that Deaf individuals should not have to conform to the expectations of the hearing majority. He may have offered to present to university students to correct these misconceptions (Jeff W. Pollock, The Utah Deaf Education Controversy, May 4, 2005).
Under the leadership of Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, the Utah Association for the Deaf took a proactive approach to demonstrate their support for Total Communication, which was replacing the term Simultaneous Communication. In January or February of 1970, Dr. Sanderson wrote to Dr. Bitter, expressing concern about the lack of guidance counseling for Deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals and addressing the "history and problems of deafness" (Robert G. Sanderson, personal communication, 1970). Dr. Bitter replied with an offer to work with Bob to provide opportunities for him to deliver meaningful presentations to university students (Grant B. Bitter, personal communication, March 3, 1970). However, in his response, Dr. Bitter did not mention that Total Communication could be included in these presentations.
It was clear that Dr. Sanderson was deeply concerned about students in the University of Utah's Teacher Training Program, which emphasized oral communication. These students were being taught that the Deaf signing community was a divergent group with various problems that required counseling. Dr. Sanderson aimed to clarify to Dr. Bitter that Deaf parents did not need genetic counseling and that Deaf individuals should not have to conform to the expectations of the hearing majority. He may have offered to present to university students to correct these misconceptions (Jeff W. Pollock, The Utah Deaf Education Controversy, May 4, 2005).
Did You Know?
On September 1, 1970, Dr. Grant B. Bitter addressed the Utah Association for the Deaf community. He criticized the association's philosophy regarding Deaf education.
*****
"You [say] that 'education is a thousand times more important to us [the deaf] than the mere ability to speak." My friends, the ability to manipulate the mother tongue wisely and effectively in service to one's fellow men is an integral part of education.
[Speaking] is basic to the development of competencies and saleable skills whereby individuals may find meaning and purpose in life. Therefore, may we do nothing that would prevent and/or limit any child's opportunity to give to the world that which only he can give as a person, worthy to take his place at the side of his fellowmen. Let us not relegate [a deaf child] to second class citizenship through isolation, causing him to become unnecessarily apprehensive, fearful, jealous, insecure and unproductive. Rather may we inspire excellence in living – allowing him to give to the world something which only he can give in his uniqueness as a worthy person" (Grant B. Bitter Papers, September 1, 1970).
*****
"You [say] that 'education is a thousand times more important to us [the deaf] than the mere ability to speak." My friends, the ability to manipulate the mother tongue wisely and effectively in service to one's fellow men is an integral part of education.
[Speaking] is basic to the development of competencies and saleable skills whereby individuals may find meaning and purpose in life. Therefore, may we do nothing that would prevent and/or limit any child's opportunity to give to the world that which only he can give as a person, worthy to take his place at the side of his fellowmen. Let us not relegate [a deaf child] to second class citizenship through isolation, causing him to become unnecessarily apprehensive, fearful, jealous, insecure and unproductive. Rather may we inspire excellence in living – allowing him to give to the world something which only he can give in his uniqueness as a worthy person" (Grant B. Bitter Papers, September 1, 1970).
The Parent Teacher Association Divides
During a Parent Teacher Association (PTA) meeting in the spring of 1970, a group of parents, Deaf representatives, and faculty from the Utah School for the Deaf discussed the possibility of visiting Deaf schools in other states. They recommended either Missouri or California. Proponents of oral education favored visiting the Missouri School for the Deaf in Fulton and the Central Institute for the Deaf in St. Louis. In contrast, supporters of Simultaneous Communication preferred the California School for the Deaf in Riverside, the Santa Ana Program for the Deaf, and the Buena Park Program for the Deaf in Orange County. Unable to reach a consensus, the group sought advice from Dr. Walter D. Talbot, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, who ultimately decided that they would travel to California due to its proximity to Utah and lower costs.
Among those selected for the trip were Deaf individuals W. David Mortensen, Lloyd H. Perkins, Jack and Harriett Hendrickson, Don Brubaker, and Kenneth L. Kinner. They were accompanied by two employees from the Utah School for the Deaf: Boyd Nielson, the Oral Coordinator, and Robert Nelson, the Assistant Coordinator. Although parents were also part of the group, PTA president Linda C. Harrop could not attend due to her pregnancy.
During their visit to the California School for the Deaf in Riverside, the group toured a high school mathematics class taught by Dr. Lawrence R. Newman, the then-president of the National Association of the Deaf. The Simultaneous Communication group hoped the oral education supporters would remain open-minded and appreciate the value of sign language. When the oral parents asked Dr. Newman about the enrollment of students in the oral program, he replied, "Don't ask me. Ask the students." One student disclosed that, despite attending the Mary E. Bennett Oral School in Los Angeles, he felt he did not receive the education he needed. He expressed that he found greater happiness and a better education at the California School for the Deaf.
Among those selected for the trip were Deaf individuals W. David Mortensen, Lloyd H. Perkins, Jack and Harriett Hendrickson, Don Brubaker, and Kenneth L. Kinner. They were accompanied by two employees from the Utah School for the Deaf: Boyd Nielson, the Oral Coordinator, and Robert Nelson, the Assistant Coordinator. Although parents were also part of the group, PTA president Linda C. Harrop could not attend due to her pregnancy.
During their visit to the California School for the Deaf in Riverside, the group toured a high school mathematics class taught by Dr. Lawrence R. Newman, the then-president of the National Association of the Deaf. The Simultaneous Communication group hoped the oral education supporters would remain open-minded and appreciate the value of sign language. When the oral parents asked Dr. Newman about the enrollment of students in the oral program, he replied, "Don't ask me. Ask the students." One student disclosed that, despite attending the Mary E. Bennett Oral School in Los Angeles, he felt he did not receive the education he needed. He expressed that he found greater happiness and a better education at the California School for the Deaf.
Dr. Lawrence R. Newman. Source: Iowa Association of the Deaf website
After the tour, the Utah Oral Education supporters returned home. At the same time, the Simultaneous Communication advocates, fueled by their dedication, chose to stay an additional day for an unofficial tour of the Santa Ana Program for the Deaf in the Santa Ana Unified School District. This program had initially utilized an oral method from 1948 until September 19, 1968, when it transitioned to the Total Communication approach during the Total Communication Movement. This shift occurred due to the shortcomings of the oral program (Educating Deaf Children by Total Communication, 1970). Dr. Roy K. Holcomb, known as the "Father of Total Communication," led the visit. The curriculum left a lasting impression on the group, and they were particularly disappointed that the oral group was absent, as they wanted to observe the academic achievements associated with the total communication method and familiarize themselves with every aspect of the program.
Upon returning to Utah, both groups gathered to share their insights from the trip. J. Boyd Nielson, Dr. Bitter's right-hand man, remarked, "I believe deaf children can talk." The oral advocates applauded his statement. However, from the perspective of the sign language advocates, Boyd's comment implied that the oral supporters were uninterested in the experiences they had observed at the California School for the Deaf. It was evident to them that the oral approach had already dictated how to teach Deaf children before the trip (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011).
In a 1987 interview with the University of Utah, Dr. Grant B. Bitter criticized the total communication movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s. He argued that total communication lacked a relationship between sign language and spoken language, viewing it as a gestural language. Dr. Bitter also questioned the quality of the supporting research. He expressed disappointment that Deaf education, including in California, had adopted a total communication system despite the existence of exemplary oral programs. He provided a brief history of the use of sign language in most Deaf residential schools, except in Utah. In the 1960s, many state schools began adopting a simultaneous communication approach. However, Dr. Bitter, with the approval of the Utah State Board of Education, advocated for preserving parental rights and options in Deaf education, supporting total communication, sign language, or auditory/oral approaches.
When Robert W. Tegeder became superintendent in 1959, he shifted the focus from a complete sign language system to teaching oral communication at the Utah School for the Deaf. Dr. Bitter believed this change was beneficial, as other state schools for the deaf did not provide such options, making Utah unique. Nonetheless, the Utah Association for the Deaf opposed these changes, leading to years of controversy between Dr. Bitter and the association, stemming from differing views on the most effective methods of Deaf education and parents' rights to choose them (Bluhm, Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987).
Upon returning to Utah, both groups gathered to share their insights from the trip. J. Boyd Nielson, Dr. Bitter's right-hand man, remarked, "I believe deaf children can talk." The oral advocates applauded his statement. However, from the perspective of the sign language advocates, Boyd's comment implied that the oral supporters were uninterested in the experiences they had observed at the California School for the Deaf. It was evident to them that the oral approach had already dictated how to teach Deaf children before the trip (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011).
In a 1987 interview with the University of Utah, Dr. Grant B. Bitter criticized the total communication movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s. He argued that total communication lacked a relationship between sign language and spoken language, viewing it as a gestural language. Dr. Bitter also questioned the quality of the supporting research. He expressed disappointment that Deaf education, including in California, had adopted a total communication system despite the existence of exemplary oral programs. He provided a brief history of the use of sign language in most Deaf residential schools, except in Utah. In the 1960s, many state schools began adopting a simultaneous communication approach. However, Dr. Bitter, with the approval of the Utah State Board of Education, advocated for preserving parental rights and options in Deaf education, supporting total communication, sign language, or auditory/oral approaches.
When Robert W. Tegeder became superintendent in 1959, he shifted the focus from a complete sign language system to teaching oral communication at the Utah School for the Deaf. Dr. Bitter believed this change was beneficial, as other state schools for the deaf did not provide such options, making Utah unique. Nonetheless, the Utah Association for the Deaf opposed these changes, leading to years of controversy between Dr. Bitter and the association, stemming from differing views on the most effective methods of Deaf education and parents' rights to choose them (Bluhm, Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987).
A New Strong Advocate Joins the Cause
May 1970 was a turning point in W. David "Dave" Mortensen's life, as it was the year he became active in the Utah Association for the Deaf. His growing interest in politics and advocacy led him to play a pivotal role in transforming Utah's Deaf education system, with ongoing effects on the community.
One day in early May, Dave Mortensen and Helen Foy were picking up their Deaf daughters, Kristi Lee Mortensen and Claudia Foy, outside the extension classroom at Dilworth Elementary School. Dave caught part of the girls' conversation and, concerned by their expressions, decided to take action. He asked them to repeat what they were discussing because he sensed they were upset. Finally, Kristi Lee and Claudia began sharing troubling stories of physical abuse that had been occurring in their classroom for several years. Behind closed doors, the oral teachers were treating the students unjustly.
When Helen asked Dave if he was going to do something about it, he replied, "Oh, definitely, I am." After Helen took the girls home, Dave rushed to the Utah State Office of Education. He enlisted Beth Ann Stewart Campbell as his interpreter and stormed into the office of Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction Dr. Jay J. Campbell, who supervised the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind. Fearlessly, he confronted Dr. Campbell, making him aware of the abuse happening behind closed doors in the classrooms (W. David Mortensen, personal communication, March 27, 2009; Kristi Lee Mortensen, personal communication, June 17, 2011).
One day in early May, Dave Mortensen and Helen Foy were picking up their Deaf daughters, Kristi Lee Mortensen and Claudia Foy, outside the extension classroom at Dilworth Elementary School. Dave caught part of the girls' conversation and, concerned by their expressions, decided to take action. He asked them to repeat what they were discussing because he sensed they were upset. Finally, Kristi Lee and Claudia began sharing troubling stories of physical abuse that had been occurring in their classroom for several years. Behind closed doors, the oral teachers were treating the students unjustly.
When Helen asked Dave if he was going to do something about it, he replied, "Oh, definitely, I am." After Helen took the girls home, Dave rushed to the Utah State Office of Education. He enlisted Beth Ann Stewart Campbell as his interpreter and stormed into the office of Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction Dr. Jay J. Campbell, who supervised the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind. Fearlessly, he confronted Dr. Campbell, making him aware of the abuse happening behind closed doors in the classrooms (W. David Mortensen, personal communication, March 27, 2009; Kristi Lee Mortensen, personal communication, June 17, 2011).
W. David Mortensen
That day's events brought back troubling memories of a previous visit the Mortensens had with four Utah School for the Deaf employees, including Kate Fenton, an oral teacher, and Mr. Nielsen, the school's audiologist. The group was intent on convincing Dave and his wife, Shanna, to enroll Kristi Lee at the Ogden campus, even though she was already attending the Riley Elementary School Oral Extension Classroom in Salt Lake City. When Dave asked why Kristi Lee should be sent to the Utah School for the Deaf in Ogden, they said she would be an excellent example of what a Deaf child could achieve for the entire state of Utah. Dave and Shanna flatly refused; they did not want their daughter to experience the social, language, and communication segregation occurring on campus.
Kate Fenton. The Utah Eagle, 1965
Dave's unwavering determination—the same energy he displayed in May 1970—was channeled into his new role as president of the Utah Association for the Deaf in October 1971 (UAD Bulletin, October 1971). Resolute in his mission to reform Utah's Deaf education system, he believed the Deaf community in Utah was missing out on many opportunities. This belief fueled his activities with the Utah State Legislature and elevated his leadership to a new level. He was determined to address social, language, and communication segregation at the Ogden's residential campus and the prohibition of sign language use in the extension classrooms in Salt Lake City (Dave Mortensen, Renae M. White, Don M. Mortensen, and Kristi L. Mortensen, personal communication, April 17, 2009).
W. David Mortensen and
a Group of Parents Make a Plea
a Group of Parents Make a Plea
From 1962 to 1970, both oral and simultaneous communication methods were used in the elementary grades at the Utah School for the Deaf in Ogden, while only the oral method was employed in all grades at the Salt Lake City Extension Division, located at 1415 California Ave, Salt Lake City, Utah. The Extension Division served high school students (Deseret News, May 19, 1970).
On May 18, 1970, Dave Mortensen, along with eight parents of Deaf children, submitted a petition advocating a shift away from the exclusive oral teaching method used in the Salt Lake City extension classroom. These parents sought a teaching approach they believed would more effectively address their children's academic and personal needs—the simultaneous communication method. In their letter to the Governor's Advisory Council for the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind, they articulated their concerns, emphasizing that the oral method used in the extension classroom fell short in meeting their children's educational and individual requirements (Deseret News, May 19, 1970; The Salt Lake Tribune, May 19, 1970). Their plea highlighted a pressing need for reform. Moreover, the parents expressed their discontent regarding the segregation of students at the Ogden's residential campus (Deseret News, May 19, 1970).
On May 18, 1970, Dave Mortensen, along with eight parents of Deaf children, submitted a petition advocating a shift away from the exclusive oral teaching method used in the Salt Lake City extension classroom. These parents sought a teaching approach they believed would more effectively address their children's academic and personal needs—the simultaneous communication method. In their letter to the Governor's Advisory Council for the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind, they articulated their concerns, emphasizing that the oral method used in the extension classroom fell short in meeting their children's educational and individual requirements (Deseret News, May 19, 1970; The Salt Lake Tribune, May 19, 1970). Their plea highlighted a pressing need for reform. Moreover, the parents expressed their discontent regarding the segregation of students at the Ogden's residential campus (Deseret News, May 19, 1970).
Establishment of Legislative Subcommittee #4
to Explore the Utah School for the Deaf
to Explore the Utah School for the Deaf
In June 1970, following concerns regarding the State Superintendent's office, Dave Mortensen organized a meeting with Utah Association for the Deaf leaders and State Representative Della Loveridge, the State Representative for the 8th District and a close friend of his mother. Notable attendees included Robert G. Sanderson, Ned C. Wheeler, and Lloyd H. Perkins, who sought to address issues arising from incidents involving Kristi Lee and Claudia and to examine challenges within Utah's Deaf education system. With Madeline Burton Perkins as their interpreter, the meeting set the stage for substantial discussions about the Deaf education landscape (Subcommittee #4 Minutes, 1970; W. David Mortensen, personal communication, March 27, 2009).
Consequently, Rep. Loveridge established a Subcommittee on Education of the Deaf, which received the endorsement of the Utah State Board of Education. The committee was formed by individuals deeply committed to the cause, such as Dr. Robert "Bob" G. Sanderson, a passionate Deaf Advocate; Dr. Robert Erdman, Chairperson of the Department of Special Education at the University of Utah; Dave Mortensen, another Deaf Advocate; and Dr. Jay J. Campbell, the Deputy Superintendent of the Utah State Office of Education.
This development marked the inception of a political struggle over oralism in the education of Deaf children. Both Bob and Ned had long sought transformative changes within the Deaf education system, but they needed support from a parent of a Deaf child. Dave Mortensen, being deaf himself and a father to a Deaf child, emerged as a crucial advocate for their cause (W. David Mortensen, personal communication, March 27, 2009).
During that busy summer, the Utah Association for the Deaf—primarily composed of alums from the Utah School for the Deaf—actively informed the Utah State Legislature about the lack of total communication pedagogy in the Teacher for the Deaf Preparation Program at the University of Utah (Subcommittee #4 Minutes, 1970). Their advocacy highlighted a significant gap in educational practices, demonstrating the power of collective action in influencing policy.
The Subcommittee received diverse letters reflecting various opinions on teaching methods. While Dr. Bitter sought supportive letters from legislative leaders for oral programs, the Utah Association of the Deaf found support from Dr. Britt M. Hargraves, Director of the Teacher Training Program at Western Maryland College, who advocated for the simultaneous communication approach. Dr. Hargraves' findings highlighted the shortcomings of the Utah School for the Deaf's oral program, particularly its failure to prepare high school graduates for higher education (Britt M. Hargraves, personal communication, August 17, 1970), intensifying the ongoing debate.
Interestingly, the Utah affiliate of the AFL-CIO initially backed the establishment of a Total Communication Teacher's program at the University of Utah. However, three months later, it retracted that support, opting for a neutral stance to allow members to fully comprehend the complexities of the issue, adding another layer to the surrounding controversy.
The Subcommittee also discussed establishing a Total Communication program at Utah State University. However, Dr. Robert Erdman opposed this idea, and his motion received support. This opposition ultimately influenced the ongoing debate within the Deaf education community (Jeff W. Pollock, The Utah Deaf Education Controversy, May 4, 2005).
Consequently, Rep. Loveridge established a Subcommittee on Education of the Deaf, which received the endorsement of the Utah State Board of Education. The committee was formed by individuals deeply committed to the cause, such as Dr. Robert "Bob" G. Sanderson, a passionate Deaf Advocate; Dr. Robert Erdman, Chairperson of the Department of Special Education at the University of Utah; Dave Mortensen, another Deaf Advocate; and Dr. Jay J. Campbell, the Deputy Superintendent of the Utah State Office of Education.
This development marked the inception of a political struggle over oralism in the education of Deaf children. Both Bob and Ned had long sought transformative changes within the Deaf education system, but they needed support from a parent of a Deaf child. Dave Mortensen, being deaf himself and a father to a Deaf child, emerged as a crucial advocate for their cause (W. David Mortensen, personal communication, March 27, 2009).
During that busy summer, the Utah Association for the Deaf—primarily composed of alums from the Utah School for the Deaf—actively informed the Utah State Legislature about the lack of total communication pedagogy in the Teacher for the Deaf Preparation Program at the University of Utah (Subcommittee #4 Minutes, 1970). Their advocacy highlighted a significant gap in educational practices, demonstrating the power of collective action in influencing policy.
The Subcommittee received diverse letters reflecting various opinions on teaching methods. While Dr. Bitter sought supportive letters from legislative leaders for oral programs, the Utah Association of the Deaf found support from Dr. Britt M. Hargraves, Director of the Teacher Training Program at Western Maryland College, who advocated for the simultaneous communication approach. Dr. Hargraves' findings highlighted the shortcomings of the Utah School for the Deaf's oral program, particularly its failure to prepare high school graduates for higher education (Britt M. Hargraves, personal communication, August 17, 1970), intensifying the ongoing debate.
Interestingly, the Utah affiliate of the AFL-CIO initially backed the establishment of a Total Communication Teacher's program at the University of Utah. However, three months later, it retracted that support, opting for a neutral stance to allow members to fully comprehend the complexities of the issue, adding another layer to the surrounding controversy.
The Subcommittee also discussed establishing a Total Communication program at Utah State University. However, Dr. Robert Erdman opposed this idea, and his motion received support. This opposition ultimately influenced the ongoing debate within the Deaf education community (Jeff W. Pollock, The Utah Deaf Education Controversy, May 4, 2005).
Della L. Loveridge. Source: Utah Department of Cultural & Community Engagement
Defense of the Oral Methodology
On June 15, 1970, around 250 people gathered in one of the meeting rooms at Milton Bennion Hall at the University of Utah. They came together for a general meeting of the Oral Deaf Association of Utah, founded by Dr. Grant B. Bitter.
The Utah School for the Deaf faced criticism. Accusations surfaced claiming that the school favored the oral methodology for placing Deaf students and made it difficult for students to transition to sign language methodologies.
Parent petitions highlighted several serious concerns, including instances of physical abuse by oral teachers against students who used sign language, the failure of oral teachers to effectively educate Deaf students, a lack of vocational preparation for oral students, and the failure to teach oral students the difference between right and wrong properly. Additionally, there were concerns regarding the Deaf Education Program at the University of Utah. These petitions were submitted to the state government and educational officials (The Salt Lake Tribune, June 16, 1970; Deseret News, June 16, 1970).
In response, Dr. Bitter denied all accusations, asserting that they were “unfounded and unwarranted.” He stated in a printed handout:
*****
“In my judgment, the accusations made against the educational system and the teacher education program at the University of Utah are completely unjustified” (The Salt Lake Tribune, June 16, 1970; Deseret News, June 16, 1970).
Tensions escalated when proponents of total communication suggested merging the oral method with simultaneous communication. Dr. Bitter responded by stating, “Any meeting of the oral method with the manual alphabet and the system of signs as proposed by some would be totally incompatible with oral education; in fact, it would cease to be oral education” (Deseret News, June 16, 1970).
The Utah School for the Deaf faced criticism. Accusations surfaced claiming that the school favored the oral methodology for placing Deaf students and made it difficult for students to transition to sign language methodologies.
Parent petitions highlighted several serious concerns, including instances of physical abuse by oral teachers against students who used sign language, the failure of oral teachers to effectively educate Deaf students, a lack of vocational preparation for oral students, and the failure to teach oral students the difference between right and wrong properly. Additionally, there were concerns regarding the Deaf Education Program at the University of Utah. These petitions were submitted to the state government and educational officials (The Salt Lake Tribune, June 16, 1970; Deseret News, June 16, 1970).
In response, Dr. Bitter denied all accusations, asserting that they were “unfounded and unwarranted.” He stated in a printed handout:
*****
“In my judgment, the accusations made against the educational system and the teacher education program at the University of Utah are completely unjustified” (The Salt Lake Tribune, June 16, 1970; Deseret News, June 16, 1970).
Tensions escalated when proponents of total communication suggested merging the oral method with simultaneous communication. Dr. Bitter responded by stating, “Any meeting of the oral method with the manual alphabet and the system of signs as proposed by some would be totally incompatible with oral education; in fact, it would cease to be oral education” (Deseret News, June 16, 1970).
Public Controversy Continues in the Summer of 1970
In June 1970, the controversy over communication methods continued to spark discussion at various meetings. State governmental agencies received more petitions, and the press received more letters. Notably, 400 parents and supporters, underscoring the widespread support, signed a petition endorsing the oral education system. Below is an excerpt from the petition:
*****
"The best hope for a hearing-impaired child to learn to communicate adequately and compete successfully in the modern world is through early and continued oral education. Since the inception of the Extension Division of the School for the Deaf, instruction has been purely oral. As a result of employing the oral method, students in the Extension Division have learned to communicate in a normal environment with the result that integration in classes of normal students start at or complete at the high school level.
Now therefore, be it resolved by parents and friends of the Extension Division, School for the Deaf, that the oral method offers the best hope for hearing-impaired children to adjust to a normal environment and to compete successfully in society.
Be it further resolved that the Extension Division of the School for the Deaf is commended for its progressive and successful program and is urged to continue teaching by the oral method" (Heinrich, Deseret News, June 26, 1970; Wight, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, October 20, 1970).
*****
Margaret Heinrich, a parent of a Deaf child and an educator at the Utah School for the Deaf, expressed in her Letter to the Editor that while most parents understood there was a small minority in the Salt Lake City area with differing opinions, they hoped the Governor's Advisory Council and the State Advisory Committee for the Handicapped would recognize the wishes of the majority who wanted to maintain the current approach at the deaf school (Heinrich, Deseret News, June 26, 1970).
Five months later, the same debate returned, showing how persistent the issue was. This time, students in the oral program at the Ogden campus questioned whether they could socialize with students taught using the simultaneous method of instruction (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, December 12, 1970). Dr. Bitter maintained his position, arguing against any free association among USD students. He insisted that allowing sign language would undermine the integrity of the oral method.
*****
"The best hope for a hearing-impaired child to learn to communicate adequately and compete successfully in the modern world is through early and continued oral education. Since the inception of the Extension Division of the School for the Deaf, instruction has been purely oral. As a result of employing the oral method, students in the Extension Division have learned to communicate in a normal environment with the result that integration in classes of normal students start at or complete at the high school level.
Now therefore, be it resolved by parents and friends of the Extension Division, School for the Deaf, that the oral method offers the best hope for hearing-impaired children to adjust to a normal environment and to compete successfully in society.
Be it further resolved that the Extension Division of the School for the Deaf is commended for its progressive and successful program and is urged to continue teaching by the oral method" (Heinrich, Deseret News, June 26, 1970; Wight, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, October 20, 1970).
*****
Margaret Heinrich, a parent of a Deaf child and an educator at the Utah School for the Deaf, expressed in her Letter to the Editor that while most parents understood there was a small minority in the Salt Lake City area with differing opinions, they hoped the Governor's Advisory Council and the State Advisory Committee for the Handicapped would recognize the wishes of the majority who wanted to maintain the current approach at the deaf school (Heinrich, Deseret News, June 26, 1970).
Five months later, the same debate returned, showing how persistent the issue was. This time, students in the oral program at the Ogden campus questioned whether they could socialize with students taught using the simultaneous method of instruction (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, December 12, 1970). Dr. Bitter maintained his position, arguing against any free association among USD students. He insisted that allowing sign language would undermine the integrity of the oral method.
Parents of Deaf Students Form a
Separate Parent Teacher Association
Separate Parent Teacher Association
At the Utah School for the Deaf, the Parent Teacher Association (PTA) faced challenges discussing ways for parents to become more involved in school activities because of ongoing disagreements over communication methods. A group of parents who supported the use of sign language met with Representative Della L. Loveridge to express their concerns about these challenges. Della, a trusted advisor and close friend of Lila Bjorklund, the state PTA president, encouraged them to establish their own PTA (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987; Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011).
On May 28, 1970, the local Ogden newspaper reported on the conflicts within the PTA, highlighting deep divisions among parents. The report indicated that parents and teachers who supported sign language gathered in Ogden to share their experiences of exclusion from decision-making processes at PTA meetings, both on the Ogden campus and in Salt Lake City (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, May 29, 1970).
One Deaf parent expressed, "We are not opposed to teaching our children to speak; we are opposed to the Salt Lake extension schools refusing to teach sign language." Another father described the difficulties he encountered when trying to transition his child from the oral program to the simultaneous communication program during the later years of elementary school (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, May 29, 1970).
Following Representative Loveridge's advice, a separate PTA group was established on June 25, 1970, consisting of more than 100 parents and members of the Utah Deaf community. This group was formed in response to philosophical disagreements regarding education. This historic event took place in Ogden, Utah. The newly formed PTA became the third associated with the Utah School for the Deaf, following the Total Communication PTA in Ogden, which advocated for a comprehensive approach to communication that included sign language, and the Oral PTA in Salt Lake City, which focused on oralism. The original USD PTA was renamed Extension Oral PTA upon the establishment of the third PTA (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, May 29, 1970).
The new organization was named the Parent Teacher Student Association (PTSA). Jack W. Hendrickson was elected as the first president, while W. David Mortensen and Norman Foy served as vice presidents. Kenneth L. Kinner was appointed treasurer, Karen Williams took on the role of historian, and Harriet Hendrickson was named secretary. The PTSA included Deaf parents, USD teachers, students, and supportive friends, encompassing both Deaf and hearing individuals committed to addressing the linguistic, educational, and social needs of Deaf students (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011).
The PTSA quickly made a significant impact by advocating against the dual-track program and pushing for educational reform. They were strong supporters of parents' choices between oral and simultaneous communication methods for their children's education. The Utah Association for the Deaf, along with supportive parents, had opposed the "Y" system—a controversial educational approach that separated Deaf signing students from their oral peers—for nearly ten years prior to taking this position. More information is detailed below.
On May 28, 1970, the local Ogden newspaper reported on the conflicts within the PTA, highlighting deep divisions among parents. The report indicated that parents and teachers who supported sign language gathered in Ogden to share their experiences of exclusion from decision-making processes at PTA meetings, both on the Ogden campus and in Salt Lake City (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, May 29, 1970).
One Deaf parent expressed, "We are not opposed to teaching our children to speak; we are opposed to the Salt Lake extension schools refusing to teach sign language." Another father described the difficulties he encountered when trying to transition his child from the oral program to the simultaneous communication program during the later years of elementary school (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, May 29, 1970).
Following Representative Loveridge's advice, a separate PTA group was established on June 25, 1970, consisting of more than 100 parents and members of the Utah Deaf community. This group was formed in response to philosophical disagreements regarding education. This historic event took place in Ogden, Utah. The newly formed PTA became the third associated with the Utah School for the Deaf, following the Total Communication PTA in Ogden, which advocated for a comprehensive approach to communication that included sign language, and the Oral PTA in Salt Lake City, which focused on oralism. The original USD PTA was renamed Extension Oral PTA upon the establishment of the third PTA (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, May 29, 1970).
The new organization was named the Parent Teacher Student Association (PTSA). Jack W. Hendrickson was elected as the first president, while W. David Mortensen and Norman Foy served as vice presidents. Kenneth L. Kinner was appointed treasurer, Karen Williams took on the role of historian, and Harriet Hendrickson was named secretary. The PTSA included Deaf parents, USD teachers, students, and supportive friends, encompassing both Deaf and hearing individuals committed to addressing the linguistic, educational, and social needs of Deaf students (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011).
The PTSA quickly made a significant impact by advocating against the dual-track program and pushing for educational reform. They were strong supporters of parents' choices between oral and simultaneous communication methods for their children's education. The Utah Association for the Deaf, along with supportive parents, had opposed the "Y" system—a controversial educational approach that separated Deaf signing students from their oral peers—for nearly ten years prior to taking this position. More information is detailed below.
Deaf Teaching Method Debate
at the Utah State Capitol Auditorium
at the Utah State Capitol Auditorium
Deaf Teaching Method Debate at the Utah State Capitol Auditorium
On July 27, 1970, a significant event took place at the State Capitol auditorium. Approximately 200 individuals, including members of the Utah State Board of Higher Education, the Utah State Board of Education, the USDB Governor's Advisory Council, and other key stakeholders, gathered to witness a debate on the most effective ways to educate Deaf children. Sponsored by the Governor's Advisory Council, this debate marked a pivotal moment in the history of Deaf education, igniting discussions that would shape future policies and practices.
The debate on Deaf education included key figures from the State Board of Higher Education, the State Board of Education, and the Governor's Advisory Council. Important attendees included the state superintendent of public instruction, administrators from the Utah Schools for the Deaf, and presidents of the Parent Teacher Associations and Parent Teacher Student Associations. The event also counted on the support of the President of the State Senate and the Speaker of the House. Respected Deaf leaders such as Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, Ned C. Wheeler, W. David Mortensen, Lloyd H. Perkins, Joseph B. Burdett, C. Roy Cochran, and Kenneth L. Kinner were also in attendance (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011).
Dr. McCay Vernon, a Deaf fervent advocate for the total communication method, passionately expressed his concerns, stating, "An overwhelming number of Deaf people fail educationally or are forced to fail because of the way they are taught... The Deaf are just as bright... they have just as high IQs as hearing people... But the proportion of Deaf high school students going to college has decreased" (Deseret News, 1970, p. 2B).
In defense of the oral method, Dr. Miller argued that it offered certain advantages. She acknowledged that proponents of both methods agreed on various important issues, such as early identification, parental education, and successful job placement. However, she pointed out that the disagreement between the two methods lay primarily in their communication approaches. Dr. Miller insisted, "We must concentrate on ways to improve oral instruction" due to several challenges, including individual differences among students, teacher motivation, large class sizes, and inconsistencies in the overall oral program. Despite these shortcomings, she praised Utah's oral program as "distinctive," asserting that "[the program] made it possible for each [Deaf] child to enter the adult [hearing] world" (Deseret News, 1970, p. 2B).
Dr. Vernon presented a compelling argument that was both passionate and well-researched. He referenced multiple scholarly studies that showcased the advantages of the total communication method over a strictly oral approach. His emphasis on focusing on the educational needs of Deaf individuals was strongly supported by significant research (Deseret News, 1970, p. 2B).
Dr. Vernon's claims have consistently received support from numerous scholarly studies. Research consistently shows that Deaf children of Deaf parents outperform their peers in academic achievement, reading and writing skills, and social development (Israelite, Ewoldt, & Hoffmeister, 1989). This validation of Dr. Vernon's arguments underscores the enduring impact of the 1970 Deaf education debate.
On July 27, 1970, a significant event took place at the State Capitol auditorium. Approximately 200 individuals, including members of the Utah State Board of Higher Education, the Utah State Board of Education, the USDB Governor's Advisory Council, and other key stakeholders, gathered to witness a debate on the most effective ways to educate Deaf children. Sponsored by the Governor's Advisory Council, this debate marked a pivotal moment in the history of Deaf education, igniting discussions that would shape future policies and practices.
The debate on Deaf education included key figures from the State Board of Higher Education, the State Board of Education, and the Governor's Advisory Council. Important attendees included the state superintendent of public instruction, administrators from the Utah Schools for the Deaf, and presidents of the Parent Teacher Associations and Parent Teacher Student Associations. The event also counted on the support of the President of the State Senate and the Speaker of the House. Respected Deaf leaders such as Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, Ned C. Wheeler, W. David Mortensen, Lloyd H. Perkins, Joseph B. Burdett, C. Roy Cochran, and Kenneth L. Kinner were also in attendance (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011).
Dr. McCay Vernon, a Deaf fervent advocate for the total communication method, passionately expressed his concerns, stating, "An overwhelming number of Deaf people fail educationally or are forced to fail because of the way they are taught... The Deaf are just as bright... they have just as high IQs as hearing people... But the proportion of Deaf high school students going to college has decreased" (Deseret News, 1970, p. 2B).
In defense of the oral method, Dr. Miller argued that it offered certain advantages. She acknowledged that proponents of both methods agreed on various important issues, such as early identification, parental education, and successful job placement. However, she pointed out that the disagreement between the two methods lay primarily in their communication approaches. Dr. Miller insisted, "We must concentrate on ways to improve oral instruction" due to several challenges, including individual differences among students, teacher motivation, large class sizes, and inconsistencies in the overall oral program. Despite these shortcomings, she praised Utah's oral program as "distinctive," asserting that "[the program] made it possible for each [Deaf] child to enter the adult [hearing] world" (Deseret News, 1970, p. 2B).
Dr. Vernon presented a compelling argument that was both passionate and well-researched. He referenced multiple scholarly studies that showcased the advantages of the total communication method over a strictly oral approach. His emphasis on focusing on the educational needs of Deaf individuals was strongly supported by significant research (Deseret News, 1970, p. 2B).
Dr. Vernon's claims have consistently received support from numerous scholarly studies. Research consistently shows that Deaf children of Deaf parents outperform their peers in academic achievement, reading and writing skills, and social development (Israelite, Ewoldt, & Hoffmeister, 1989). This validation of Dr. Vernon's arguments underscores the enduring impact of the 1970 Deaf education debate.
Dr. McCay Vernon. Source: Deaf Life website
After the debate, Dr. Grant Bitter, an influential figure in the Deaf education community, sent a letter to Legislative Subcommittee #4 expressing his strong opposition to Dr. Vernon's presentation. In his letter, Dr. Bitter argued that no research supported the efficacy of the total communication method, viewing it not as a legitimate teaching method but rather as a vague philosophy that confused students (Grant Bitter, personal communication, August 5, 1970; Jeff W. Pollock, The Utah Deaf Education Controversy, May 4, 2005). Although Dr. Bitter's stance was ultimately proven incorrect, it significantly influenced the subcommittee's recommendations.
Despite Dr. Bitter's errors, the subcommittee members found his arguments convincing. Representative Loveridge, the chairperson of the Advisory Council's subcommittee, noted that the Utah School for the Deaf began with every Deaf child in the oral program until finishing 6th grade. She stated that the subcommittee would make recommendations to both the committee and Governor Calvin L. Rampton. The questions the subcommittee aimed to address included:
Despite Dr. Bitter's errors, the subcommittee members found his arguments convincing. Representative Loveridge, the chairperson of the Advisory Council's subcommittee, noted that the Utah School for the Deaf began with every Deaf child in the oral program until finishing 6th grade. She stated that the subcommittee would make recommendations to both the committee and Governor Calvin L. Rampton. The questions the subcommittee aimed to address included:
- Should the total communication method be taught to Utah Deaf children at an earlier age than the current 7th grade?
- Should Utah colleges upgrade the deaf education degrees available in the state? (The Salt Lake Tribune, July 27, 1970; Chaffin, Deseret News, December 12, 1970).
Utah Governor Calvin L. Rampton. Source: KSL.com
The State Advisory Committee for the Handicapped, chaired by Senator Ernest H. Dean (D-American Fork), along with the Committee for the Study of Programs of the Deaf, chaired by Dr. Moroni H. Brown, who served as both a chairman of the Utah State Board of Education and an associate professor of psychology at the University of Utah, faced the challenge of deciding what changes, if any, should be implemented at the Utah School for the Deaf. In the fall of 1970, these committees conducted extensive studies of the educational program at the Utah School for the Deaf. These studies would serve as the foundation for their report to the Utah State Board of Education (Utahn, 1961; Wight, The Ogden Standard-Examiner).
Dr. Moroni H. Brown. Source: Utahn, 1961
Did You Know?
Research indicates that all schoolchildren need to master two types of communication skills to achieve their educational goals: Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) and Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP). BICS encompasses the social and conversational skills acquired through daily interactions with family and peers. In contrast, CALP builds on BICS as a foundation and is learned explicitly.
In the K-12 environment, the setting, context, and conversational partners play a critical role in the development of CALP. Many Deaf and hard-of-hearing students, however, lack early exposure to sign language, which results in a deficit in BICS. When these students enter elementary school, their insufficient BICS hinders their ability to fully engage in classroom activities and interact with their peers. Consequently, this delay in BICS negatively affects their capacity to acquire CALP. Research shows this can lead to lower reading scores and generally poor academic performance (Cummins & Swain, 1986).
In summary, many Deaf children do not fully develop BICS and CALP, which are essential for academic success, due to limited exposure to effective sign language during early development.
In the K-12 environment, the setting, context, and conversational partners play a critical role in the development of CALP. Many Deaf and hard-of-hearing students, however, lack early exposure to sign language, which results in a deficit in BICS. When these students enter elementary school, their insufficient BICS hinders their ability to fully engage in classroom activities and interact with their peers. Consequently, this delay in BICS negatively affects their capacity to acquire CALP. Research shows this can lead to lower reading scores and generally poor academic performance (Cummins & Swain, 1986).
In summary, many Deaf children do not fully develop BICS and CALP, which are essential for academic success, due to limited exposure to effective sign language during early development.
The Utah Association for the Deaf Board of Directors Presents to the Committee for the Study of Programs for the Deaf
On October 5, 1970, Ned C. Wheeler, a member of the Governor's Advisory Council and chairman of the Board of Directors for the Utah Association for the Deaf, invited the UAD board members to his home for a special meeting. The board, comprised of experienced individuals in Deaf education, was tasked with preparing a presentation for the Committee for the Study of Programs for the Deaf. They had ten days to complete this vital task, as the committee was scheduled to convene on October 15.
It was decided that Dennis R. Platt, the UAD president, would deliver the main presentation. Joseph B. Burnett would address the situation of learners at the Deaf school, and Lloyd H. Perkins would discuss newspaper propaganda.
It was decided that Dennis R. Platt, the UAD president, would deliver the main presentation. Joseph B. Burnett would address the situation of learners at the Deaf school, and Lloyd H. Perkins would discuss newspaper propaganda.
Ned C. Wheeler
The following points were incorporated into the presentation:
- The UAD urgently requests the inclusion of trained counselors in the school's budget, particularly for the dormitories, with adequate compensation. Delaying this critical need is not an option.
- Deaf students at the Utah School for the Deaf need trained guidance counselors. Currently, Gene D. Stewart provides guidance for simultaneous communication (total communication) students, but there is no trained guidance counselor for oral students. Gary Suttlemyre's dedication and lack of necessary training severely impact the students' well-being and academic progress.
- It is troubling that children at the Ogden's residential campus, particularly those in the upper grades, are experiencing unhappiness. Numerous petitions to the Utah State Board of Education and an increase in student strikes both on and off campus highlight this issue. As noted in the UAD Bulletin, Spring 1971, "Unhappy children are poor learners." This unhappiness is leading to behavioral issues, which require immediate attention.
- In Utah, there is no trained clinical psychologist specializing in the Deaf. A clinical psychologist is needed to administer IQ tests, conduct psychological evaluations, and counsel emotionally disturbed Deaf children. Dr. Melvin Nielsen is an audiologist who should not function as a psychologist, even part-time.
- Deaf students in the simultaneous communication/total communication department have been required to accept verbal instruction without sign language in some vocational courses. Some of USD's vocational teachers are unqualified to teach Deaf students, and similarly, some teachers in the oral department lack the training to teach speech effectively.
- USD is ignoring the fundamental psychological factors that contribute to student success. The school frequently places Deaf students in situations that they neither desire nor understand. Evidence suggests that parents sometimes ally with the USD administration to keep children in environments that do not support their learning needs. This issue is particularly evident when students are retained in the Oral Program despite failing or expressing a desire to leave. As a result, these children may feel helpless and unsupported, leading to misbehavior.
- Upon entering USD, every child should receive a comprehensive evaluation in areas such as hearing loss, IQ level, and home background to assess their educational potential. A customized program should then be developed to fit the child's needs. Currently, Deaf children are often placed in existing programs that may not meet their needs. These evaluations should occur annually and be modified as necessary, involving a team of professionals, including clinical psychologists, guidance counselors, and dormitory counselors.
- The UAD objects to the mixing of potential grade-level students with slower learners, particularly in the simultaneous communication/total communication department, where class sizes are small. Teachers often focus on potential learners, yet these students are hindered by a slower classroom pace that must accommodate all learners. Implementing appropriate evaluations could help resolve this issue
- There is evidence that parents who advocate for the oral/aural program have undue influence on the school administration. Parents often oppose the transfer of certain children to the simultaneous communication department.
Dennis R. Platt. Photo: Robert L. Bonnell
Concerns Regarding Newspaper Propaganda:
The media often showed a noticeable bias, especially in favor of the oral method, as evidenced by publications like the Salt Lake Tribune. This biased representation can significantly affect vulnerable parents, particularly those who are hearing and may lack a comprehensive understanding of the needs and best practices for educating Deaf children in terms of their education and vocational training.
Individuals representing the Utah School for the Deaf during public lectures tend to advocate for the oral method. Furthermore, when parents speak with school administrators, they are often encouraged to immediately place their child in the oral department without an evaluation. The UAD stressed the importance of providing these parents with balanced information to help them make informed decisions about their Deaf children's education and vocational training. UAD firmly believed that a comprehensive approach that considers all communication methods is essential for effective Deaf education (UAD Bulletin, Spring 1971).
UAD advocates for a robust program at the University of Utah that trains all teachers of Deaf education with the skills needed to support various methods of communication, not solely speech and speech reading. Many graduate teachers of the Deaf at the University of Utah struggled to communicate effectively with Deaf adult individuals. This issue was critical, as these graduates' inability to sign forced Deaf adults to rely on speech, which can put them in uncomfortable situations, especially when their speech is unclear. UAD highlighted that Deaf adults depended on both lip-reading and signing for communication, rather than relying on a single method, which can strain their eyes.
This summary encapsulates the concerns and observations UAD wished to present to the Committee for the Study of Programs for the Deaf. The full article can be found in the UAD Bulletin, Spring 1971, under the Minutes of UAD Board Meetings.
The media often showed a noticeable bias, especially in favor of the oral method, as evidenced by publications like the Salt Lake Tribune. This biased representation can significantly affect vulnerable parents, particularly those who are hearing and may lack a comprehensive understanding of the needs and best practices for educating Deaf children in terms of their education and vocational training.
Individuals representing the Utah School for the Deaf during public lectures tend to advocate for the oral method. Furthermore, when parents speak with school administrators, they are often encouraged to immediately place their child in the oral department without an evaluation. The UAD stressed the importance of providing these parents with balanced information to help them make informed decisions about their Deaf children's education and vocational training. UAD firmly believed that a comprehensive approach that considers all communication methods is essential for effective Deaf education (UAD Bulletin, Spring 1971).
UAD advocates for a robust program at the University of Utah that trains all teachers of Deaf education with the skills needed to support various methods of communication, not solely speech and speech reading. Many graduate teachers of the Deaf at the University of Utah struggled to communicate effectively with Deaf adult individuals. This issue was critical, as these graduates' inability to sign forced Deaf adults to rely on speech, which can put them in uncomfortable situations, especially when their speech is unclear. UAD highlighted that Deaf adults depended on both lip-reading and signing for communication, rather than relying on a single method, which can strain their eyes.
This summary encapsulates the concerns and observations UAD wished to present to the Committee for the Study of Programs for the Deaf. The full article can be found in the UAD Bulletin, Spring 1971, under the Minutes of UAD Board Meetings.
Two Committees Compile Seventeen Recommendations
for the Utah School for the Deaf
for the Utah School for the Deaf
The State Advisory Committee for the Handicapped and the Committee for the Study of Programs for the Deaf meticulously developed a list of seventeen recommendations after extensive meetings, demonstrating their dedication and thoroughness in the process.
On December 11, 1970, both committees sent a delegation to present their findings to the Utah State Board of Education. The Board adopted several of these recommendations, some of which were already part of the existing policy at the Utah School for the Deaf (Subcommittee #4 Recommendations, 1970). On that day, the State Board listened to reports from the two committees regarding the issues facing the Deaf school. They also heard from proponents of two instructional programs for Deaf children (Chaffin, Deseret News, December 12, 1970).
Dr. Moroni H. Brown, a former State Board member, reported findings from his subcommittee on Deaf, Blind, and Socio-Economically Handicapped students, which was led by former Representative Della L. Loveridge (Chaffin, Deseret News, December 12, 1970). This subcommittee interviewed Deaf students at the Ogden's residential campus. Their report recommended that socialization among all Deaf children, regardless of their communication mode, be enhanced (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, December 12, 1970). Please refer to the Seventeen Recommendations on Policy for the Utah School for the Deaf in the image below.
On December 11, 1970, both committees sent a delegation to present their findings to the Utah State Board of Education. The Board adopted several of these recommendations, some of which were already part of the existing policy at the Utah School for the Deaf (Subcommittee #4 Recommendations, 1970). On that day, the State Board listened to reports from the two committees regarding the issues facing the Deaf school. They also heard from proponents of two instructional programs for Deaf children (Chaffin, Deseret News, December 12, 1970).
Dr. Moroni H. Brown, a former State Board member, reported findings from his subcommittee on Deaf, Blind, and Socio-Economically Handicapped students, which was led by former Representative Della L. Loveridge (Chaffin, Deseret News, December 12, 1970). This subcommittee interviewed Deaf students at the Ogden's residential campus. Their report recommended that socialization among all Deaf children, regardless of their communication mode, be enhanced (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, December 12, 1970). Please refer to the Seventeen Recommendations on Policy for the Utah School for the Deaf in the image below.
Seventeen Recommendations on Policy for the Utah School for the Deaf. Source: J. Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah
Senator Dean's committee recommended increased socialization among students, while Dr. Brown's committee suggested separating the two instructional methods until high school (Chaffin, Deseret News, December 12, 1970). Dr. Brown's group further recommended that students living in the school's dormitories be separated during junior high but allowed to socialize when they reached high school age (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, December 12, 1970).
Dr. Brown's committee proposed that Deaf students who could succeed in an oral program should continue their education in the public school system, as some parents in the oral education group believed their children should be isolated from sign language. However, parents of signing children felt this separation was discriminatory. The committee recommended that the Utah School for the Deaf determine the best course of action for each child, stressing that there could be no rigid rule (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, December 12, 1970; Chaffin, Deseret News, December 12, 1970).
At that time, all students received oral instruction through the sixth grade, following the 'Y' system, a method of education that separates students into oral and simultaneous communication. Instruction was divided based on a child's success in the oral program; if a child struggled, they could transfer to a simultaneous communication program. Dr. Brown's committee recommended changing this policy. They suggested that both sign language and oral programs should be available as soon as a child is identified as Deaf. They felt that these programs should be continuous from preschool through high school and that children should be able to transfer between programs as needed (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, December 12, 1970).
Keith Winegar, the Bountiful spokesman for the Oral Deaf Association of Utah, addressed the Utah State Board of Education, stating, 'We firmly believe that the oral program is a necessary and effective approach to the education of our children. We do not wish to diminish the options available to students trained in the simultaneous method, but we want to ensure that the programs remain distinct. It should be one method or the other, allowing parents to make that choice.' He expressed concerns about external pressures that were undermining the oral program at the Ogden Deaf School. He warned that his group would take 'extreme measures', such as legal action or public protests, if the program continued to be weakened (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, December 12, 1970).
Dr. Thomas C. Clark, an assistant professor in the Department of Communication Disorders at Utah State University, spoke on behalf of Deaf parents, arguing that settling on a single teaching method "denies individuality." He pointed out that some children require the opportunity to learn through simultaneous communication from an early age. Dr. Clark recommended that decisions about a child's education be made by parents or, in conjunction with diagnosticians, as early as age 2½ (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, December 12, 1970).
Dr. Brown's committee proposed that Deaf students who could succeed in an oral program should continue their education in the public school system, as some parents in the oral education group believed their children should be isolated from sign language. However, parents of signing children felt this separation was discriminatory. The committee recommended that the Utah School for the Deaf determine the best course of action for each child, stressing that there could be no rigid rule (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, December 12, 1970; Chaffin, Deseret News, December 12, 1970).
At that time, all students received oral instruction through the sixth grade, following the 'Y' system, a method of education that separates students into oral and simultaneous communication. Instruction was divided based on a child's success in the oral program; if a child struggled, they could transfer to a simultaneous communication program. Dr. Brown's committee recommended changing this policy. They suggested that both sign language and oral programs should be available as soon as a child is identified as Deaf. They felt that these programs should be continuous from preschool through high school and that children should be able to transfer between programs as needed (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, December 12, 1970).
Keith Winegar, the Bountiful spokesman for the Oral Deaf Association of Utah, addressed the Utah State Board of Education, stating, 'We firmly believe that the oral program is a necessary and effective approach to the education of our children. We do not wish to diminish the options available to students trained in the simultaneous method, but we want to ensure that the programs remain distinct. It should be one method or the other, allowing parents to make that choice.' He expressed concerns about external pressures that were undermining the oral program at the Ogden Deaf School. He warned that his group would take 'extreme measures', such as legal action or public protests, if the program continued to be weakened (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, December 12, 1970).
Dr. Thomas C. Clark, an assistant professor in the Department of Communication Disorders at Utah State University, spoke on behalf of Deaf parents, arguing that settling on a single teaching method "denies individuality." He pointed out that some children require the opportunity to learn through simultaneous communication from an early age. Dr. Clark recommended that decisions about a child's education be made by parents or, in conjunction with diagnosticians, as early as age 2½ (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, December 12, 1970).
The committees reached a consensus on three key points:
Vera M. Gee, the chairwoman of the Governor's Advisory Board for the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind, called on the state of Utah to clarify its policy regarding the education of Deaf children. She noted that similar controversies had arisen in the past, stating, "We went through this [controversy] 10 years ago, and we are saying the same things again" (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, December 12, 1970).
- Deaf children should be identified as early as possible.
- Their parents should receive counseling to understand both their responsibilities and the available programs.
- The Utah School for the Deaf should provide both the oral and simultaneous programs at all grade levels, allowing parents to choose the instructional method for their children (Chaffin, Deseret News, December 12, 1970).
Vera M. Gee, the chairwoman of the Governor's Advisory Board for the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind, called on the state of Utah to clarify its policy regarding the education of Deaf children. She noted that similar controversies had arisen in the past, stating, "We went through this [controversy] 10 years ago, and we are saying the same things again" (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, December 12, 1970).
The Governor’s Advisory Board of the Utah School for the Deaf. Front row, L-R: Verda Hayes, Ned C. Wheeler, chairman of the board, and Vera Gee, former
chairman. Back row, L-R: James E. Ferguson, Norman T. Foy, Fern Leigh, and Dr. Jay J. Campbell. Source. UAD Bulletin, June 1974.
Some of the seventeen recommendations supported the continuation of the oral and simultaneous communication educational tracks while introducing more formal procedures. Other key recommendations included:
These final recommendations were adopted for the ongoing operation of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind (Subcommittee #4 Recommendations, 1970).
Dr. Bitter raised objections to the final recommendations based on several grounds:
- Implementing an orientation for parents that covers various communication methodologies.
- Expanding the vocational placement program to work in harmony with both oral and simultaneous communication programs.
- Establishing procedures to gather input from concerned citizens and mechanisms to address those concerns.
- Setting certification requirements for teacher preparation programs for the Deaf, which would include some form of training in sign language.
These final recommendations were adopted for the ongoing operation of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind (Subcommittee #4 Recommendations, 1970).
Dr. Bitter raised objections to the final recommendations based on several grounds:
- The study that informed the recommendations was not conducted according to proper guidelines, procedures, and conditions.
- Some groups were not represented in the discussion.
- Individuals who spoke as authorities on the topic were not qualified to do so.
- There was a delay in selecting committee members.
- The committee operated more like a grand jury than its intended purpose.
- Information was released that should have remained confidential (G.B. Bitter, December 18, 1970; Jeff W. Pollock, The Utah Deaf Education Controversy, May 4, 2005).
The Proposal for a Dual-Track Program to Support Parental Choices
One pivotal moment in this struggle occurred during the 1969 walkout protest against the continued enforcement of the "Y" system, which enforced social segregation in the dual-track program. This protest echoed the 1962 student demonstration at the Utah School for the Deaf. Although the students did not achieve their desired outcomes, they found new ways to express their discontent. Some sign language students boldly crossed the hallway to the oral department, while others took the route to the simultaneous communication department. This act of defiance broke the "Y" system's rule that designated these areas as 'off-limits' to maintain a 'clean' communication environment. Students even confronted their oral teachers, accusing them of oppression and dominance (Raymond Monson, personal communication, November 9, 2010). For nearly a decade, the Utah Association for the Deaf, in collaboration with the PTSA, consisted of supportive parents who advocated for sign language and fought against the "Y" system. Their unwavering determination and resilience in the face of social segregation are truly admirable.
When faced with a challenging situation, Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind Superintendent Robert W. Tegeder sought assistance from his superior, Dr. Jay J. Campbell. Dr. Campbell, whose wife, Beth Ann Stewart Campbell, is a sign language interpreter and the Deputy Superintendent of the Utah State Office of Education, had been a crucial ally for the Utah Deaf community. Concerned for the welfare of Deaf children, he took the initiative to create the two-track program, a new educational framework that replaced the "Y" system (First Reunion of the Utah School for the Deaf Alumni, 1976; Campbell, 1977; Dr. Jay J. Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007).
When faced with a challenging situation, Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind Superintendent Robert W. Tegeder sought assistance from his superior, Dr. Jay J. Campbell. Dr. Campbell, whose wife, Beth Ann Stewart Campbell, is a sign language interpreter and the Deputy Superintendent of the Utah State Office of Education, had been a crucial ally for the Utah Deaf community. Concerned for the welfare of Deaf children, he took the initiative to create the two-track program, a new educational framework that replaced the "Y" system (First Reunion of the Utah School for the Deaf Alumni, 1976; Campbell, 1977; Dr. Jay J. Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007).
Beth Ann Stewart Campbell
Ned C. Wheeler, who became deaf at the age of 13 and graduated from the Utah School for the Deaf in 1933, was the chair of the USDB Governor's Advisory Council. He proposed the "two-track program" in response to various events, including Dr. Campbell's proposal, student strikes in 1962 and 1969, and the PTSA's opposition to the "Y" system policy. On December 28, 1970, the Utah State Board of Education authorized a new policy that permitted the Utah School for the Deaf to operate a two-track program, effectively eliminating the "Y" system. This new program allowed parents to choose between oral and total communication methods of instruction for their Deaf children, ages 2½ to 21, marking a significant shift in Deaf education (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011; Recommendations on Policy for the Utah School for the Deaf, 1970; Deseret News, December 29, 1970).
Ned C. Wheeler on the front cover of The Deaf American magazine in September 1976
The PTSA played a crucial role in influencing school policies. Many parents expressed concerns about the Utah School for the Deaf's dual-track program and proposed that the USDB Governor's Advisory Board replace the "Y" system with a new program. This new program would provide parents with the option of choosing between oralism and simultaneous communication. Upon approval, the proposal was submitted to the Utah State Board of Education for final consideration.
Utah State Board of Education Adopts New Policy
for the Utah School for the Deaf
for the Utah School for the Deaf
On December 28, 1970, after nearly ten years of debate regarding the best educational methods for Deaf students, the Utah State Board of Education approved a new policy to resolve the educational controversies surrounding the Utah School for the Deaf (Recommendation on Policy for the Utah School for the Deaf, 1970; Deseret News, December 29, 1970). This policy allowed the Utah School for the Deaf to implement a two-track program, giving parents the choice between oral communication and total communication methods, replacing the previous simultaneous communication approach for their Deaf children, ages 2½ to 21. Instead of being required to place their child in the oral program initially, parents now had options. The Parent Teacher and Student Association worked diligently to secure this new program, marking a significant victory for the Deaf community in Utah (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011).
Based on seventeen recommendations, Dr. Walter D. Talbot, the state superintendent of public instruction, presented the new policy. This system, referred to as the 'two-track' instructional system, permitted Deaf students to transfer between the two programs while ensuring professional evaluations of their progress (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, December 29, 1970). Despite objections from Dr. Grant B. Bitter, who believed that the new policy would not adequately address the needs of Deaf students, the State Board of Education moved forward.
The second major change in the policy affected junior high and high school students. Students using sign language would be placed in separate academic programs to prevent interference with the oral students, although integration was maintained during athletic events and other social gatherings for the Utah Deaf community (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, December 29, 1970; Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, December 29, 1970; Utah State Board of Education Report, 1973; Jeff W. Pollock, The Utah Deaf Education Controversy, May 4, 2005).
Robert W. Tegeder, superintendent of the Utah School for the Deaf, received guidance from Dr. Jay J. Campbell regarding the implications of these changes for the Deaf school (First Reunion of the Utah School for the Deaf Alumni, 1976; Utah School for the Deaf 100th Year Anniversary Alumni Reunion, 1984; Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, 2006). Superintendent Tegeder explained that the total separation of the two programs was based on reports from the committees involved (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, December 29, 1970).
The new policies, derived from the seventeen recommendations, included School Policy Number One, which stated that both the oral program and the total communication program should be available to every student. School Policy Number Two outlined the parameters for student placement, emphasizing that the student and parent should play essential roles in this determination (Campbell, 1977, p. 49).
Despite the PTSA's announced victory over the new policy change that would allow parents to choose between oral and total communication, USDB Superintendent Tegeder described the board's decision as "nothing really earth-shaking." He described it as a compromise on guidelines that were quite similar to those previously in place. He did not perceive a clear-cut victory for either side in the dispute; however, he did acknowledge that signing advocates now had official documentation to support their efforts (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, December 29, 1970).
Superintendent Tegeder pointed out that the debate over the best methods for educating Deaf students has been ongoing in America for more than 100 years and in Utah for about 84 years. He expressed skepticism that the new policy changes would resolve the long-standing controversy (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, December 29, 1970). For further details, you can refer to the image below, which presents the Recommendations for Policies One and Two for the Utah School for the Deaf.
Based on seventeen recommendations, Dr. Walter D. Talbot, the state superintendent of public instruction, presented the new policy. This system, referred to as the 'two-track' instructional system, permitted Deaf students to transfer between the two programs while ensuring professional evaluations of their progress (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, December 29, 1970). Despite objections from Dr. Grant B. Bitter, who believed that the new policy would not adequately address the needs of Deaf students, the State Board of Education moved forward.
The second major change in the policy affected junior high and high school students. Students using sign language would be placed in separate academic programs to prevent interference with the oral students, although integration was maintained during athletic events and other social gatherings for the Utah Deaf community (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, December 29, 1970; Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, December 29, 1970; Utah State Board of Education Report, 1973; Jeff W. Pollock, The Utah Deaf Education Controversy, May 4, 2005).
Robert W. Tegeder, superintendent of the Utah School for the Deaf, received guidance from Dr. Jay J. Campbell regarding the implications of these changes for the Deaf school (First Reunion of the Utah School for the Deaf Alumni, 1976; Utah School for the Deaf 100th Year Anniversary Alumni Reunion, 1984; Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, 2006). Superintendent Tegeder explained that the total separation of the two programs was based on reports from the committees involved (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, December 29, 1970).
The new policies, derived from the seventeen recommendations, included School Policy Number One, which stated that both the oral program and the total communication program should be available to every student. School Policy Number Two outlined the parameters for student placement, emphasizing that the student and parent should play essential roles in this determination (Campbell, 1977, p. 49).
Despite the PTSA's announced victory over the new policy change that would allow parents to choose between oral and total communication, USDB Superintendent Tegeder described the board's decision as "nothing really earth-shaking." He described it as a compromise on guidelines that were quite similar to those previously in place. He did not perceive a clear-cut victory for either side in the dispute; however, he did acknowledge that signing advocates now had official documentation to support their efforts (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, December 29, 1970).
Superintendent Tegeder pointed out that the debate over the best methods for educating Deaf students has been ongoing in America for more than 100 years and in Utah for about 84 years. He expressed skepticism that the new policy changes would resolve the long-standing controversy (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, December 29, 1970). For further details, you can refer to the image below, which presents the Recommendations for Policies One and Two for the Utah School for the Deaf.
The Implementation of the Two-Track" Program
at the Utah School for the Deaf
at the Utah School for the Deaf
The two-track program at the Utah School for the Deaf was introduced during the 1971-1972 school year (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, December 29, 1970). This system was implemented at the Ogden's residential campus and in the extension program located in Salt Lake City, both of which offered oral and total communication programs. These programs were maintained as separate departments to preserve their distinct methodologies. Over time, students enrolled in the on-campus oral program were transitioned to mainstream placements in nearby public schools (First Reunion of the Utah School for the Deaf Alumni, 1976; Utah School for the Deaf 100th Year Anniversary Alumni Reunion, 1984). At that time, parents could select a teaching method for their children starting at 2½ years old and continuing until they turned 21 (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011).
The advocacy for Deaf children's rights to appropriate education gained momentum in the early summer of 1970 when Dave Mortensen, a highly respected figure in the Utah Association for the Deaf and the Parent Teacher Student Association, raised his voice on behalf of Deaf students. Inspired by his Deaf daughter, Kristi Lee, Dave became a champion for equal access to education for Deaf children, advocating for them to have the same educational opportunities as their hearing peers (Dave Mortensen, Renae M. White, Don M. Mortensen, and Kristi Lee Mortensen, personal communication, April 17, 2009).
The advocacy for Deaf children's rights to appropriate education gained momentum in the early summer of 1970 when Dave Mortensen, a highly respected figure in the Utah Association for the Deaf and the Parent Teacher Student Association, raised his voice on behalf of Deaf students. Inspired by his Deaf daughter, Kristi Lee, Dave became a champion for equal access to education for Deaf children, advocating for them to have the same educational opportunities as their hearing peers (Dave Mortensen, Renae M. White, Don M. Mortensen, and Kristi Lee Mortensen, personal communication, April 17, 2009).
Two-Track Program With Communication Method Choices at the Utah School for the Deaf
The Utah State Board of Education Implements Segregation
at the Utah School for the Deaf
at the Utah School for the Deaf
On December 28, 1970, the Utah State Board of Education adopted a policy for the Utah School for the Deaf. This policy, which stated that 'Students in the Oral and Total Communication programs conducted at the School and its students who attend public schools shall be separated through the junior high school years' (The Salt Lake Tribune, December 28, 1970), was implemented during a time of significant civil rights gains. However, it perpetuated a form of segregation for Deaf students, a stark contradiction to the prevailing civil rights narrative.
Although the two-track program offered communication options for parents of Deaf children, Dave Mortensen, the President of the Utah Association of the Deaf, opposed the practice of segregation at the Utah School for the Deaf. He argued that the federal government had eliminated segregation throughout the United States. Despite advancements in civil rights, the Utah State Board of Education continued to uphold a harmful segregation policy for Deaf students in residential schools, day classes, and mainstream placements (Dave Mortensen, UAD Bulletin, June 1975).
In the June 1975 UAD Bulletin, President Mortensen vividly described how Deaf children were caught in a double standard. They were expected to navigate a confusing, distracting educational environment, akin to having two authority figures issuing contradictory instructions. This structure was not only harmful but also created significant struggles for the children, evoking a deep sense of empathy from the audience.
Although the two-track program offered communication options for parents of Deaf children, Dave Mortensen, the President of the Utah Association of the Deaf, opposed the practice of segregation at the Utah School for the Deaf. He argued that the federal government had eliminated segregation throughout the United States. Despite advancements in civil rights, the Utah State Board of Education continued to uphold a harmful segregation policy for Deaf students in residential schools, day classes, and mainstream placements (Dave Mortensen, UAD Bulletin, June 1975).
In the June 1975 UAD Bulletin, President Mortensen vividly described how Deaf children were caught in a double standard. They were expected to navigate a confusing, distracting educational environment, akin to having two authority figures issuing contradictory instructions. This structure was not only harmful but also created significant struggles for the children, evoking a deep sense of empathy from the audience.
W. David Mortensen, 1980. Photo by Robert L. Bonnell
Educational Placement Reflects Status
President Mortensen reviewed the educational system and believed that student placements reflected the administration's belief in each student's ability to learn to speak. The more capable a student was at speaking, the higher their status, and the better the services they received in the program. This created noticeable differences in treatment among students, leading to feelings of prestige and pride that would not occur for those placed in the signing program.
To illustrate what 'status' meant, Dave provided examples from TV commercials: if a commercial stated, "8 out of 10 doctors recommend Anacin!" a consumer might feel a sense of status for choosing that popular brand. He listed several status symbols that resonate with people and boost their self-esteem, including:
Dave's examples demonstrated that every individual desires to feel important. He shared experiences from former oral program graduates, including that of a student who had spent 13 years in the oral track. Despite his long tenure, school officials indicated he had not been successful and should switch to the signing track program. This revelation can be difficult to comprehend; the young person had invested over a decade in the oral department and had come to embrace status symbols associated with specific degrees of hearing loss, such as:
Suddenly, this oral student was being transferred to the signing program—the very program his parents had hoped to avoid! Not only was he expected to relinquish the status symbols associated with his perceived success, but he also faced disappointment for failing to meet his family's expectations. While he might feel relief from finally being able to sign openly rather than in secret, the emotional turmoil surrounding this program change would be overwhelming.
President Mortensen believed that the dual-track education system at the Utah School for the Deaf was unsuitable for students, despite its uniqueness in the nation. His concern was for the self-esteem of Deaf children and teens. The dual system pressured these students to conform to hearing norms set by their parents, teachers, administrators, audiologists, speech therapists, friends, and relatives. Dave argued that it was time for Deaf individuals to stop associating speech and lip reading (hearing values) with status. Instead, they should take pride in their identity as Deaf individuals. He envisioned a transformation that would turn the values of oppression into empowerment and pride.
Dave concluded his article by highlighting the urgent need for systemic change within the educational system. He noted that students in the total communication track were a minority within a minority, and that this status was typically determined by an administration that favored the oral program. He highlighted that the dual-track system at the Utah School for the Deaf caused animosity between the two programs—leading to hostility and resentment between the oral and total communication programs as they competed for limited resources and funding (Mortensen, UAD Bulletin, June 1975).
President Mortensen reviewed the educational system and believed that student placements reflected the administration's belief in each student's ability to learn to speak. The more capable a student was at speaking, the higher their status, and the better the services they received in the program. This created noticeable differences in treatment among students, leading to feelings of prestige and pride that would not occur for those placed in the signing program.
To illustrate what 'status' meant, Dave provided examples from TV commercials: if a commercial stated, "8 out of 10 doctors recommend Anacin!" a consumer might feel a sense of status for choosing that popular brand. He listed several status symbols that resonate with people and boost their self-esteem, including:
- A new car
- A college degree
- The right kind of friends
- Name-brand clothes
- Wealth
- A high-paying job
- A muscular or shapely body
- A prestigious title (e.g., president, queen, chairman)
- A truck and camper
- A spacious new house
- A large number of books (signifying intelligence)
Dave's examples demonstrated that every individual desires to feel important. He shared experiences from former oral program graduates, including that of a student who had spent 13 years in the oral track. Despite his long tenure, school officials indicated he had not been successful and should switch to the signing track program. This revelation can be difficult to comprehend; the young person had invested over a decade in the oral department and had come to embrace status symbols associated with specific degrees of hearing loss, such as:
- Good speech
- Speech reading
- Hearing ability
- Integration
- Understanding hearing people
- Avoiding signing or gesturing
- Attending a public school
- Having a hearing romantic partner
Suddenly, this oral student was being transferred to the signing program—the very program his parents had hoped to avoid! Not only was he expected to relinquish the status symbols associated with his perceived success, but he also faced disappointment for failing to meet his family's expectations. While he might feel relief from finally being able to sign openly rather than in secret, the emotional turmoil surrounding this program change would be overwhelming.
President Mortensen believed that the dual-track education system at the Utah School for the Deaf was unsuitable for students, despite its uniqueness in the nation. His concern was for the self-esteem of Deaf children and teens. The dual system pressured these students to conform to hearing norms set by their parents, teachers, administrators, audiologists, speech therapists, friends, and relatives. Dave argued that it was time for Deaf individuals to stop associating speech and lip reading (hearing values) with status. Instead, they should take pride in their identity as Deaf individuals. He envisioned a transformation that would turn the values of oppression into empowerment and pride.
Dave concluded his article by highlighting the urgent need for systemic change within the educational system. He noted that students in the total communication track were a minority within a minority, and that this status was typically determined by an administration that favored the oral program. He highlighted that the dual-track system at the Utah School for the Deaf caused animosity between the two programs—leading to hostility and resentment between the oral and total communication programs as they competed for limited resources and funding (Mortensen, UAD Bulletin, June 1975).
Utah School for the Deaf Encourages
Parents to Choose the Oral Program
Parents to Choose the Oral Program
Despite recent policy changes, which have drawn criticism from the Utah Association for the Deaf and the Parent Teacher Association, staff at the Utah School for the Deaf have been advising parents to enroll their children in the oral program. They have recommended that the total communication program be considered only if the child is not making adequate academic progress (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, 2006; Mortensen, UAD Bulletin, June 1975; Campbell, 1977; Jeff W. Pollock, The Utah Deaf Education Controversy, May 4, 2005). Consequently, the school has not been fully compliant with the newly established guidelines.
Dr. Jay J. Campbell observed that the two programs were not presented equally to parents, and student placements often did not reflect professional evaluations of their needs. He was particularly concerned that the USD Parent Infant Program (PIP) was urging parents to commit to keeping their child in the oral program while providing little opportunity to consider the total communication program (Campbell, 1977).
Interestingly, the PIP program, a significant player in the Deaf education system, notably influenced the number of Deaf children enrolled in the oral program. The program recommended the total communication option mainly for parents whose children were struggling with speech skills, which led to a disproportionate placement of Deaf students in the oral program.
Dr. Campbell noted that Deaf children who began in the total communication program often transitioned from the oral program. The oral program administrators labeled these children as "oral failures" when they struggled with listening and speaking. Lane (1999) noted that this label had a profoundly negative impact on students, leading them to internalize a stigma that made them resistant to the signing program and ultimately hampered their acceptance of the simultaneous communication (Sim-Com) program. These oral students had been taught to view total communication as inferior, and being placed in the Sim-Com program damaged their self-image and motivation to learn, as the oral philosophy biased them against signing (Campbell, 1977; Jeff W. Pollock, The Utah Deaf Education Controversy, May 4, 2005).
Dr. Campbell also found that most Utah School for the Deaf staff held the misconception that signing hindered verbal language development. This belief led staff to recommend that Deaf children be placed in the oral program first to learn to speak. The only exceptions were for Deaf children with multiple disabilities or if parents specifically preferred the total communication program (Campbell, 1977). Dr. Campbell argued that by offering only one communicative system for all Deaf children, the program deprived parents of crucial information about other educational alternatives that could meet their children's diverse needs (Campbell, 1977, p. 82).
A staff conference was held to discuss alternative placements for children not making adequate progress in the oral program. This conference typically included one or both curriculum coordinators, the principal, an audiologist, and a teacher. Parent participation was rare, and students were never included (Campbell, 1977).
Due to School Policy Number Two, which assigned USD staff the responsibility of determining student placements, Dr. Campbell noted that these meetings created ongoing conflicts among staff and led to biased placement decisions. He was alarmed that there were no uniform assessments or objective test data available to make informed educational placement decisions. Consequently, Dr. Campbell recommended that placement determinations should not fall solely on the USD staff or administration. He also suggested separating the oral and total communication programs entirely, rather than having them operate under a single principal (Campbell, 1977). Ironically, this question resurfaced in 2004 when Janet Cannon, a member of the Utah State Board of Education, asked whether USD should have one administrator or if each program should have its own principal (Cannon's Paper Given to the USDB Institutional Council, 2004).
Dr. Campbell envisioned a system that did not abolish either program. He acknowledged the need for both distinct educational methodologies to coexist on the same campus, but he anticipated ongoing challenges as long as this arrangement persisted. His final recommendation was decisive: a complete separation of the "two-track system." This was not merely a suggestion; it was a call to action to resolve the internal and external conflicts between the Oral and Total Communication Programs and to lessen competition between them. Each program, he proposed, should have its own dean, supervisor, principal, and teachers, highlighting the urgency for change.
The teachers supported this recommendation to appoint separate principals: one for the Oral Department and one for the Total Communication Department. They believed this would allow for effective supervision given the fundamentally different philosophies at the residential school.
Dr. Jay J. Campbell observed that the two programs were not presented equally to parents, and student placements often did not reflect professional evaluations of their needs. He was particularly concerned that the USD Parent Infant Program (PIP) was urging parents to commit to keeping their child in the oral program while providing little opportunity to consider the total communication program (Campbell, 1977).
Interestingly, the PIP program, a significant player in the Deaf education system, notably influenced the number of Deaf children enrolled in the oral program. The program recommended the total communication option mainly for parents whose children were struggling with speech skills, which led to a disproportionate placement of Deaf students in the oral program.
Dr. Campbell noted that Deaf children who began in the total communication program often transitioned from the oral program. The oral program administrators labeled these children as "oral failures" when they struggled with listening and speaking. Lane (1999) noted that this label had a profoundly negative impact on students, leading them to internalize a stigma that made them resistant to the signing program and ultimately hampered their acceptance of the simultaneous communication (Sim-Com) program. These oral students had been taught to view total communication as inferior, and being placed in the Sim-Com program damaged their self-image and motivation to learn, as the oral philosophy biased them against signing (Campbell, 1977; Jeff W. Pollock, The Utah Deaf Education Controversy, May 4, 2005).
Dr. Campbell also found that most Utah School for the Deaf staff held the misconception that signing hindered verbal language development. This belief led staff to recommend that Deaf children be placed in the oral program first to learn to speak. The only exceptions were for Deaf children with multiple disabilities or if parents specifically preferred the total communication program (Campbell, 1977). Dr. Campbell argued that by offering only one communicative system for all Deaf children, the program deprived parents of crucial information about other educational alternatives that could meet their children's diverse needs (Campbell, 1977, p. 82).
A staff conference was held to discuss alternative placements for children not making adequate progress in the oral program. This conference typically included one or both curriculum coordinators, the principal, an audiologist, and a teacher. Parent participation was rare, and students were never included (Campbell, 1977).
Due to School Policy Number Two, which assigned USD staff the responsibility of determining student placements, Dr. Campbell noted that these meetings created ongoing conflicts among staff and led to biased placement decisions. He was alarmed that there were no uniform assessments or objective test data available to make informed educational placement decisions. Consequently, Dr. Campbell recommended that placement determinations should not fall solely on the USD staff or administration. He also suggested separating the oral and total communication programs entirely, rather than having them operate under a single principal (Campbell, 1977). Ironically, this question resurfaced in 2004 when Janet Cannon, a member of the Utah State Board of Education, asked whether USD should have one administrator or if each program should have its own principal (Cannon's Paper Given to the USDB Institutional Council, 2004).
Dr. Campbell envisioned a system that did not abolish either program. He acknowledged the need for both distinct educational methodologies to coexist on the same campus, but he anticipated ongoing challenges as long as this arrangement persisted. His final recommendation was decisive: a complete separation of the "two-track system." This was not merely a suggestion; it was a call to action to resolve the internal and external conflicts between the Oral and Total Communication Programs and to lessen competition between them. Each program, he proposed, should have its own dean, supervisor, principal, and teachers, highlighting the urgency for change.
The teachers supported this recommendation to appoint separate principals: one for the Oral Department and one for the Total Communication Department. They believed this would allow for effective supervision given the fundamentally different philosophies at the residential school.
A Revolutionary Notion of Total Communication
in the Deaf Educational System
in the Deaf Educational System
Prior to the implementation of the two-track program at the Utah School for the Deaf, on May 18, 1970, USDB Superintendent Robert W. Tegeder reported to the Governor's Advisory Council that approximately 90 percent of schools for the deaf in the United States were using the oral method to teach children aged 10 to 12 (Deseret News, May 19, 1970). This trend, noted by many educators, prompted state schools for the deaf to adopt oral methods for younger students as well (Educating Deaf Children, 1970).
In 1967, Dr. Roy K. Holcomb, a Deaf educator, began to challenge this approach. While teaching at the Indiana School for the Deaf, he developed the total communication approach after observing the limitations and frustrations of oralism. His method emphasized using various communication modes to effectively reach Deaf students. Dr. Holcomb shared his ideas with colleagues at California State University—Northridge, believing that diverse communication methods were essential for the educational success of Deaf children. The total communication approach was first implemented during the 1968-69 school year in Santa Ana, California (Educating Deaf Children, 1970).
In 1967, Dr. Roy K. Holcomb, a Deaf educator, began to challenge this approach. While teaching at the Indiana School for the Deaf, he developed the total communication approach after observing the limitations and frustrations of oralism. His method emphasized using various communication modes to effectively reach Deaf students. Dr. Holcomb shared his ideas with colleagues at California State University—Northridge, believing that diverse communication methods were essential for the educational success of Deaf children. The total communication approach was first implemented during the 1968-69 school year in Santa Ana, California (Educating Deaf Children, 1970).
Dr. Roy K. Holcomb. Source: Deaf Life, December 1998
This revolutionary idea aimed to provide Deaf children with access to multiple forms of communication, fostering language development. Its implementation sparked renewed interest in American Sign Language (ASL) in Deaf educational settings, which had declined since the early 1900s (Educating Deaf Children, 1970; Hawkin & Brawner, 1997; Gannon, 1981). The method quickly gained popularity and became an essential component of Deaf education, including at the Utah School for the Deaf, which adopted a two-track program that incorporated total communication.
Dr. Holcomb's vision was to unify the various communication methods used by Deaf students in the classroom. The rise of total communication from the 1970s onward coincided with the emergence of manual codes for English, such as Signing Exact English. Some teachers struggled with their sign language skills, while those proficient in signing often combined it with spoken and written English, signing key words in the order of spoken English (Lane, Hoffmeister, & Bahan, 1996).
Utah resisted the national trend towards adopting total communication. Although the Utah School for the Deaf eventually incorporated this method for its signing students, the school continued to prioritize the oral approach (Baldwin, 1990).
Dr. Holcomb's vision was to unify the various communication methods used by Deaf students in the classroom. The rise of total communication from the 1970s onward coincided with the emergence of manual codes for English, such as Signing Exact English. Some teachers struggled with their sign language skills, while those proficient in signing often combined it with spoken and written English, signing key words in the order of spoken English (Lane, Hoffmeister, & Bahan, 1996).
Utah resisted the national trend towards adopting total communication. Although the Utah School for the Deaf eventually incorporated this method for its signing students, the school continued to prioritize the oral approach (Baldwin, 1990).
Did You Know?
Dr. Roy K. Holcomb is often referred to as the "Father of Total Communication." The Total Communication philosophy marked an important shift in the educational history of American Deaf students (Hawkin & Brawner, 1997).
Grant B. Bitter included his reflections on how the philosophy of Total Communication was promoted throughout the Deaf education system in America from 1968 to 1989, particularly from 1970 to 1978, in his Summary of Tenure report. He regarded this period as tragic because, in most states, parents lost the right to choose oral instructional (spoken language) programs for their Deaf children unless they enrolled them in regular education classes, where they often received minimal support. According to Dr. Bitter, many deaf children "lost out" and were placed in sign language classes. As a result, most students who initially used some spoken language no longer had the environment or incentive to continue developing their oral communication skills, resulting in a deterioration of their speech and listening abilities. To Dr. Bitter, this situation confined these children to a "silent world." Based on his report, it is evident that Dr. Bitter did not fully understand the true needs of Deaf children.
Dr. Bitter also reflected on the Deaf education profession in his report. He felt that many professionals and parents were either too exhausted to resist the promotion of sign language, with its appealing but often misleading generalities, or had become convinced that signing would be successful. He lamented that these professionals and parents had stopped cooperating to pursue what he viewed as quality educational options, specifically oral/aural deaf education programs. Many highly skilled Deaf education professionals left the field, while others who remained faced professional destruction as their oral education skills became obsolete. Dr. Bitter felt that his life's work was being betrayed and replaced by something he believed would fail (Bitter, A Summary Report for Tenure, 1985).
Grant B. Bitter included his reflections on how the philosophy of Total Communication was promoted throughout the Deaf education system in America from 1968 to 1989, particularly from 1970 to 1978, in his Summary of Tenure report. He regarded this period as tragic because, in most states, parents lost the right to choose oral instructional (spoken language) programs for their Deaf children unless they enrolled them in regular education classes, where they often received minimal support. According to Dr. Bitter, many deaf children "lost out" and were placed in sign language classes. As a result, most students who initially used some spoken language no longer had the environment or incentive to continue developing their oral communication skills, resulting in a deterioration of their speech and listening abilities. To Dr. Bitter, this situation confined these children to a "silent world." Based on his report, it is evident that Dr. Bitter did not fully understand the true needs of Deaf children.
Dr. Bitter also reflected on the Deaf education profession in his report. He felt that many professionals and parents were either too exhausted to resist the promotion of sign language, with its appealing but often misleading generalities, or had become convinced that signing would be successful. He lamented that these professionals and parents had stopped cooperating to pursue what he viewed as quality educational options, specifically oral/aural deaf education programs. Many highly skilled Deaf education professionals left the field, while others who remained faced professional destruction as their oral education skills became obsolete. Dr. Bitter felt that his life's work was being betrayed and replaced by something he believed would fail (Bitter, A Summary Report for Tenure, 1985).
Inequality Education in the
Total Communication Program
Total Communication Program
Parents of Deaf children, including Dave Mortensen, played a crucial role in pushing for a total communication program in Salt Lake City. They firmly believed in their Deaf children's right to communicate using sign language. Dave's advocacy for sign language classes in the area was vital in ensuring Deaf students had access to them. This effort led the Utah School for the Deaf to support his view, ultimately resulting in the provision of sign language instruction at Glendale Junior High School for Deaf students. These developments were significant victories for the Utah Deaf community and highlighted the effectiveness of collective advocacy.
The Utah School for the Deaf launched its total communication program in 1971. Despite challenges, four Deaf students, including Kristi Lee Mortensen, enrolled at Glendale Junior High School. They quickly encountered issues when mainstream classes did not offer sign language interpreting services. Despite this, Kristi and her classmates showed resilience, relying on lip-reading and sharing notes to keep up with their studies.
Another challenge was the classroom location. The oral program began at Glendale Junior High in the early 1960s, but later moved to Clayton Junior High School and East High School, both in wealthier areas. In contrast, Glendale was in a low-income part of South Salt Lake City, which led to growing awareness of the inequalities faced by Deaf students and their families.
Conditions worsened when the oral students at Glendale participated in activities without the sign language interpreters. The school's principal and teachers resisted introducing sign language, fearing it would distract hearing students. Dave had to advocate for sign language interpreters in meetings with the school's guidance counselor, who initially compared the situation to that of oral students, complicating Dave's case.
Eventually, the counselor acknowledged the need for interpreters and convinced the administration to allow Deaf students to participate in talent shows and other events, thanks to interpreters' assistance. However, Dave faced a more formidable challenge in convincing the Utah School for the Deaf to fund interpreters for assemblies, field trips, and school performances. After making a strong case, the school agreed to cover those costs.
Despite some successes, the Utah School for the Deaf moved total communication students to Northwest Junior High School in Rose Park, which was seen as unsafe and of lower quality. Student morale declined following this relocation. Although a two-track program existed, offering parents a choice, significant disparities remained. Students in the total communication program got fewer resources than those in the oral program.
Kristi remembered an event where her oral friends felt they could obtain anything they needed by simply talking to school administrators. In contrast, total communication students had to continuously push for equal access to resources and services from the Utah School for the Deaf, highlighting the importance of advocacy in addressing educational inequalities for Deaf students.
When the school counselor acknowledged the necessity of interpreters, Dave successfully advocated for Deaf students to participate in school events at Glendale Junior High. He later had to persuade the Utah School for the Deaf to fund interpreters for other critical activities, emphasizing that these supports were essential for ensuring equal opportunities for Deaf students (Dave Mortensen, Renae M. White, Don M. Mortensen, and Kristi L. Mortensen, April 17, 2009; Kristi Lee Mortensen, personal communication, June 17, 2011).
The Utah School for the Deaf launched its total communication program in 1971. Despite challenges, four Deaf students, including Kristi Lee Mortensen, enrolled at Glendale Junior High School. They quickly encountered issues when mainstream classes did not offer sign language interpreting services. Despite this, Kristi and her classmates showed resilience, relying on lip-reading and sharing notes to keep up with their studies.
Another challenge was the classroom location. The oral program began at Glendale Junior High in the early 1960s, but later moved to Clayton Junior High School and East High School, both in wealthier areas. In contrast, Glendale was in a low-income part of South Salt Lake City, which led to growing awareness of the inequalities faced by Deaf students and their families.
Conditions worsened when the oral students at Glendale participated in activities without the sign language interpreters. The school's principal and teachers resisted introducing sign language, fearing it would distract hearing students. Dave had to advocate for sign language interpreters in meetings with the school's guidance counselor, who initially compared the situation to that of oral students, complicating Dave's case.
Eventually, the counselor acknowledged the need for interpreters and convinced the administration to allow Deaf students to participate in talent shows and other events, thanks to interpreters' assistance. However, Dave faced a more formidable challenge in convincing the Utah School for the Deaf to fund interpreters for assemblies, field trips, and school performances. After making a strong case, the school agreed to cover those costs.
Despite some successes, the Utah School for the Deaf moved total communication students to Northwest Junior High School in Rose Park, which was seen as unsafe and of lower quality. Student morale declined following this relocation. Although a two-track program existed, offering parents a choice, significant disparities remained. Students in the total communication program got fewer resources than those in the oral program.
Kristi remembered an event where her oral friends felt they could obtain anything they needed by simply talking to school administrators. In contrast, total communication students had to continuously push for equal access to resources and services from the Utah School for the Deaf, highlighting the importance of advocacy in addressing educational inequalities for Deaf students.
When the school counselor acknowledged the necessity of interpreters, Dave successfully advocated for Deaf students to participate in school events at Glendale Junior High. He later had to persuade the Utah School for the Deaf to fund interpreters for other critical activities, emphasizing that these supports were essential for ensuring equal opportunities for Deaf students (Dave Mortensen, Renae M. White, Don M. Mortensen, and Kristi L. Mortensen, April 17, 2009; Kristi Lee Mortensen, personal communication, June 17, 2011).
Kristi Lee Mortensen. Source: The Utahn, 1973
Did You Know?
In the late 1960s and 1970s, a significant transformation occurred in Deaf education in the United States. This shift moved from the oral method to a total communication approach, which included the use of sign language. This change was largely influenced by the pioneering work of Dr. Roy K. Holcomb.
While total communication spread rapidly in national Deaf education, Dr. William C. Stokoe's research established American Sign Language (ASL) as an official language with its own syntax, morphology, and structure in 1960. However, ASL did not gain widespread recognition until the 1990s.
A landmark development during this period was the introduction of a new two-track policy. This significant and complex step enabled both oral and total communication methods to be used in education, providing families with options to choose from. Despite these advancements, many professionals in Utah's Deaf education community remained resistant to change, continuing to advocate for the oral method. Additionally, the University of Utah's Teacher Training Program incorporated only a small portion of the total communication method into its curriculum, highlighting the challenges faced during this transitional period.
While total communication spread rapidly in national Deaf education, Dr. William C. Stokoe's research established American Sign Language (ASL) as an official language with its own syntax, morphology, and structure in 1960. However, ASL did not gain widespread recognition until the 1990s.
A landmark development during this period was the introduction of a new two-track policy. This significant and complex step enabled both oral and total communication methods to be used in education, providing families with options to choose from. Despite these advancements, many professionals in Utah's Deaf education community remained resistant to change, continuing to advocate for the oral method. Additionally, the University of Utah's Teacher Training Program incorporated only a small portion of the total communication method into its curriculum, highlighting the challenges faced during this transitional period.
Sign Language and the Deaf Community : Essays in Honor of William Stokoe
A Rivalry Between Two Giant Figures: Dr. Robert G. Sanderson and
Dr. Grant B. Bitter in Deaf Education in Utah
Dr. Grant B. Bitter in Deaf Education in Utah
The rivalry between Dr. Robert G. Sanderson and Dr. Grant B. Bitter marks a significant chapter in the history of Deaf education in Utah. These two giant figures not only influenced the development of Deaf education in the state, but their contentious interactions also added an element of drama, making their conflict a captivating story within this field. Their dispute had a profound impact on Deaf education in Utah, highlighting the passionate dedication and differing philosophies that can emerge in the pursuit of educational excellence for the Utah Deaf community.
During the 1960s, Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, a 1936 graduate of the Utah School for the Deaf and a 1941 graduate of Gallaudet College, observed a decline in the use of sign language within Utah's educational system as spoken language gained popularity. His devotion to the Deaf community defined his life's work. In 1964, he was elected president of the National Association of the Deaf, having previously served as president of the Utah Association of the Deaf from 1960 to 1963. In 1965, he became the Deaf Services Coordinator at the Utah State Office of Rehabilitation, allowing him to directly influence the education and well-being of Deaf children. He courageously advocated for the preservation of sign language while fighting against Dr. Grant B. Bitter, who promoted oral communication and mainstream education. Dr. Sanderson worked tirelessly to ensure that Deaf children received a high-quality education (Robert G. Sanderson, personal communication, October 21, 2006).
The Utah Deaf community holds Dr. Sanderson in high regard for his gutsiness. His fearless personality led him to challenge Dr. Bitter, who had considerable power and influence within the University of Utah and in the legislation supporting oral and mainstream approaches to Deaf education. Hundreds of parents who advocated for oral education backed Dr. Bitter. Dr. Sanderson's repeated confrontations with Dr. Bitter infuriated him and his supporters, who demanded that Dr. Avaad Rigby, Dr. Sanderson's supervisor at the Utah State Office of Rehabilitation, terminate his employment. However, Dr. Rigby recognized the importance of Dr. Sanderson's work and the value he brought to the state of Utah. He refused to fire Dr. Sanderson, demonstrating the crucial role that supportive alliances, even within the administrative hierarchy, play in advocating for Deaf education. The state had recently hired Dr. Sanderson as a Deaf Services Coordinator, which underscored his significant value to Utah. Dr. Rigby's support for Dr. Sanderson's various political activities outside of work further strengthened their alliance (Robert G. Sanderson, personal communication, October 21, 2006; Stewart, DSDHH Newsletter, April 2012). The conflict between Dr. Bitter and Dr. Sanderson mirrored the historic clash between Dr. Edward Gallaudet, the esteemed president of Gallaudet College, and Alexander Graham Bell in the 1800s. Dr. Gallaudet advocated for sign language, while Dr. Bell fervently promoted speech and lip-reading. This rivalry had a significant impact on the direction of Deaf education in America.
During the 1960s, Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, a 1936 graduate of the Utah School for the Deaf and a 1941 graduate of Gallaudet College, observed a decline in the use of sign language within Utah's educational system as spoken language gained popularity. His devotion to the Deaf community defined his life's work. In 1964, he was elected president of the National Association of the Deaf, having previously served as president of the Utah Association of the Deaf from 1960 to 1963. In 1965, he became the Deaf Services Coordinator at the Utah State Office of Rehabilitation, allowing him to directly influence the education and well-being of Deaf children. He courageously advocated for the preservation of sign language while fighting against Dr. Grant B. Bitter, who promoted oral communication and mainstream education. Dr. Sanderson worked tirelessly to ensure that Deaf children received a high-quality education (Robert G. Sanderson, personal communication, October 21, 2006).
The Utah Deaf community holds Dr. Sanderson in high regard for his gutsiness. His fearless personality led him to challenge Dr. Bitter, who had considerable power and influence within the University of Utah and in the legislation supporting oral and mainstream approaches to Deaf education. Hundreds of parents who advocated for oral education backed Dr. Bitter. Dr. Sanderson's repeated confrontations with Dr. Bitter infuriated him and his supporters, who demanded that Dr. Avaad Rigby, Dr. Sanderson's supervisor at the Utah State Office of Rehabilitation, terminate his employment. However, Dr. Rigby recognized the importance of Dr. Sanderson's work and the value he brought to the state of Utah. He refused to fire Dr. Sanderson, demonstrating the crucial role that supportive alliances, even within the administrative hierarchy, play in advocating for Deaf education. The state had recently hired Dr. Sanderson as a Deaf Services Coordinator, which underscored his significant value to Utah. Dr. Rigby's support for Dr. Sanderson's various political activities outside of work further strengthened their alliance (Robert G. Sanderson, personal communication, October 21, 2006; Stewart, DSDHH Newsletter, April 2012). The conflict between Dr. Bitter and Dr. Sanderson mirrored the historic clash between Dr. Edward Gallaudet, the esteemed president of Gallaudet College, and Alexander Graham Bell in the 1800s. Dr. Gallaudet advocated for sign language, while Dr. Bell fervently promoted speech and lip-reading. This rivalry had a significant impact on the direction of Deaf education in America.
Source: 'Never the Twain Shall Meet: The Communication Debate by Richard Winefield'
Dr. Grant B. Bitter's challenge to the Utah Association for the Deaf was not a random act but a response to what he perceived as a threat to his position. During the interview with the University of Utah in 1987, Dr. Bitter stated that Dr. Sanderson, who became Deaf when he was 11 and grew up in both public school and state school for the deaf, 'knew nothing about school programs, but because he was deaf and an advocate of the Deaf community, he obviously played a vital role as far as the Deaf community was concerned' (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987, p. 30).
Dr. Sanderson campaigned politically for sign language and was appointed by the Utah State Office of Education to join committees, along with other members of the Utah Association for the Deaf. Dr. Bitter challenged this, particularly Della Loveridge, a legislator and Deaf community advocate, who had appointed Dr. Sanderson and other Deaf members to her committee, of which Dr. Bitter was also a member. Dr. Bitter felt threatened by their committee appointments but denied it in his interview. He believed that his objection constituted a threat to them.
During a state committee meeting, Della Loveridge described Dr. Bitter as "emotionally disturbed." Dr. Bitter expressed concerns that the UAD had become too powerful and deeply entrenched within the Utah State Office of Education, where their meetings took place. In response to his concerns, he requested Della Loveridge to resign as chairperson of the committee, which sparked a vendetta against him (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987). The UAD board members were likely deeply invested in Deaf education because they were excluded from the secret implementation of the dual-track program in 1962. This program, which offered both oral communication and sign language, was highly controversial and divided the community, sparking intense debates that further fueled the conflict. The discussions within the community reflected a broader struggle for recognition and respect for sign language education.
Dr. Bitter's interview also revealed a dramatic conflict between him and Dr. Jay J. Campbell, the Deputy Superintendent of the Utah State Office of Education and an advocate for the Utah Deaf community, as well as Dr. Sanderson. Both Dr. Campbell and Dr. Sanderson were part of a committee studying the operations of the Utah School for the Deaf. With the support of 300 parents of Deaf oral children, Dr. Bitter successfully blocked their proposal on how the Utah School for the Deaf should run (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987).
Dr. Sanderson campaigned politically for sign language and was appointed by the Utah State Office of Education to join committees, along with other members of the Utah Association for the Deaf. Dr. Bitter challenged this, particularly Della Loveridge, a legislator and Deaf community advocate, who had appointed Dr. Sanderson and other Deaf members to her committee, of which Dr. Bitter was also a member. Dr. Bitter felt threatened by their committee appointments but denied it in his interview. He believed that his objection constituted a threat to them.
During a state committee meeting, Della Loveridge described Dr. Bitter as "emotionally disturbed." Dr. Bitter expressed concerns that the UAD had become too powerful and deeply entrenched within the Utah State Office of Education, where their meetings took place. In response to his concerns, he requested Della Loveridge to resign as chairperson of the committee, which sparked a vendetta against him (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987). The UAD board members were likely deeply invested in Deaf education because they were excluded from the secret implementation of the dual-track program in 1962. This program, which offered both oral communication and sign language, was highly controversial and divided the community, sparking intense debates that further fueled the conflict. The discussions within the community reflected a broader struggle for recognition and respect for sign language education.
Dr. Bitter's interview also revealed a dramatic conflict between him and Dr. Jay J. Campbell, the Deputy Superintendent of the Utah State Office of Education and an advocate for the Utah Deaf community, as well as Dr. Sanderson. Both Dr. Campbell and Dr. Sanderson were part of a committee studying the operations of the Utah School for the Deaf. With the support of 300 parents of Deaf oral children, Dr. Bitter successfully blocked their proposal on how the Utah School for the Deaf should run (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987).
Dr. Robert G. Sanderson. Source: The UAD Bulletin, Winter 1965
Dr. Frank R. Turk, the national director of the Jr. NAD, worked with Dr. Sanderson, who served as the president of the National Association of the Deaf in the 1960s. Dr. Turk's portrayal of Dr. Sanderson differed from that of Dr. Bitter. As a Deaf educator, Dr. Turk regarded Dr. Sanderson as an outstanding educator and a passionate advocate for the education of Deaf individuals. Dr. Sanderson had a deep understanding of the connection between a Deaf child's K–12 education and their opportunities in higher education, which ultimately leads to successful employment outcomes.
Dr. Turk highlighted Dr. Sanderson's passion for advocating on behalf of young people with leadership potential. He made significant contributions to promoting social, educational, economic, and community equality for Deaf Americans (Turk, 2019). His personal experience of losing his hearing and feeling lost in a public school may have influenced Dr. Sanderson's dedication to the cause. After recovering from an illness, he flourished at the Utah School for the Deaf, where he saw that many Deaf children lacked both education and socialization in mainstream settings. He recognized the loneliness and isolation these children often faced compared to their hearing peers due to communication barriers. Dr. Sanderson's journey from feeling lost in public school to thriving at the Utah School for the Deaf is a testament to his resilience, highlighting his deep understanding of the challenges faced by Deaf students.
According to Dr. Turk, Dr. Sanderson emphasized the importance of socialization in education. He encouraged teachers to help students ask questions about their school experiences. Dr. Sanderson stressed that educators in both public and residential schools should create an environment where Deaf students feel comfortable asking questions and expressing their concerns. He pointed out that socialization is an integral part of Deaf education that is often ignored (Turk, 2019).
This philosophy is more than just a belief; it is a call to action for teachers and the broader community to make schools and other educational institutions more welcoming and supportive for Deaf students. Dr. Sanderson's advocacy has raised awareness of the challenges that Deaf students face, emphasizing that they require a nurturing educational environment that encourages curiosity. He said that kids should learn more than just the three R's: reading, writing, and math. They should also learn the importance of socializing. His emphasis on social interaction led to the concept of "resourcefulness," which encompasses the ability to adapt, solve problems, and communicate effectively (Turk, 2019). All should feel the urgency of Dr. Sanderson's cause, as it is a crucial step towards a more inclusive society..
Dr. Sanderson believed that nurturing resourcefulness through after-school activities focused on leadership, empowerment, a positive attitude, discipline, empathy, respect, perseverance, and humility is crucial for achieving success in school, college, the workplace, and community life. Consequently, organizations such as the Junior National Association of the Deaf (Jr. NAD) and the Student Body Government (SBG) have taken on the responsibility of fostering these vital skills (Turk, 2019). Dr. Sanderson's advocacy for resourcefulness serves as a powerful reminder of the importance of creating inclusive and supportive environments for Deaf students.
Dr. Turk highlighted Dr. Sanderson's passion for advocating on behalf of young people with leadership potential. He made significant contributions to promoting social, educational, economic, and community equality for Deaf Americans (Turk, 2019). His personal experience of losing his hearing and feeling lost in a public school may have influenced Dr. Sanderson's dedication to the cause. After recovering from an illness, he flourished at the Utah School for the Deaf, where he saw that many Deaf children lacked both education and socialization in mainstream settings. He recognized the loneliness and isolation these children often faced compared to their hearing peers due to communication barriers. Dr. Sanderson's journey from feeling lost in public school to thriving at the Utah School for the Deaf is a testament to his resilience, highlighting his deep understanding of the challenges faced by Deaf students.
According to Dr. Turk, Dr. Sanderson emphasized the importance of socialization in education. He encouraged teachers to help students ask questions about their school experiences. Dr. Sanderson stressed that educators in both public and residential schools should create an environment where Deaf students feel comfortable asking questions and expressing their concerns. He pointed out that socialization is an integral part of Deaf education that is often ignored (Turk, 2019).
This philosophy is more than just a belief; it is a call to action for teachers and the broader community to make schools and other educational institutions more welcoming and supportive for Deaf students. Dr. Sanderson's advocacy has raised awareness of the challenges that Deaf students face, emphasizing that they require a nurturing educational environment that encourages curiosity. He said that kids should learn more than just the three R's: reading, writing, and math. They should also learn the importance of socializing. His emphasis on social interaction led to the concept of "resourcefulness," which encompasses the ability to adapt, solve problems, and communicate effectively (Turk, 2019). All should feel the urgency of Dr. Sanderson's cause, as it is a crucial step towards a more inclusive society..
Dr. Sanderson believed that nurturing resourcefulness through after-school activities focused on leadership, empowerment, a positive attitude, discipline, empathy, respect, perseverance, and humility is crucial for achieving success in school, college, the workplace, and community life. Consequently, organizations such as the Junior National Association of the Deaf (Jr. NAD) and the Student Body Government (SBG) have taken on the responsibility of fostering these vital skills (Turk, 2019). Dr. Sanderson's advocacy for resourcefulness serves as a powerful reminder of the importance of creating inclusive and supportive environments for Deaf students.
Dr. Frank R. Turk, a Deaf Educator. Source: Deaf Life, August 1989
In a 1982 interview with Gallaudet College, Dr. Sanderson, a prominent figure in rehabilitation services, discussed his one-year professorship at Gallaudet College, where he held the Powrie V. Doctor Chair of Deaf Studies. During the interview, he shared his views on "total communication," a term used in the 1970s and 1980s to describe the use of all available means of communication to support the development of Deaf children. This approach encompasses sign language, speech, lip-reading, and written language.
Dr. Sanderson consistently advocated for the importance of early communication throughout his work. He firmly believed that communication is essential from birth and remains vital throughout life. He stated, "Communication is life. It starts at birth and is a lifelong process. If a baby is suspected of being deaf, I believe the communication process should begin as soon as the baby can focus their eyes. I would be very concerned that parents understand this. Delaying the process causes a deaf child to fall behind and lose a significant amount of information. It doesn't matter if the child later learns language or how to read lips; he still won't be able to catch up." This urgent message points out the importance of early communication.
He emphasized that effective communication is more critical than the specific method used. Many issues arise from a lack of clear communication. To ensure optimal learning and development for a child, the focus should be on the quality of communication rather than on the method itself. Overemphasizing a particular communication mode can quickly stifle the communication process.
Dr. Sanderson explained that total communication means using all available means to convey ideas when the child is ready. Each child is different in terms of readiness, receptivity, tolerance, frustration levels, and responsiveness. While one child may quickly adapt to speech training, another may become frustrated and unresponsive. Therefore, total communication should take into account these individual differences. In his view, many schools fail to incorporate what is known about the psychology of communication (Kent, The Deaf American, 1982, p. 3).
Dr. Sanderson reflected during the interview that his life took a significant turn when he lost his hearing at the age of 11. His enrollment at the Utah School for the Deaf marked a transformative chapter in his life, during which he learned sign language. He likely recognized that he had a considerable advantage in language development compared to his peers who were born deaf and had hearing parents with limited access to language at home. The school provided him with full educational access, a stark contrast to the limited opportunities he faced in public school after his hearing recovery.
This disparity in educational opportunities likely fueled his advocacy for Deaf children, making it a priority for them to have access to language and education in residential schools. For instance, Dr. Sanderson became a member of the Institutional Council of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind to express his concerns about the education of Deaf children. He also addressed the Utah State Board of Education to share his insights on how oral and mainstream education can impact Deaf students. His advocacy focused on enhancing educational opportunities and outcomes for Deaf children, and he was a vocal critic of the oral curriculum, arguing that it did not adequately address the needs of the Utah Deaf community.
As the Deaf Services Coordinator, Dr. Sanderson observed many Deaf individuals struggling with reading and writing. In 1977, he addressed the Utah State Board of Education, highlighting the significant literacy challenges faced by Deaf students at the Utah School for the Deaf and those in the public school system. He believed that teaching the fundamentals of academics to Deaf students would better prepare them to understand a broader curriculum. Dr. Sanderson's empathy for Deaf individuals was evident in his emphasis on the importance of education, stating that it is more crucial for them to understand, use, and apply academic fundamentals than to speak. His advocacy for education led the Utah State Board of Education to recognize the importance of the three Rs—reading, writing, and arithmetic—in expanding opportunities for Deaf individuals. He boldly asserted that education is 10,000 times more important for a Deaf person than the ability to speak (Deseret News, February 19, 1977, p. 28).
At the 1977 Utah State Board of Education meeting, Dr. Sanderson made a powerful statement against proponents of the oral curriculum, asserting that using sign language does not hinder or impede speech development. His bold stance and unwavering advocacy have significantly influenced the current state of Deaf education in Utah. "A Deaf person will not lose their ability to speak if they learn sign language, and telling anxious parents otherwise is a big lie, a monstrous falsehood, and deliberate deceit," Dr. Sanderson declared. "When our speech is poor, it is due to deafness, not because of sign language" (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, February 19, 1977, B5).
According to Gallaudet's article "On the Green," Dr. Sanderson faced challenges related to various social factors and the lifestyles of Deaf individuals, particularly concerning long-term employment (Cinelli, "On the Green," January 11, 1982). These challenges included issues such as language deprivation, communication barriers, and limited opportunities for Deaf individuals to sustain employment over time. These experiences likely motivated Dr. Sanderson to question Dr. Bitter's mission of promoting oral and mainstream education.
It is also essential to acknowledge the significant impact that Dr. Grant B. Bitter and advocates for oral and mainstream education have had on the history of Deaf education in Utah. Their contributions are a vital part of this narrative. As Robert Heinlein famously stated, "A generation that ignores history has no past and no future." We must recognize the ongoing issues that persist today. The political debates in Utah regarding inequalities in Deaf education are not only informative but also empowering. Understanding these debates and the history of Deaf education enables us to advocate more effectively for the urgent rights of Deaf children, ensuring they have access to language, communication, and equal opportunities.
The Utah Association of the Deaf plays a crucial role in breaking down systemic barriers and fostering an inclusive environment that enables Deaf children to excel academically and socially at the Utah School for the Deaf, which promotes the use of sign language. Through its advocacy efforts, the association has played a crucial role in shaping policies and practices that support Deaf education. By emphasizing their voices and experiences, we can strive for a future that empowers every Deaf child to reach their full potential. Their advocacy is essential in this effort.
The Utah Association for the Deaf, along with Dr. Sanderson, shares a strong connection and has demonstrated remarkable resilience in overcoming the challenges posed by Dr. Bitter. Their steadfast fight and eventual success in promoting equality in Deaf education in Utah have been truly inspiring. This new generation has embraced the challenge by initiating four ASL/English bilingual programs across various regions, as detailed below: Ogden, Salt Lake City, Springville, and St. George. These programs aim to provide a balanced education in both American Sign Language and English, representing a significant step toward addressing the language deprivation and communication barriers faced by Deaf individuals. Despite numerous obstacles, their impressive progress offers a hopeful perspective for the future of Deaf education in Utah and should motivate us all to continue advocating for equality.
Dr. Sanderson consistently advocated for the importance of early communication throughout his work. He firmly believed that communication is essential from birth and remains vital throughout life. He stated, "Communication is life. It starts at birth and is a lifelong process. If a baby is suspected of being deaf, I believe the communication process should begin as soon as the baby can focus their eyes. I would be very concerned that parents understand this. Delaying the process causes a deaf child to fall behind and lose a significant amount of information. It doesn't matter if the child later learns language or how to read lips; he still won't be able to catch up." This urgent message points out the importance of early communication.
He emphasized that effective communication is more critical than the specific method used. Many issues arise from a lack of clear communication. To ensure optimal learning and development for a child, the focus should be on the quality of communication rather than on the method itself. Overemphasizing a particular communication mode can quickly stifle the communication process.
Dr. Sanderson explained that total communication means using all available means to convey ideas when the child is ready. Each child is different in terms of readiness, receptivity, tolerance, frustration levels, and responsiveness. While one child may quickly adapt to speech training, another may become frustrated and unresponsive. Therefore, total communication should take into account these individual differences. In his view, many schools fail to incorporate what is known about the psychology of communication (Kent, The Deaf American, 1982, p. 3).
Dr. Sanderson reflected during the interview that his life took a significant turn when he lost his hearing at the age of 11. His enrollment at the Utah School for the Deaf marked a transformative chapter in his life, during which he learned sign language. He likely recognized that he had a considerable advantage in language development compared to his peers who were born deaf and had hearing parents with limited access to language at home. The school provided him with full educational access, a stark contrast to the limited opportunities he faced in public school after his hearing recovery.
This disparity in educational opportunities likely fueled his advocacy for Deaf children, making it a priority for them to have access to language and education in residential schools. For instance, Dr. Sanderson became a member of the Institutional Council of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind to express his concerns about the education of Deaf children. He also addressed the Utah State Board of Education to share his insights on how oral and mainstream education can impact Deaf students. His advocacy focused on enhancing educational opportunities and outcomes for Deaf children, and he was a vocal critic of the oral curriculum, arguing that it did not adequately address the needs of the Utah Deaf community.
As the Deaf Services Coordinator, Dr. Sanderson observed many Deaf individuals struggling with reading and writing. In 1977, he addressed the Utah State Board of Education, highlighting the significant literacy challenges faced by Deaf students at the Utah School for the Deaf and those in the public school system. He believed that teaching the fundamentals of academics to Deaf students would better prepare them to understand a broader curriculum. Dr. Sanderson's empathy for Deaf individuals was evident in his emphasis on the importance of education, stating that it is more crucial for them to understand, use, and apply academic fundamentals than to speak. His advocacy for education led the Utah State Board of Education to recognize the importance of the three Rs—reading, writing, and arithmetic—in expanding opportunities for Deaf individuals. He boldly asserted that education is 10,000 times more important for a Deaf person than the ability to speak (Deseret News, February 19, 1977, p. 28).
At the 1977 Utah State Board of Education meeting, Dr. Sanderson made a powerful statement against proponents of the oral curriculum, asserting that using sign language does not hinder or impede speech development. His bold stance and unwavering advocacy have significantly influenced the current state of Deaf education in Utah. "A Deaf person will not lose their ability to speak if they learn sign language, and telling anxious parents otherwise is a big lie, a monstrous falsehood, and deliberate deceit," Dr. Sanderson declared. "When our speech is poor, it is due to deafness, not because of sign language" (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, February 19, 1977, B5).
According to Gallaudet's article "On the Green," Dr. Sanderson faced challenges related to various social factors and the lifestyles of Deaf individuals, particularly concerning long-term employment (Cinelli, "On the Green," January 11, 1982). These challenges included issues such as language deprivation, communication barriers, and limited opportunities for Deaf individuals to sustain employment over time. These experiences likely motivated Dr. Sanderson to question Dr. Bitter's mission of promoting oral and mainstream education.
It is also essential to acknowledge the significant impact that Dr. Grant B. Bitter and advocates for oral and mainstream education have had on the history of Deaf education in Utah. Their contributions are a vital part of this narrative. As Robert Heinlein famously stated, "A generation that ignores history has no past and no future." We must recognize the ongoing issues that persist today. The political debates in Utah regarding inequalities in Deaf education are not only informative but also empowering. Understanding these debates and the history of Deaf education enables us to advocate more effectively for the urgent rights of Deaf children, ensuring they have access to language, communication, and equal opportunities.
The Utah Association of the Deaf plays a crucial role in breaking down systemic barriers and fostering an inclusive environment that enables Deaf children to excel academically and socially at the Utah School for the Deaf, which promotes the use of sign language. Through its advocacy efforts, the association has played a crucial role in shaping policies and practices that support Deaf education. By emphasizing their voices and experiences, we can strive for a future that empowers every Deaf child to reach their full potential. Their advocacy is essential in this effort.
The Utah Association for the Deaf, along with Dr. Sanderson, shares a strong connection and has demonstrated remarkable resilience in overcoming the challenges posed by Dr. Bitter. Their steadfast fight and eventual success in promoting equality in Deaf education in Utah have been truly inspiring. This new generation has embraced the challenge by initiating four ASL/English bilingual programs across various regions, as detailed below: Ogden, Salt Lake City, Springville, and St. George. These programs aim to provide a balanced education in both American Sign Language and English, representing a significant step toward addressing the language deprivation and communication barriers faced by Deaf individuals. Despite numerous obstacles, their impressive progress offers a hopeful perspective for the future of Deaf education in Utah and should motivate us all to continue advocating for equality.
At a reception for him on November 13, 1981, Robert G. Sanderson (second from left) shakes hands with Clarence Williams of the Division of Research. Sanderson was this year's Powrie V. Doctor Chair of Deaf Studies. Robert's wife, Mary, was standing on the left side. Source: On The Green, November 23, 1981
A Dispute Between Dr. Robert G. Sanderson
and Dr. Grant B. Bitter: The Impact of
Bias Towards Oral Philosophy
and Dr. Grant B. Bitter: The Impact of
Bias Towards Oral Philosophy
The dispute between Dr. Robert G. Sanderson and Dr. Grant B. Bitter, two leaders in the field of Deaf education, represents a significant historical event. Dr. Bitter's strong bias toward oral philosophy has had a profound and lasting impact on the field, making it a compelling subject for study.
Dr. Bitter typically organized a listening and speaking panel, the "Oral Demonstration Panel," at the University of Utah, which recruited local Deaf adults to participate. The audience included Deaf individuals who supported sign language, such as Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, W. David Mortensen, C. Roy Cochran, and Kenneth L. Kinner, as well as hearing attendees. During the panel, oral Deaf individuals shared their experiences growing up in an oral environment with the audience. Following the demonstration, Dr. Bitter initiated a Q&A session. Dr. Sanderson stood up and asked, "Have you heard the other side of the program?" To everyone's surprise, Dr. Bitter abruptly ended the meeting without addressing his question or providing any explanation (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011).
The tension between Dr. Bitter and Dr. Sanderson was both intense and visible. Dr. Bitter's 'Oral Demonstration Panels' were not just academic exercises but a platform for him to assert his beliefs. The tension between Dr. Bitter and Dr. Sanderson was both intense and palpable. Dr. Bitter's "Oral Demonstration Panels" served not just as academic exercises but also as a platform for him to assert his beliefs. He deliberately spoke quickly to try to throw Dr. Sanderson and his interpreter, Beth Ann, off balance, as they sat in the audience. Beth Ann, determined to ensure that Dr. Sanderson had access to the information and could have his voice heard, signed as quickly as she could. Despite Dr. Bitter's challenges, Dr. Sanderson managed to understand the content and actively participated in the discussion, focusing on his interpreter and impressing everyone with his determination (Beth Ann Stewart Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007).
Dr. Bitter typically organized a listening and speaking panel, the "Oral Demonstration Panel," at the University of Utah, which recruited local Deaf adults to participate. The audience included Deaf individuals who supported sign language, such as Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, W. David Mortensen, C. Roy Cochran, and Kenneth L. Kinner, as well as hearing attendees. During the panel, oral Deaf individuals shared their experiences growing up in an oral environment with the audience. Following the demonstration, Dr. Bitter initiated a Q&A session. Dr. Sanderson stood up and asked, "Have you heard the other side of the program?" To everyone's surprise, Dr. Bitter abruptly ended the meeting without addressing his question or providing any explanation (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011).
The tension between Dr. Bitter and Dr. Sanderson was both intense and visible. Dr. Bitter's 'Oral Demonstration Panels' were not just academic exercises but a platform for him to assert his beliefs. The tension between Dr. Bitter and Dr. Sanderson was both intense and palpable. Dr. Bitter's "Oral Demonstration Panels" served not just as academic exercises but also as a platform for him to assert his beliefs. He deliberately spoke quickly to try to throw Dr. Sanderson and his interpreter, Beth Ann, off balance, as they sat in the audience. Beth Ann, determined to ensure that Dr. Sanderson had access to the information and could have his voice heard, signed as quickly as she could. Despite Dr. Bitter's challenges, Dr. Sanderson managed to understand the content and actively participated in the discussion, focusing on his interpreter and impressing everyone with his determination (Beth Ann Stewart Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007).
Dr. Grant B. Bitter, Source: The Salt Lake Tribune, April 23, 1964
The conflict involving Dr. Bitter had a significant impact on oral Deaf education. Legia Johnson, a parent and oral teacher, expressed concern about Dr. Bitter's decision to involve her daughter, Colleen Johnson Jones, in his demonstration panels. Dr. Bitter used Legia's daughter to represent his own, as she spoke better than his daughter, who was also named Colleen. The incident led to Legia resigning from her teaching position at the oral extension program of the Utah School for the Deaf. Legia's resignation was an apparent protest against using her daughter as a prop in Dr. Bitter's demonstrations, revealing deep divisions within the oral group (Lisa Richards, personal communication, April 14, 2009).
Dr. Sanderson's designated interpreter, Beth Ann, found herself entangled in the long-standing conflict between Dr. Sanderson and Dr. Bitter. She shared her experiences at an interpreting workshop hosted at Salt Lake Community College on October 15, 2010. In her role as Bob's interpreter, she often encountered the differing perspectives on Deaf education expressed by both doctors. She recounted how Dr. Bitter would frequently voice his disapproval of her presence each time she entered the room, to which Bob would assertively respond, "Well, she's staying" (Beth Ann Stewart Campbell Interview, YouTube, October 15, 2010).
Dr. Sanderson's designated interpreter, Beth Ann, found herself entangled in the long-standing conflict between Dr. Sanderson and Dr. Bitter. She shared her experiences at an interpreting workshop hosted at Salt Lake Community College on October 15, 2010. In her role as Bob's interpreter, she often encountered the differing perspectives on Deaf education expressed by both doctors. She recounted how Dr. Bitter would frequently voice his disapproval of her presence each time she entered the room, to which Bob would assertively respond, "Well, she's staying" (Beth Ann Stewart Campbell Interview, YouTube, October 15, 2010).
Beth Ann Stewart Campbell. Photo: Robert L. Bonnell
Beth Ann observed the heated exchanges that transpired between Dr. Sanderson and Dr. Bitter. Dr. Sanderson would deliberately provoke Dr. Bitter, who would retaliate in a similar manner. During the legislative hearings, Dr. Bitter spoke as quickly as possible and used complex vocabulary to challenge Beth Ann's interpreting skills. Nevertheless, she managed to keep up with the discussions, which only seemed to infuriate Dr. Bitter further. Throughout these confrontations, Bob remained composed, refusing to be disturbed by Dr. Bitter's taunt: "You can read my lips" (Beth Ann Stewart Campbell Interview, YouTube, October 15, 2010).
Dr. Sanderson, who lost his hearing at the age of 11 but can still speak and read lips, chose to ignore Dr. Bitter's provocation, continuing to focus on Beth Ann as she interpreted for him. He refused to give in to Dr. Bitter's challenges, as it was a constant battle between the two. While she recognized the ongoing conflict between oral and sign language methods nationwide, she felt it was not as vicious as it had been during the Sanderson and Bitter era (Beth Ann Stewart Campbell Interview, YouTube, October 15, 2010).
Despite the availability of a total communication program, which combines sign language and speech, many parents at the Utah School for the Deaf remained unaware of its existence. For example, the father of a 14-year-old Deaf son expressed concern about his son's limited reading and writing abilities while enrolling him in an oral program. Seeking guidance, the father met with Dr. Campbell, who asked whether he was aware of the total communication program option. The father responded that he was not aware of such a program (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011). This parental ignorance led Dr. Campbell to realize the need for a brochure explaining both programs and their communication options. Despite facing significant obstacles, Dr. Campbell remained determined to provide parents with the information they needed. He also stressed the importance of regularly updating this pamphlet based on empirical research results (Campbell, 1977). However, Dr. Bitter strongly opposed the plan, arguing that the total communication system was solely a philosophy and not a valid teaching methodology (Dr. Grant B. Bitter, personal communication, February 4, 1985).
Dr. Sanderson made his position clear on the controversy: he supports parents' right to choose the most suitable educational program for their Deaf children. However, he stressed that the information provided to parents must be fair and accurate. He emphasized the importance of accurate information in making educational decisions, as well as empowering parents to make informed choices. He opposed any "inaccurate, biased, or one-sided data" that lacks a research base (Sanderson, UAD Bulletin, March 1992). The conflict between oral and sign language methods continues today, reflecting the persistent complexity and depth of issues within Deaf education in Utah.
Dr. Sanderson, who lost his hearing at the age of 11 but can still speak and read lips, chose to ignore Dr. Bitter's provocation, continuing to focus on Beth Ann as she interpreted for him. He refused to give in to Dr. Bitter's challenges, as it was a constant battle between the two. While she recognized the ongoing conflict between oral and sign language methods nationwide, she felt it was not as vicious as it had been during the Sanderson and Bitter era (Beth Ann Stewart Campbell Interview, YouTube, October 15, 2010).
Despite the availability of a total communication program, which combines sign language and speech, many parents at the Utah School for the Deaf remained unaware of its existence. For example, the father of a 14-year-old Deaf son expressed concern about his son's limited reading and writing abilities while enrolling him in an oral program. Seeking guidance, the father met with Dr. Campbell, who asked whether he was aware of the total communication program option. The father responded that he was not aware of such a program (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011). This parental ignorance led Dr. Campbell to realize the need for a brochure explaining both programs and their communication options. Despite facing significant obstacles, Dr. Campbell remained determined to provide parents with the information they needed. He also stressed the importance of regularly updating this pamphlet based on empirical research results (Campbell, 1977). However, Dr. Bitter strongly opposed the plan, arguing that the total communication system was solely a philosophy and not a valid teaching methodology (Dr. Grant B. Bitter, personal communication, February 4, 1985).
Dr. Sanderson made his position clear on the controversy: he supports parents' right to choose the most suitable educational program for their Deaf children. However, he stressed that the information provided to parents must be fair and accurate. He emphasized the importance of accurate information in making educational decisions, as well as empowering parents to make informed choices. He opposed any "inaccurate, biased, or one-sided data" that lacks a research base (Sanderson, UAD Bulletin, March 1992). The conflict between oral and sign language methods continues today, reflecting the persistent complexity and depth of issues within Deaf education in Utah.
Robert G. Sanderson run for president at the 1964 National Association of the Deaf conference
In 1971, a controversy arose regarding Beth Ann's voluntary use of sign language interpreting for the nightly Channel 4 News. Dr. Bitter opposed Beth Ann's interpreting, a role coordinated by Dr. Sanderson, the statewide coordinator of Deaf Services. Dr. Bitter and his supporters from the University of Utah, who favored oral communication, expressed their dissatisfaction and urged Dr. Avaard Rigby, Dr. Sanderson's supervisor, to remove Beth Ann from the right corner of the TV screen. In response to the criticism, Dr. Rigby stated, "Well, if you don't like watching her, why don't you change the channel?" This comment further fueled the anger of the advocates, who then called for the firing of Bob Sanderson. However, Dr. Rigby defended Bob, asserting he was one of his best employees (Stewart, DSDHH Newsletter, April 2012).
Beth Ann Stewart Campbell interprets for Deaf TV viewers as Newscaster. UAD Bulletin, February 1972. She gives her time without pay as the interpreter in the right-hand corner of the TV screen on Channel 4 for the news broadcast. Source: UAD Bulletin, March 1992
Following the contentious meeting with Dr. Rigby, Dr. Bitter, and others, Bob confided in his coworker, Gene Stewart, saying, "No one listens to you unless you have a Ph.D. after your name, so I'm going back to school" (Stewart, DSDHH Newsletter, April 2012, p. 3). At that time, Bob faced significant challenges in gaining credibility, despite holding a master's degree. He recognized the considerable influence that academic credentials have on one's perceived authority. In his conflicts with Dr. Bitter, Bob felt compelled to pursue a Ph.D. to earn the respect and recognition he believed he deserved. He understood that having a Ph.D. next to his name would enhance his acknowledgment in the field.
The backlash from this news situation motivated Dr. Sanderson to pursue a Ph.D., as he believed that the degree would strengthen his credibility in the field. Despite already holding a master's degree, he struggled to earn respect in an environment that placed a high premium on academic qualifications. In contrast, Dr. Bitter, who earned his Ph.D. in 1967, benefited from the credibility and support that came with his academic status.
Despite these initial challenges, Bob's perseverance ultimately paid off when he completed his Ph.D. in 1974, earning him recognition in his advocacy work. The rivalry between these two giant figures—Dr. Bitter, who advocated for oral communication, and Dr. Sanderson, who championed sign language—intensified the conflict and shaped their interactions. This dynamic also had broader implications for the discussions surrounding Deaf education in Utah, highlighting the deep divides within the field regarding communication approaches.
The backlash from this news situation motivated Dr. Sanderson to pursue a Ph.D., as he believed that the degree would strengthen his credibility in the field. Despite already holding a master's degree, he struggled to earn respect in an environment that placed a high premium on academic qualifications. In contrast, Dr. Bitter, who earned his Ph.D. in 1967, benefited from the credibility and support that came with his academic status.
Despite these initial challenges, Bob's perseverance ultimately paid off when he completed his Ph.D. in 1974, earning him recognition in his advocacy work. The rivalry between these two giant figures—Dr. Bitter, who advocated for oral communication, and Dr. Sanderson, who championed sign language—intensified the conflict and shaped their interactions. This dynamic also had broader implications for the discussions surrounding Deaf education in Utah, highlighting the deep divides within the field regarding communication approaches.
'State Educator First Deaf Student To Receive Doctor Degree at BYU.' Source: The Ogden Standard-Examiner, April 29, 1974
Did You Know?
Georgia Hendricks Walker, a 1930 graduate of the Utah School for the Deaf, had her article "Deaf Group Aims Rapped" published in the Deseret News on June 23, 1970.
"Recently I attended a meeting of the Oral Deaf Association of Utah at the Milton Bennion Hall at the University of Utah. It was better than a three-ring circus, and just as amusing, and I have been laughing ever since!
First thing I am laughing at is the name. Who runs it? Hearing teachers and parents – not the oral deaf themselves. The Utah Association for the Deaf is run by the Deaf themselves, not their parents or teachers.
Second, 90 percent of the young adults and older students on display can and do use sign language when they know their parents and teachers are not watching.
Third, one of the students said that she preferred to speak and read lips so that she would be able to get a better job and earn more money than one who couldn't. I have one question: Do employers pay for the ability to speak and read lips or do they pay for the ability to work? It is my observation that employers would rather that those they employ would shut up and get to work. Of course, speech and lip-reading make things a bit easier but what is wrong with a pencil and paper? At least you get the message correctly.
I do know what I am talking about, I am totally deaf and have been for 49 years. I am not belittling the ability to speak and read lips. I acknowledge that life would be harder if I couldn't do it. But what counts with me is "EDUCATION" in capital letters, and I see precious little of it in the oral Deaf I meet after they leave school" (Walker, Deseret News, June 23, 1970).
"Recently I attended a meeting of the Oral Deaf Association of Utah at the Milton Bennion Hall at the University of Utah. It was better than a three-ring circus, and just as amusing, and I have been laughing ever since!
First thing I am laughing at is the name. Who runs it? Hearing teachers and parents – not the oral deaf themselves. The Utah Association for the Deaf is run by the Deaf themselves, not their parents or teachers.
Second, 90 percent of the young adults and older students on display can and do use sign language when they know their parents and teachers are not watching.
Third, one of the students said that she preferred to speak and read lips so that she would be able to get a better job and earn more money than one who couldn't. I have one question: Do employers pay for the ability to speak and read lips or do they pay for the ability to work? It is my observation that employers would rather that those they employ would shut up and get to work. Of course, speech and lip-reading make things a bit easier but what is wrong with a pencil and paper? At least you get the message correctly.
I do know what I am talking about, I am totally deaf and have been for 49 years. I am not belittling the ability to speak and read lips. I acknowledge that life would be harder if I couldn't do it. But what counts with me is "EDUCATION" in capital letters, and I see precious little of it in the oral Deaf I meet after they leave school" (Walker, Deseret News, June 23, 1970).
Gerogia Henricks Walker
Misunderstanding of Mainstreaming
and the Least Restrictive Environment
and the Least Restrictive Environment
Even before the federal government passed Public Law 94-142 in 1975, the Utah School for the Deaf was already promoting the mainstreaming of Deaf students into neighborhood schools through its extension classes. This early advocacy, which began in the 1960s, set the stage for a significant increase in the mainstreaming of Deaf children in public schools across Utah (Baldwin, 1990).
Dr. Jay J. Campbell, a prominent figure in the field of Deaf education, was a key advocate for the Utah School for the Deaf. Dr. Grant B. Bitter, a professor at the University of Utah, influenced his advocacy. Dr. Bitter's belief that residential schools isolated Deaf students from society was a driving force behind the push for day schools for the Deaf, where children could live at home and attend local public schools (Baldwin, 1990). Despite their influence, many educators and parents worried about how IDEA would impact the Utah School for the Deaf as a 'special school.' Concerns arose about whether the school would be forced to close to comply with the new federal law (Campbell, 1977). Dr. Campbell reassured these individuals, stating, 'The residential school is essential and should not be closed. Special schools serve many students optimally, as their local districts would not provide them with an adequate education. The residential school and local districts need to cooperate in the overall program, and students need to be evaluated and placed where their needs can best be met' (Campbell, 1977, p. 142).
When Public Law 94-142 was passed, its intentions were not fully understood. However, it quickly led to the assumption that all disabled children, including Deaf and hard-of-hearing students, would be mainstreamed into public school classrooms. At that time, there was limited understanding of the linguistic and social needs of Deaf and hard-of-hearing children. Due to this lack of knowledge and the slow pace of research in this area, many Deaf and hard-of-hearing students ended up in their neighborhood schools. Educators believed they were adhering to the law by recommending mainstream placements for Deaf and hard-of-hearing students during their annual Individualized Education Program (IEP) meetings. They interpreted the law as mandating placement of all disabled children in the 'least restrictive environment' (LRE). As more of these children were placed in public schools, unforeseen challenges emerged, including inadequate communication methods and the need for specialized support.
Dr. Jay J. Campbell, a prominent figure in the field of Deaf education, was a key advocate for the Utah School for the Deaf. Dr. Grant B. Bitter, a professor at the University of Utah, influenced his advocacy. Dr. Bitter's belief that residential schools isolated Deaf students from society was a driving force behind the push for day schools for the Deaf, where children could live at home and attend local public schools (Baldwin, 1990). Despite their influence, many educators and parents worried about how IDEA would impact the Utah School for the Deaf as a 'special school.' Concerns arose about whether the school would be forced to close to comply with the new federal law (Campbell, 1977). Dr. Campbell reassured these individuals, stating, 'The residential school is essential and should not be closed. Special schools serve many students optimally, as their local districts would not provide them with an adequate education. The residential school and local districts need to cooperate in the overall program, and students need to be evaluated and placed where their needs can best be met' (Campbell, 1977, p. 142).
When Public Law 94-142 was passed, its intentions were not fully understood. However, it quickly led to the assumption that all disabled children, including Deaf and hard-of-hearing students, would be mainstreamed into public school classrooms. At that time, there was limited understanding of the linguistic and social needs of Deaf and hard-of-hearing children. Due to this lack of knowledge and the slow pace of research in this area, many Deaf and hard-of-hearing students ended up in their neighborhood schools. Educators believed they were adhering to the law by recommending mainstream placements for Deaf and hard-of-hearing students during their annual Individualized Education Program (IEP) meetings. They interpreted the law as mandating placement of all disabled children in the 'least restrictive environment' (LRE). As more of these children were placed in public schools, unforeseen challenges emerged, including inadequate communication methods and the need for specialized support.
Dr. Richard G. Brill. Source: UAD Bulletin, Summer 1971
Dr. Richard C. Brill, Superintendent of the California School for the Deaf-Riverside, was quoted in Dr. Campbell's 1977 book, Education of the Deaf in Utah: A Comprehensive Study. Dr. Brill explained that the term 'least restrictive environment' was typically understood in terms of physical placement. He emphasized that physical placement in a group might imply integration, but proper communication and psychological connection were essential for genuine integration. He asserted, 'Just because a child is placed in a regular classroom with many other children rather than in a special class, it does not mean that this child is automatically in an LRE' (p. 3). Supporting this view, Lawrence M. Siegel (2000) noted that, under IDEA, most environments that are communication-compatible and fundamentally 'least restrictive' for Deaf and hard-of-hearing children lack official recognition (p. 18). Furthermore, Thomas (1986) stated, 'PL 94-142 apparently supports mainstreaming, but it does not support quality of education or a rich language and social environment for the Deaf, factors which mainstream program directors neither understand nor feel compelled to consider' (p. 16). The law did not clearly define 'appropriate educational setting' or 'least restrictive' as it pertains to the placement of Deaf and hard-of-hearing students in public or state schools.
However, Section 612 (5) of the law (later renamed IDEA 2004 612 (a) (5) (A)) did state: "...special classes, special schooling, or other removal of handicapped children from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the handicap is such that education in regular classes, with the use of supplementary aids and services, cannot be achieved satisfactorily" (p. 1).
However, Section 612 (5) of the law (later renamed IDEA 2004 612 (a) (5) (A)) did state: "...special classes, special schooling, or other removal of handicapped children from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the handicap is such that education in regular classes, with the use of supplementary aids and services, cannot be achieved satisfactorily" (p. 1).
Is Mainstreaming the Deaf Really Justified?
The debate over mainstreaming the Deaf has deep historical roots, dating back to the end of the Civil War in 1865. Long before, the principles laid the groundwork for the 1974 law and Public Law 94-142 in 1975. Dr. Stephen C. Baldwin's research indicates that the foundation for today's mainstreaming programs was laid in 1852 by David Ely Bartlett, who opened "Mr. Bartlett's Family School for Young Deaf-Mute Children" in New York City. This was America's first integrated school for Deaf and hearing students (Baldwin, 1990, p. 14).
When Congress passed the Handicapped Act of 1974, it did so without consulting the National Association of the Deaf or Deaf citizens. Dr. Baldwin, in his April 1975 article in The Utah Eagle, criticized this lack of consultation, calling the entire Act discriminatory.
In "Mainstreaming in Retrospect," Dr. Baldwin points to historical figures such as Alexander Graham Bell, Sarah Fuller, Robert C. Spencer, and Dr. Grant B. Bitter, who advocated for day schools and public school classes for Deaf children. They argued that residential schools isolated students from society. These advocates subscribed to the oral/aural philosophy and criticized traditional residential Deaf schools and the use of sign language (Baldwin, 1990, p. 14). They gained the support of uninformed legislators and imposed their educational ideologies on Deaf and hard-of-hearing students under the pretense of preparing them to integrate into the dominant English-speaking society. This event led to significant protests within the American Deaf community, ultimately culminating in the establishment of the National Association of the Deaf in 1880 (Baldwin, 1990). Similarly, in Utah, leaders like Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, W. David Mortensen, Ned C. Wheeler, and Lloyd H. Perkins engaged in heated debates with Dr. Bitter.
As Public Law 94-142 was being drafted in 1975, Dr. Baldwin, then the Curriculum Coordinator of the Total Communication Division at the Utah School for the Deaf, noticed a surge of literature that painted an overly optimistic view of mainstreaming Deaf children into public schools. These portrayals of the law's impact on Deaf students, in his opinion, were misleading. Dr. Baldwin was concerned that mainstream proponents were suggesting that mainstreaming would result in Deaf children becoming "normal" schoolchildren. He questioned whether this assertion was justifiable given the broader context of the issue (Baldwin, The Utah Eagle, April 1975).
When Congress passed the Handicapped Act of 1974, it did so without consulting the National Association of the Deaf or Deaf citizens. Dr. Baldwin, in his April 1975 article in The Utah Eagle, criticized this lack of consultation, calling the entire Act discriminatory.
In "Mainstreaming in Retrospect," Dr. Baldwin points to historical figures such as Alexander Graham Bell, Sarah Fuller, Robert C. Spencer, and Dr. Grant B. Bitter, who advocated for day schools and public school classes for Deaf children. They argued that residential schools isolated students from society. These advocates subscribed to the oral/aural philosophy and criticized traditional residential Deaf schools and the use of sign language (Baldwin, 1990, p. 14). They gained the support of uninformed legislators and imposed their educational ideologies on Deaf and hard-of-hearing students under the pretense of preparing them to integrate into the dominant English-speaking society. This event led to significant protests within the American Deaf community, ultimately culminating in the establishment of the National Association of the Deaf in 1880 (Baldwin, 1990). Similarly, in Utah, leaders like Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, W. David Mortensen, Ned C. Wheeler, and Lloyd H. Perkins engaged in heated debates with Dr. Bitter.
As Public Law 94-142 was being drafted in 1975, Dr. Baldwin, then the Curriculum Coordinator of the Total Communication Division at the Utah School for the Deaf, noticed a surge of literature that painted an overly optimistic view of mainstreaming Deaf children into public schools. These portrayals of the law's impact on Deaf students, in his opinion, were misleading. Dr. Baldwin was concerned that mainstream proponents were suggesting that mainstreaming would result in Deaf children becoming "normal" schoolchildren. He questioned whether this assertion was justifiable given the broader context of the issue (Baldwin, The Utah Eagle, April 1975).
Dr. Stephen C. Baldwin. Source: Amazon.com
Dr. Baldwin noted that mainstreaming advocates envisioned integrating Deaf students into public schools to varying degrees and expected them to behave and think like hearing individuals. He questioned why the perspectives of the Deaf community were excluded from the discussions surrounding this law. This exclusion is a clear injustice. He posed the question, "Have the proponents of mainstreaming ever stood on a soapbox in front of Deaf audiences at their club meetings, fraternity meetings, or state association gatherings?" (Baldwin, The Utah Eagle, April 1975).
One example of valuable Deaf input that could have shaped Public Law 94-142 came from an informal survey conducted in February 1975 at a Utah Association for the Deaf workshop. Dr. Baldwin asked 48 Deaf adults—who had attended either Deaf residential schools, Deaf and hard-of-hearing day schools, or public mainstream schools—whether they supported the mainstreaming of Deaf children, regardless of whether they were taught orally or manually. The results were striking: 40 of 48 opposed mainstreaming, four were in favor, and four were undecided. This result represented a significant 83% opposition to the mainstreaming trend. Those who opposed mainstreaming expressed a strong sense of value placed on their education in residential schools, viewing these institutions as more reliable than public schools. They also felt that mainstreaming offered minimal educational and social benefits and criticized mainstream educators for failing to consult Deaf individuals regarding their opinions on the issue (Baldwin, The Utah Eagle, April 1975).
Once Public Law 94-142 was enacted in 1975, most educators who supported mainstreaming focused solely on current students, showing little interest in how Deaf students had been educated in the past. Dr. Baldwin emphasized that Deaf adults with experience in educational methods could provide valuable insights and should have been invited to share their perspectives on effective teaching strategies for present-day students (Baldwin, The Utah Eagle, April 1975).
Dr. Baldwin's observations highlighted the challenges that Deaf students faced in mainstream public school environments. He emphasized that these schools often failed to meet the educational, social, mental, and emotional needs of Deaf students, resulting in both the students and the educational system falling short. He expressed concern that many public school teachers lacked proper qualifications to teach Deaf students effectively. Alarmingly, some teachers felt pity for these students, knowing they were incapable of adequately teaching them, and were subsequently awarded passing grades without cause. During his visits to mainstreamed Deaf students, Dr. Baldwin noticed they often congregated together, indicating a lack of social integration and support—an essential aspect of effective education.
While proponents claimed the parents made the decision, Dr. Baldwin questioned whether parents of Deaf children received adequate information about the implications of mainstreaming. He suspected that many parents were unaware of the potential educational pitfalls awaiting their children and had fallen for misleading messages that promoted unrealistic academic aspirations—messages not supported by Deaf individuals or many respected educators in the field. As the USD Total Communication Program Coordinator, he heard firsthand what parents expected from mainstreaming their children: they hoped for a "normal" child capable of navigating the hearing world through listening, speech, and lip-reading skills. However, these parents often overlooked the detrimental effects of mainstreaming on their children's education.
When a dedicated special educator identified academic struggles in a mainstreamed Deaf student, they typically acted quickly to move the student out of the mainstream setting before further educational harm occurred. This often involved placing the student in a self-contained Deaf classroom or sending them to a state residential school for the Deaf. However, many mainstream educators were opposed to residential schools. They showed a strong aversion to them, pushing instead for Deaf students to be included in public schools while advocating for a reduction in residential school options.
Dr. Baldwin had personal experience with mainstream education, having attended the Horace Mann School, an early example of mainstream integration, in 1956. He remained integrated into public schools for seven years, excelling academically and athletically without any support services. Nonetheless, he also felt he lost critical emotional fulfillment and a sense of acceptance from his hearing peers and teachers regarding his deafness. In retrospect, he considered his mainstream experience disappointing in both educational achievements and personal relationships. After 30 years of reflection, he became convinced that the educational system should not take as long to recognize the shortcomings of mainstreaming for Deaf children. He was determined not to squander the learning opportunities for future generations of Deaf students.
Dr. Baldwin's article, "Is Mainstreaming of the Hearing Impaired Really Justified?" published in the April 1975 issue of The Utah Eagle, sparked significant controversy among parents who had enrolled their children in mainstream classes. USDB Superintendent Robert W. Tegeder supported Dr. Baldwin's stance, emphasizing that parents needed to understand that mainstreaming was not the panacea for hearing loss that many idealistic portrayals suggested. The article cautioned parents against assuming that mainstreaming would necessarily result in positive outcomes for their Deaf children. Dr. Baldwin urged both parents and educators to consider the potential ramifications of placing Deaf and hard-of-hearing students in public school settings. He believed that, had federal legislators consulted Deaf adults, many of these issues could have been avoided.
Despite these warnings, the number of mainstreamed Deaf students increased rapidly as parents sought to "normalize" their children's experiences, aiming for them to talk, behave, think, and act like hearing individuals. Before 1975, the criteria for mainstreaming Deaf students did not include how well they spoke or heard; instead, the sole requirements were excellent social skills, above-average reading ability, and strong writing skills. Ironically, following the enactment of PL94-142, Dr. Baldwin observed a shift in the attitudes of oral advocates, who began to claim that oral Deaf students should be fully integrated into public schools.
One example of valuable Deaf input that could have shaped Public Law 94-142 came from an informal survey conducted in February 1975 at a Utah Association for the Deaf workshop. Dr. Baldwin asked 48 Deaf adults—who had attended either Deaf residential schools, Deaf and hard-of-hearing day schools, or public mainstream schools—whether they supported the mainstreaming of Deaf children, regardless of whether they were taught orally or manually. The results were striking: 40 of 48 opposed mainstreaming, four were in favor, and four were undecided. This result represented a significant 83% opposition to the mainstreaming trend. Those who opposed mainstreaming expressed a strong sense of value placed on their education in residential schools, viewing these institutions as more reliable than public schools. They also felt that mainstreaming offered minimal educational and social benefits and criticized mainstream educators for failing to consult Deaf individuals regarding their opinions on the issue (Baldwin, The Utah Eagle, April 1975).
Once Public Law 94-142 was enacted in 1975, most educators who supported mainstreaming focused solely on current students, showing little interest in how Deaf students had been educated in the past. Dr. Baldwin emphasized that Deaf adults with experience in educational methods could provide valuable insights and should have been invited to share their perspectives on effective teaching strategies for present-day students (Baldwin, The Utah Eagle, April 1975).
Dr. Baldwin's observations highlighted the challenges that Deaf students faced in mainstream public school environments. He emphasized that these schools often failed to meet the educational, social, mental, and emotional needs of Deaf students, resulting in both the students and the educational system falling short. He expressed concern that many public school teachers lacked proper qualifications to teach Deaf students effectively. Alarmingly, some teachers felt pity for these students, knowing they were incapable of adequately teaching them, and were subsequently awarded passing grades without cause. During his visits to mainstreamed Deaf students, Dr. Baldwin noticed they often congregated together, indicating a lack of social integration and support—an essential aspect of effective education.
While proponents claimed the parents made the decision, Dr. Baldwin questioned whether parents of Deaf children received adequate information about the implications of mainstreaming. He suspected that many parents were unaware of the potential educational pitfalls awaiting their children and had fallen for misleading messages that promoted unrealistic academic aspirations—messages not supported by Deaf individuals or many respected educators in the field. As the USD Total Communication Program Coordinator, he heard firsthand what parents expected from mainstreaming their children: they hoped for a "normal" child capable of navigating the hearing world through listening, speech, and lip-reading skills. However, these parents often overlooked the detrimental effects of mainstreaming on their children's education.
When a dedicated special educator identified academic struggles in a mainstreamed Deaf student, they typically acted quickly to move the student out of the mainstream setting before further educational harm occurred. This often involved placing the student in a self-contained Deaf classroom or sending them to a state residential school for the Deaf. However, many mainstream educators were opposed to residential schools. They showed a strong aversion to them, pushing instead for Deaf students to be included in public schools while advocating for a reduction in residential school options.
Dr. Baldwin had personal experience with mainstream education, having attended the Horace Mann School, an early example of mainstream integration, in 1956. He remained integrated into public schools for seven years, excelling academically and athletically without any support services. Nonetheless, he also felt he lost critical emotional fulfillment and a sense of acceptance from his hearing peers and teachers regarding his deafness. In retrospect, he considered his mainstream experience disappointing in both educational achievements and personal relationships. After 30 years of reflection, he became convinced that the educational system should not take as long to recognize the shortcomings of mainstreaming for Deaf children. He was determined not to squander the learning opportunities for future generations of Deaf students.
Dr. Baldwin's article, "Is Mainstreaming of the Hearing Impaired Really Justified?" published in the April 1975 issue of The Utah Eagle, sparked significant controversy among parents who had enrolled their children in mainstream classes. USDB Superintendent Robert W. Tegeder supported Dr. Baldwin's stance, emphasizing that parents needed to understand that mainstreaming was not the panacea for hearing loss that many idealistic portrayals suggested. The article cautioned parents against assuming that mainstreaming would necessarily result in positive outcomes for their Deaf children. Dr. Baldwin urged both parents and educators to consider the potential ramifications of placing Deaf and hard-of-hearing students in public school settings. He believed that, had federal legislators consulted Deaf adults, many of these issues could have been avoided.
Despite these warnings, the number of mainstreamed Deaf students increased rapidly as parents sought to "normalize" their children's experiences, aiming for them to talk, behave, think, and act like hearing individuals. Before 1975, the criteria for mainstreaming Deaf students did not include how well they spoke or heard; instead, the sole requirements were excellent social skills, above-average reading ability, and strong writing skills. Ironically, following the enactment of PL94-142, Dr. Baldwin observed a shift in the attitudes of oral advocates, who began to claim that oral Deaf students should be fully integrated into public schools.
Total Communication and the Deaf Teacher
In April 1976, Dr. Robert G. Sanderson published an article entitled "Total Communication and the Deaf Teacher" in the UAD Bulletin. He highlighted a suggestion from Dr. David Denton that every teacher in the total communication program should be required to speak. Dr. Sanderson viewed this requirement as discrimination against Deaf teachers and Deaf candidates in the University of Utah's teacher-training program. He argued that a Deaf child who is ready to learn speech should receive the best possible instruction from a qualified speech teacher. He believed that a teacher responsible for subjects like math, geography, or history should not also be burdened with teaching speech, as this would not provide the best instruction in either area. Similarly, a Deaf teacher should not be expected to teach speech if their primary focus is on subjects like algebra, social studies, or chemistry.
In his critique of teacher-training programs that prioritize speech, Dr. Sanderson emphasized the importance of sign language in Deaf education. He maintained that teacher candidates should develop proficiency in sign language, recognizing its vital role in helping Deaf children achieve language competency through visual learning. This perspective not only acknowledges the unique needs of the Deaf community but also emphasizes the value of their language and culture in the educational setting.
Dr. Sanderson observed that prejudice against Deaf teachers remained prevalent. He found it ironic that many parents seemed to harbor negative feelings toward deafness and Deaf adults. Did these parents not realize that their own Deaf child would likely grow up to be a Deaf adult? Would they consider that their child might aspire to become a teacher for the Deaf? The contradiction was stark.
In his critique of teacher-training programs that prioritize speech, Dr. Sanderson emphasized the importance of sign language in Deaf education. He maintained that teacher candidates should develop proficiency in sign language, recognizing its vital role in helping Deaf children achieve language competency through visual learning. This perspective not only acknowledges the unique needs of the Deaf community but also emphasizes the value of their language and culture in the educational setting.
Dr. Sanderson observed that prejudice against Deaf teachers remained prevalent. He found it ironic that many parents seemed to harbor negative feelings toward deafness and Deaf adults. Did these parents not realize that their own Deaf child would likely grow up to be a Deaf adult? Would they consider that their child might aspire to become a teacher for the Deaf? The contradiction was stark.
Robert G. Sanderson, after whom the Deaf Center was named, served as the president of the National Association of the Deaf from 1964 to 1968. The September 1966 issue of the Deaf American magazine features a photo of him shaking hands with Dr. Boyce R. Williams, a Deaf and Hard of Hearing Consultant at the Vocational Rehabilitation Administration in Washington, D.C. At the convention banquet in San Francisco, California, Robert G. Sanderson announced the award and presented the first National Association of the Deaf Distinguished Service Award to Dr. Boyce R. Williams. The photo was taken by Floyd Barlow.
Dr. Sanderson stressed the essential role that Deaf teachers play in schools for Deaf children. These teachers serve as role models whom the children can identify with. He reminded readers that 'Total Communication' encompasses more than just simultaneous speaking and signing; it involves providing all modes of communication a child may need or want. While Deaf children should be encouraged to develop speech, this should not be forced upon them. Forcing speech on children who are not ready or do not wish to speak is detrimental and can lead to resistance and challenges later on. The Utah Deaf community did not oppose speech development, understanding its benefits, but they strongly opposed coercive methods such as intimidation, anger, physical violence, or punishment in either the oral or total communication programs.
Reflecting on past practices, it is noted that on November 12, 1970, the Utah State Board of Education decided to keep Deaf students in oral and total communication programs separate up to junior high school. This separation allowed oral teachers to enforce lip-reading and auditory training methods using physical punishment (Utah State Board of Education's Committee Meeting Minutes, November 12, 1970; Jeff W. Pollock, The Utah Deaf Education Controversy, May 4, 2005). Forms of physical punishment included having students sit on their hands, slapping hands with a ruler, throwing chalk at students, putting soap in students' mouths, submerging students' heads in toilets, taking away lunch, and bending students' ears. Dr. Sanderson argued that such methods were inferior teaching techniques. The American Deaf community disrespected teachers who employed these methods, administrators who permitted them, and parents who condoned such actions. They believed that children learn best in a relaxed, supportive environment (Sanderson, UAD Bulletin, April 1976).
Reflecting on past practices, it is noted that on November 12, 1970, the Utah State Board of Education decided to keep Deaf students in oral and total communication programs separate up to junior high school. This separation allowed oral teachers to enforce lip-reading and auditory training methods using physical punishment (Utah State Board of Education's Committee Meeting Minutes, November 12, 1970; Jeff W. Pollock, The Utah Deaf Education Controversy, May 4, 2005). Forms of physical punishment included having students sit on their hands, slapping hands with a ruler, throwing chalk at students, putting soap in students' mouths, submerging students' heads in toilets, taking away lunch, and bending students' ears. Dr. Sanderson argued that such methods were inferior teaching techniques. The American Deaf community disrespected teachers who employed these methods, administrators who permitted them, and parents who condoned such actions. They believed that children learn best in a relaxed, supportive environment (Sanderson, UAD Bulletin, April 1976).
C. Roy Cochran Submits His Resignation from the
Self-Study Advisory Committee at the University of Utah
Self-Study Advisory Committee at the University of Utah
In March 1976, C. Roy Cochran, a 1961 graduate of the Utah School for the Deaf and a parent of two Deaf children, was invited to serve on the Self-Study Advisory Committee at the University of Utah. This committee was responsible for evaluating the teacher training program for the deaf and played a crucial role in shaping the future of Deaf education in Utah. However, after eight months of service, he resigned on November 17, 1976, due to significant disagreements with many of the program's standard practices. Below is Roy's resignation letter:
Dear Dr. Bitter and Members of the Self-Study Advisory Committee,
I do not wish to stay on the Committee any longer. May I list the reasons why I am leaving the Committee for good?
1. The U. of U. program for teachers of the Deaf is ORAL and will always be ORAL as long as Dr. Bitter is there.
2. All the course requirements for those in deaf education concentrate heavily on speech, speech reading, and auditory training. Yes, they are important, but not at the expense of other important subjects like science, history, and so on;
3. The Board of Regents may wish the U. of U. to have a Total Communication in a small way, such as the sign language or a course under Dr. Sanderson, but the program under Dr. Bitter IS strongly ORAL/AURAL.
UNFAIR!
4. Dr. Bitter is a nationally known ORAL advocate and an active Alexander Graham Bell Officer. In Utah, most of the deaf adults believed in Total Communication for most Deaf children. So, Dr. Bitter is one of the symbols of Oralism in Utah, and his program at U. of U. will always be ORAL/AURAL. If I must make recommendations, I would first change the whole program inside and out and make it a real Total Communication program. But again, I say I am wasting my time, as long as Dr. Bitter is here (Mr. Baldwin may wish to make some recommendations, and I wish him luck).
5. Mrs. Dorothy Young is a friend of mine. She is deaf and an active member of the Salt Lake Valley Ward for the Deaf. Recently, she dropped out of the U. of U. program where she hoped to receive her teacher's certification in the education of the deaf. While I may not have all the details about why she left…, I can only say that the U. of U. is NOT a fair place for a deaf person or a hearing person who wants to be a real Total Communication teacher. DR. BITTER IS KNOWN TO OPPOSE THE DEAF COMMUNITY AND THEIR ACTIVITIES. Furthermore, Oral deaf adults do NOT speak for the real deaf community. Mrs. Young is living proof of most of my reasons for leaving the Committee.
6. Recently, I learned that West Jordan School is privately controlled by Dr. Bitter. These deaf children are vegetative.
I am leaving with a very good conscience. It is not worth my efforts or time.
Sincerely,
Charles Roy Cochran
Representative of a Parent Whose Children are enrolled in Total Communication at the Utah School for the Deaf (C. Roy Cochran, personal communication, November 17, 1976)
Dear Dr. Bitter and Members of the Self-Study Advisory Committee,
I do not wish to stay on the Committee any longer. May I list the reasons why I am leaving the Committee for good?
1. The U. of U. program for teachers of the Deaf is ORAL and will always be ORAL as long as Dr. Bitter is there.
2. All the course requirements for those in deaf education concentrate heavily on speech, speech reading, and auditory training. Yes, they are important, but not at the expense of other important subjects like science, history, and so on;
3. The Board of Regents may wish the U. of U. to have a Total Communication in a small way, such as the sign language or a course under Dr. Sanderson, but the program under Dr. Bitter IS strongly ORAL/AURAL.
UNFAIR!
4. Dr. Bitter is a nationally known ORAL advocate and an active Alexander Graham Bell Officer. In Utah, most of the deaf adults believed in Total Communication for most Deaf children. So, Dr. Bitter is one of the symbols of Oralism in Utah, and his program at U. of U. will always be ORAL/AURAL. If I must make recommendations, I would first change the whole program inside and out and make it a real Total Communication program. But again, I say I am wasting my time, as long as Dr. Bitter is here (Mr. Baldwin may wish to make some recommendations, and I wish him luck).
5. Mrs. Dorothy Young is a friend of mine. She is deaf and an active member of the Salt Lake Valley Ward for the Deaf. Recently, she dropped out of the U. of U. program where she hoped to receive her teacher's certification in the education of the deaf. While I may not have all the details about why she left…, I can only say that the U. of U. is NOT a fair place for a deaf person or a hearing person who wants to be a real Total Communication teacher. DR. BITTER IS KNOWN TO OPPOSE THE DEAF COMMUNITY AND THEIR ACTIVITIES. Furthermore, Oral deaf adults do NOT speak for the real deaf community. Mrs. Young is living proof of most of my reasons for leaving the Committee.
6. Recently, I learned that West Jordan School is privately controlled by Dr. Bitter. These deaf children are vegetative.
I am leaving with a very good conscience. It is not worth my efforts or time.
Sincerely,
Charles Roy Cochran
Representative of a Parent Whose Children are enrolled in Total Communication at the Utah School for the Deaf (C. Roy Cochran, personal communication, November 17, 1976)
C. Roy Cochran. Photo: Robert L. Bonnell
Dr. Bitter responded to Roy Cochran's letter on December 3, 1976. He expressed regret over Cochran's resignation, stating that his input was greatly needed and valued. Dr. Bitter emphasized his commitment to ensuring equal rights and opportunities for all individuals with differences. One of the goals of the teacher training program for the deaf at the University of Utah was to ensure that student teachers developed basic skills in manual communication. They were encouraged to engage with the Utah Deaf community to foster manual competence and increase their understanding and acceptance of it. He affirmed that he was not opposed to the Utah Deaf community. In fact, he invited Gene D. Stewart, director of the Utah Community Center for the Deaf, to teach the 'Special Education 580' class and encouraged students to enroll in SPA 789, a course taught by Dr. Robert G. Sanderson. Dr. Bitter asserted that he held no private control over the West Jordan school or any other educational institution, clarifying that if he had personal control, he would ensure that the Deaf children would not be "vegetating" (G.B. Bitter, personal communication, December 3, 1976).
Regarding Dorothy Young's departure from the teacher training program, Dr. Bitter explained that it resulted from a discussion she had with him, Dr. David R. Byrne (Assistant Dean of the College of Education), and Jeannette Misaka (Clinical Instructor). Dorothy had previously taught at the Utah School for the Deaf from 1960 to 1967, but had provisional teaching credentials that expired in 1968 and were deemed outdated. Her secondary teaching certificate was valid until 1981. She had enrolled in some classes at the University of Utah to prepare herself for the new certification requirements. Dr. Bitter expressed concern about Dorothy's potential challenges in the teacher training program, particularly because she was totally Deaf and had limited oral communication skills, which posed difficulties within the program's structure. He also believed that the sign language interpreter would not be able to convey the necessary information. Ultimately, Dorothy was disappointed with the situation and chose not to pursue renewal of her teaching certification, as there was little she could do to change the program's current structure (G.B. Bitter, personal communication, December 3, 1976).
Dr. Bitter asked Roy to reconsider his decision to resign from the committee. He cordially invited Roy to attend their next meeting on December 17th (G.B. Bitter, personal communication, December 3, 1976). Roy did return briefly to complete a specific assignment. However, he ultimately decided to enroll his Deaf children, Don and Lisa, in the Model Secondary School for the Deaf in Washington, D.C. There, they would have access to Deaf peers and receive a better education (C. Roy Cochran, personal communication, April 22, 2011). This decision was a turning point for the family, as it provided Don and Lisa with an environment where they could thrive both socially and academically. Knowing that his children would surround themselves with peers who shared similar experiences and challenges, Roy felt a renewed sense of hope.
Regarding Dorothy Young's departure from the teacher training program, Dr. Bitter explained that it resulted from a discussion she had with him, Dr. David R. Byrne (Assistant Dean of the College of Education), and Jeannette Misaka (Clinical Instructor). Dorothy had previously taught at the Utah School for the Deaf from 1960 to 1967, but had provisional teaching credentials that expired in 1968 and were deemed outdated. Her secondary teaching certificate was valid until 1981. She had enrolled in some classes at the University of Utah to prepare herself for the new certification requirements. Dr. Bitter expressed concern about Dorothy's potential challenges in the teacher training program, particularly because she was totally Deaf and had limited oral communication skills, which posed difficulties within the program's structure. He also believed that the sign language interpreter would not be able to convey the necessary information. Ultimately, Dorothy was disappointed with the situation and chose not to pursue renewal of her teaching certification, as there was little she could do to change the program's current structure (G.B. Bitter, personal communication, December 3, 1976).
Dr. Bitter asked Roy to reconsider his decision to resign from the committee. He cordially invited Roy to attend their next meeting on December 17th (G.B. Bitter, personal communication, December 3, 1976). Roy did return briefly to complete a specific assignment. However, he ultimately decided to enroll his Deaf children, Don and Lisa, in the Model Secondary School for the Deaf in Washington, D.C. There, they would have access to Deaf peers and receive a better education (C. Roy Cochran, personal communication, April 22, 2011). This decision was a turning point for the family, as it provided Don and Lisa with an environment where they could thrive both socially and academically. Knowing that his children would surround themselves with peers who shared similar experiences and challenges, Roy felt a renewed sense of hope.
SECTION II:
Controversy at the
Utah State Board of Education
Controversy at the
Utah State Board of Education
Since 1962, a debate has been ongoing within Utah's Deaf education community about the most effective teaching methods for Deaf children. This unresolved discussion, which continues to this day, focuses on two primary approaches: total communication and oral communication. Presentations made in February, March, April, August, November, and December of 1977, including a report by Dr. Jay J. Campbell on his study of Deaf education in Utah, did not reach a definitive conclusion. This debate, with its rich history and diverse perspectives, remains a central and urgent issue in the field of Deaf education in Utah.
During these presentations, both sides presented their arguments. Dr. Grant B. Bitter, a professor at the University of Utah, supported the oral approach, while Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, a counselor in Deaf Services, endorsed the total communication program. Their viewpoints were articulated in a series of board meetings, resembling a chess game. The Utah Association for the Deaf, a key player in the debate, even staged protests at the Utah State Office of Education and the University of Utah, underscoring the intensity of the controversy and their significant influence. The year 1977 stands out as one of the most challenging periods for the Utah Deaf community. Tensions escalated as advocates for different communication methods clashed, each believing their approach would best serve the needs of Deaf individuals. Despite the conflicts, community members came together, aiming to promote understanding and unity in a divided environment.
During these presentations, both sides presented their arguments. Dr. Grant B. Bitter, a professor at the University of Utah, supported the oral approach, while Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, a counselor in Deaf Services, endorsed the total communication program. Their viewpoints were articulated in a series of board meetings, resembling a chess game. The Utah Association for the Deaf, a key player in the debate, even staged protests at the Utah State Office of Education and the University of Utah, underscoring the intensity of the controversy and their significant influence. The year 1977 stands out as one of the most challenging periods for the Utah Deaf community. Tensions escalated as advocates for different communication methods clashed, each believing their approach would best serve the needs of Deaf individuals. Despite the conflicts, community members came together, aiming to promote understanding and unity in a divided environment.
Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, an Advocate for Total Communication,
Presents His Recommended Separation of Two Programs
on Behalf of the Utah Association for the Deaf to the
Utah State Board of Education on February 18, 1977
Presents His Recommended Separation of Two Programs
on Behalf of the Utah Association for the Deaf to the
Utah State Board of Education on February 18, 1977
President W. David Mortensen of the Utah Association for the Deaf led over 100 Deaf people seeking better education into the Utah State Board of Education meeting room in Salt Lake City, Utah, on February 18, 1977. They gathered to advocate for improving Deaf education (The Salt Lake Tribune, February 19, 1977). Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, who represented the Utah Association for the Deaf, served as the board's spokesperson. He said in front of the board members, "Tomorrow's world, with its great technological advances, will require even more education for deaf individuals to compete in marketplace jobs. When we look around the world and see the millions of people who can hear and talk normally, we realize that their education, not their speech, enables them to succeed" (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, February 19, 1977, B5).
W. David Mortensen. Source: FamilySearch.org
The Utah Association for the Deaf made three recommendations for the board to consider, as follows:
Dr. Sanderson addressed the Utah State Board of Education, noting that Deaf students at the Utah School for the Deaf and in the public school system face significant literacy challenges. He emphasized that integrating Deaf children into the regular education system would place them in hopeless competition with hearing students. Furthermore, he conveyed the concerns of both himself and the Utah Association of the Deaf about the high turnover rates among teachers and dormitory counselors at the Utah School for the Deaf, as well as concerns about the overall quality of education (Deseret News, February 19, 1977).
Moreover, Dr. Sanderson stated that Deaf students graduated from high school with reading skills ranging from 0 to 5th or 6th grade, emphasizing the importance of teaching reading, writing, and math in Deaf classes. He believed that teaching the fundamentals of academics to Deaf students would better prepare them to understand the more comprehensive curriculum. Dr. Sanderson also emphasized the importance of education in the lives of Deaf individuals, stating that it is more crucial for them to understand, use, and apply academic fundamentals than to speak. His advocacy for education led the Utah State Board of Education to acknowledge the significance of the three R's—reading, writing, and arithmetic—in enhancing opportunities for Deaf individuals. He boldly stated that education is 10,000 times more important for a Deaf person than the ability to speak (Deseret News, February 19, 1977, p. 28).
Dr. Sanderson made a final statement against the defenders of the oral curriculum, asserting that using sign language does not hinder or impede speech development. "A deaf person will not lose his speech if he learns sign language, and telling anxious parents otherwise is a big lie, a monstrous falsehood, and deliberate deceit," Dr. Sanderson asserted. "When our speech is poor, it is because of deafness, not because of sign language (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, February 19, 1977, B5).
- Divide the Utah School for the Deaf at Ogden into two distinct schools: one for total communication and another for oral communication. The Total Communication Division should be located on the current Ogden campus, and the Oral Division should have a separate campus. The rationale for this recommendation was conflicts between philosophies and teaching approaches.
- A professional team should evaluate each Deaf child and recommend a specific program for them.
- The State Board should develop a long-range research program to determine the needs of and the best instructional method for Deaf children in the state (Deseret News, February 19, 1977).
Dr. Sanderson addressed the Utah State Board of Education, noting that Deaf students at the Utah School for the Deaf and in the public school system face significant literacy challenges. He emphasized that integrating Deaf children into the regular education system would place them in hopeless competition with hearing students. Furthermore, he conveyed the concerns of both himself and the Utah Association of the Deaf about the high turnover rates among teachers and dormitory counselors at the Utah School for the Deaf, as well as concerns about the overall quality of education (Deseret News, February 19, 1977).
Moreover, Dr. Sanderson stated that Deaf students graduated from high school with reading skills ranging from 0 to 5th or 6th grade, emphasizing the importance of teaching reading, writing, and math in Deaf classes. He believed that teaching the fundamentals of academics to Deaf students would better prepare them to understand the more comprehensive curriculum. Dr. Sanderson also emphasized the importance of education in the lives of Deaf individuals, stating that it is more crucial for them to understand, use, and apply academic fundamentals than to speak. His advocacy for education led the Utah State Board of Education to acknowledge the significance of the three R's—reading, writing, and arithmetic—in enhancing opportunities for Deaf individuals. He boldly stated that education is 10,000 times more important for a Deaf person than the ability to speak (Deseret News, February 19, 1977, p. 28).
Dr. Sanderson made a final statement against the defenders of the oral curriculum, asserting that using sign language does not hinder or impede speech development. "A deaf person will not lose his speech if he learns sign language, and telling anxious parents otherwise is a big lie, a monstrous falsehood, and deliberate deceit," Dr. Sanderson asserted. "When our speech is poor, it is because of deafness, not because of sign language (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, February 19, 1977, B5).
Robert G. Sanderson at Gallaudet College in the mid-1930s
Gene D. Stewart, an Advocate for Total Communication,
Speaks a Scathing Indictment of the Utah School for the Deaf
at the Utah State Board of Education on March 17, 1977
Speaks a Scathing Indictment of the Utah School for the Deaf
at the Utah State Board of Education on March 17, 1977
Gene D. Stewart, the only hearing child of a Deaf family, a vocational rehabilitation counselor, and the Director of the Utah Community Center for the Deaf, spoke a scathing indictment of the oral advocacy group's dominance at the Utah School for the Deaf in a meeting before the Utah State Board of Education on March 17, 1977. He accused the Ogden's residential school of providing inadequate educational training to Deaf children. He also added that "very few deaf children go to college. In fact, practically none." By reaching the postsecondary level, they will have no further educational opportunities. We continue to graduate students from that program, yet many of them do not have a strong grasp of the English language (Peters, Deseret News, March 18, 1977, p. 25–16).
Gene went on to say that Deaf education in Utah needs improvement, as significantly fewer of Utah's Deaf students pursue higher education than their peers in other states. He described the program at the Utah School for the Deaf as "detrimental" due to the presence of two conflicting teaching philosophies. He noted that this conflict creates an environment where students frequently shift between the two programs (Cummin, The Salt Lake Tribune, March 18, 1977).
To support his argument, Gene read letters from Deaf students that demonstrated their lack of language skills and included questions such as, "How can you read lips if you don't know the words?" and, "How can you learn to write English if you don't know the language?" He added that the average reading grade for a high school graduate from the Utah School for the Deaf is 4th or 5th. He specifically criticized the program on the main USD campus in Ogden, stating, "There is something wrong with the system" (Peters, Deseret News, March 18, 1977, p. 25–16).
Gene went on to say that Deaf education in Utah needs improvement, as significantly fewer of Utah's Deaf students pursue higher education than their peers in other states. He described the program at the Utah School for the Deaf as "detrimental" due to the presence of two conflicting teaching philosophies. He noted that this conflict creates an environment where students frequently shift between the two programs (Cummin, The Salt Lake Tribune, March 18, 1977).
To support his argument, Gene read letters from Deaf students that demonstrated their lack of language skills and included questions such as, "How can you read lips if you don't know the words?" and, "How can you learn to write English if you don't know the language?" He added that the average reading grade for a high school graduate from the Utah School for the Deaf is 4th or 5th. He specifically criticized the program on the main USD campus in Ogden, stating, "There is something wrong with the system" (Peters, Deseret News, March 18, 1977, p. 25–16).
Gene D. Stewart. Source: UAD Bulletin, Winter 1970
The oral advocates felt that the oral approach would better equip Deaf people to function in a hearing society and that if allowed to learn sign language, they would be more likely to gravitate to a Deaf subculture. The total communication advocates disputed this claim and urged that an overly long insistence on the oral method delays learning. They also urged that the total communication method more often yields quicker, more permanent results. Both groups preferred that the classes be separated or the students be converted to all oral or in total. The board questioned Dr. Sanderson and Dr. Bitter about potential solutions to reconcile the two groups. Dr. Sanderson saw no immediate resolution. Dr. Bitter proposed the creation of an advisory commission to act as arbiter and coordinator. Dr. Sanderson opposed the idea. Joan Burnside, the board chairperson, stated that the board would be satisfied if all options and programs were made available, and parents should be able to select the program they want for their children (Deseret News, March 20, 1977, p. 4).
Dr. Campbell agreed with the Utah Association for the Deaf's proposal to split the Utah School for the Deaf into two separate schools. His argument was clear and compelling. He presented evidence that children at the Utah School for the Deaf were not receiving a satisfactory education and that the fundamental skills needed significant improvement. His solution was to recommend separate schools, as oral and total communication wanted it, and their goals were distinct. Oralists focused on teaching the child to speak, while totalists prioritized teaching basic skills with speaking as a secondary emphasis (Deseret News, March 19, 1977).
The Utah Association for the Deaf advocated for total communication education and urged the State Board to establish two schools with different instructional philosophies. Despite the board's request for a study, they have not taken any action (Cummin, The Salt Lake Tribune, March 18, 1977).
Dr. Campbell agreed with the Utah Association for the Deaf's proposal to split the Utah School for the Deaf into two separate schools. His argument was clear and compelling. He presented evidence that children at the Utah School for the Deaf were not receiving a satisfactory education and that the fundamental skills needed significant improvement. His solution was to recommend separate schools, as oral and total communication wanted it, and their goals were distinct. Oralists focused on teaching the child to speak, while totalists prioritized teaching basic skills with speaking as a secondary emphasis (Deseret News, March 19, 1977).
The Utah Association for the Deaf advocated for total communication education and urged the State Board to establish two schools with different instructional philosophies. Despite the board's request for a study, they have not taken any action (Cummin, The Salt Lake Tribune, March 18, 1977).
Gene D. Stewart: Dark Ages
In response to Gene D. Stewart's March 17, 1977, charge against the Utah School for the Deaf in the Utah State Board of Education in the Ogden Standard-Examiner newspaper, USDB Superintendent Robert W. Tegeder stated that students on the Ogden's residential campus switched from one teaching method to another due to constant conflict and incompatibility between the two educational systems. In addition, he said, "The ultimate decision to teach Deaf children by oral or total communication method belongs to the parents." Gene responded, "The school's philosophy is oral." If the kid fails the oral program, they will be shifted to the other." He continued stating, "We're living in the dark ages in Utah." "Many schools across the country use the total communication concept alone." Superintendent Tegeder also denied the accusation that the school's oral philosophy is unsubstantiated. When a child does not progress in the oral program, the school will move them from oral to total communication, which is a natural transition. When a child's speech does not develop satisfactorily, the emphasis shifts to a less speech-focused approach. He went on to say that the total communication concept is "hard to define because there's never really been an agreement on what total communication includes." Superintendent Tegedar also stated that he did not want to start a newspaper war and that it was up to the board to decide whether to establish two campuses, one for each teaching method. Meanwhile, he emphasized that the school respects parents' wishes (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, March 26, 1977).
'Method of Teaching Deaf Students Stir Debate.' Source: The Ogden Standard-Examiner, March 26, 1977, p. 9
Despite facing numerous challenges, the Utah Deaf advocates united to provide better education and services that we now take for granted. In 2000, I finished my college degree, got married, and relocated to Utah, my spouse's home state. It was there that I first heard the term "Dark Ages." Initially, I was unaware of its origin until I came across a 1977 newspaper article about Gene's "Dark Ages" statement. That's when I began to comprehend the connection between the harsh realities of Deaf education in Utah during what would later become referred to as the "Dark Ages." The term was a stark reminder of the obstacles that the Deaf community in Utah had to endure. Gene's unwavering advocacy for the Utah Deaf community is an inspiration, and his bravery deserves our utmost recognition and respect.
Dr. Jay J. Campbell Begins His Pioneering
Study on the Education of the Deaf in Utah
Study on the Education of the Deaf in Utah
In 1966, the Utah State Office of Education appointed Dr. Jay J. Campbell, a respected individual and advocate for the Utah Deaf community, to oversee the Utah School for the Deaf. During his tenure from 1966 to 1977, he witnessed the ongoing controversy between Dr. Bitter, who advocated for oral communication, and Dr. Sanderson, who supported sign language. Additionally, Dr. Campbell observed the conflict in communication methods between the oral program and the total communication program, both within and outside the Utah School for the Deaf.
In 1975, the Utah State Board of Education approved Dr. Campbell's study project on Deaf education in Utah, which was a crucial step in improving education and services at the Utah School for the Deaf (Campbell, 1977; Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, 2006; Dr. Jay J. Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007).
Dr. Campbell's study focused on bridging the educational training gap between the Utah School for the Deaf and the school districts. It aimed to improve the resources available to Deaf and hard-of-hearing children and to develop a comprehensive, inclusive education system for these students. The study focused primarily on the following areas:
In 1975, the Utah State Board of Education approved Dr. Campbell's study project on Deaf education in Utah, which was a crucial step in improving education and services at the Utah School for the Deaf (Campbell, 1977; Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, 2006; Dr. Jay J. Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007).
Dr. Campbell's study focused on bridging the educational training gap between the Utah School for the Deaf and the school districts. It aimed to improve the resources available to Deaf and hard-of-hearing children and to develop a comprehensive, inclusive education system for these students. The study focused primarily on the following areas:
- An analysis of research on communication methods used in educating the deaf,
- A study of Deaf children in Utah school districts,
- A sample of opinions of parents of older students at the Utah School for the Deaf,
- Comments from professional staff,
- Letters/materials received from national leaders and educators of the deaf,
- Perceptions and recommendations from former USD students,
- Professional interpreters for the deaf, and
- Professional counselors for the deaf.
Dr. Jay J. Campbell. Source: UAD Bulletin, June 1973
After an extensive two-year study, Dr. Campbell, in collaboration with external researchers, completed his comprehensive report on February 15, 1977, in preparation to share the findings with the Utah State Board of Education on April 14, 1977. This study, conducted between 1960 and 1977, involved students from both mainstream school districts and the Utah School for the Deaf. The report aimed to resolve the ongoing debate between oral and total communication, address internal conflicts at the Utah School for the Deaf, and offer policy proposals for the Utah State Board of Education to consider (Campbell, 1977).
Dr. Jay J. Campbell's 1977 Comprehensive Study of Deaf Education in Utah
The report indicated that students' poor academic performance stemmed from conflicts between two educational ideologies. Unfortunately, this debate overlooked the education and language needs of Deaf children. Other issues included a shortage of teacher aides and tutors at the Utah School for the Deaf. Teachers felt overwhelmed by the challenge of educating children with varying ages, language skills, and cognitive abilities within a single classroom.
One teacher pointed out that there were significant differences in ability levels among students in most classes, and at times, teachers had to instruct at multiple levels simultaneously. However, employing a capable assistant could support the teacher by conducting specific instructional activities with a group of students while the teacher works with the rest. Utilizing assistants can enhance the amount of language input each student receives throughout the day and maximize the instructional time available for teaching (Campbell, 1977, p. 78).
Dr. Campbell's investigation also revealed that many Deaf students were unprepared for work and lacked the basic skills required to function in mainstream society. Furthermore, the larger number of students with multiple disabilities had a detrimental effect on the Utah School for the Deaf's ability to deliver quality education over the seventeen years of study. Many school districts lacked the administrative commitment and skilled employees necessary to educate the Deaf successfully. In the mainstream setting, interactions between deaf and hearing students were relatively limited. According to Dr. Campbell's study, Deaf students were happier and more socially adjusted when they had other Deaf students to associate with (Campbell, 1977).
One teacher pointed out that there were significant differences in ability levels among students in most classes, and at times, teachers had to instruct at multiple levels simultaneously. However, employing a capable assistant could support the teacher by conducting specific instructional activities with a group of students while the teacher works with the rest. Utilizing assistants can enhance the amount of language input each student receives throughout the day and maximize the instructional time available for teaching (Campbell, 1977, p. 78).
Dr. Campbell's investigation also revealed that many Deaf students were unprepared for work and lacked the basic skills required to function in mainstream society. Furthermore, the larger number of students with multiple disabilities had a detrimental effect on the Utah School for the Deaf's ability to deliver quality education over the seventeen years of study. Many school districts lacked the administrative commitment and skilled employees necessary to educate the Deaf successfully. In the mainstream setting, interactions between deaf and hearing students were relatively limited. According to Dr. Campbell's study, Deaf students were happier and more socially adjusted when they had other Deaf students to associate with (Campbell, 1977).
Dr. Jay J. Campbell's 1977 Comprehensive Study of Deaf Education in Utah
Dr. Jay J. Jay's Observation of a Two-Track System
at the Utah School for the Deaf
at the Utah School for the Deaf
Dr. Campbell conducted a study on the two-track program and the conflict it caused at the Utah School for the Deaf. The study included a letter from a respondent, which contained essential observations and suggestions. Based on observations and recommendations in the letter, Dr. Campbell proposed a 'two-track system' in separate schools to solve internal and external conflicts, eliminate competition, and alleviate tensions between the two programs. He recommended that each program have its own dean, supervisor, principal, teachers, and students to avoid competition and tensions between the two programs. At the time, two oral and sign language coordinators reported to the principal, who favored oral education. Such an arrangement has harmed the sign language department, prompting a request to the Utah State Board of Education to separate the two schools. The letter in the following section provides a deeper understanding of the challenges surrounding the two-track program.
A Letter Detailing the Impact of the Dual-Track Program
*****
“After observing the “two track system” as used by the Utah School for the Deaf, I believe its operation offers Utah the greatest flexibility in individualization and yet its operation creates intense in-house and in-state strife that significantly impairs the effectiveness of the school.
I believe that a state that offers only one communicative system for all deaf children is denying children the MOST important educational alternative that a deaf child needs. There is no question that there is a loss of potential and a great deal of inappropriate placement of deaf children when only one communicative system is offered. I would strongly support the continuation of a two-track system if the internal and external strife can be eliminated. However, at this point, I believe the strife has reached catastrophic stages and the whole education process is endangered.
I would like to first point out what I feel to be the source of this strife, then the results of the strife, and lastly, some suggestions for dealing with the problem.
I believe the source of the strife is in two completely separate programs. Each program has its own dean, its own supervisor, its own teachers, students, parents and, of course, supporters and enemies.
Strife is inherent in such program division. Each program is threatened by the other and when a person is threatened, he fights and attempts to put down the source of the threat. For example, the entrance of a new child into the school has become a battleground for the two programs. The competition is fierce, and children and parents are solicited by each program. Movement from one program to another is very difficult because of the competition. If children are transferred from one program to another, it reduces the number of students a teacher has and often threatens the [teacher’s job] because there are no longer enough students. Children and parents are seen as vehicles to support a program. Thus, I would suggest that the two-track system is not providing the individualization it was created to do and at the same time it is creating strife. I have sensed a great deal of mistrust and suspicion among the staff of the school supervisors and administration.
The strife and competition generated among staff is spread to the parents. The parents soon “join one camp or the other,” become strong advocates of a method, and then try to “win converts to their cause.” We have found parents of children in the PIP [Parent-Infant Program] that are already so biased, they cannot accept communicative and educational recommendations from the PIP staff.
…..There must be structure which allows for a fluid system permitting the movement of children and staff to maximize the education for each child. I believe the school must hire educators of the deaf not oralists or manualists. These teachers should be able to teach all deaf children in their particular area of expertise, not total communication or oral. I believe the teachers and supervisors must be concerned with children not with methods. The method should be used only as educational (communicative) alternatives.
I realize this would be very difficult to achieve but I believe it must be done or TWO separate schools established. If the state establishes two separate schools for the deaf, they will eliminate the in-house strife, but the external strife will be escalated and the competition for children will become even greater. I believe the state should do everything possible to develop a functional two option communicative program. I believe the ‘two school’ notion would create more problems than it would solve.
I would suggest the place to begin is to change the current infant, pre-school, and 1st/2ndgrade programs into an “Early Childhood Program” with one person over the whole program. The teachers would work with either “TC” or “Oral” children or both. Those teachers who could not do this could be moved to another level. Children in the Early Childhood Program would not be placed in an “oral” or “total” program but would receive whatever training is recommended and appropriate. By the time a child leaves the Early Childhood Program, a complete communicative evaluation could have been completed and he could then be placed in a “total communication track” or “oral track.” As this system develops and becomes functional, it could be slowly moved to the other areas of the school.
I realize I am suggesting you open a huge “can of worms.” This would take a great deal of planning and commitment to implement” (p. 82-83).
A Letter Detailing the Impact of the Dual-Track Program
*****
“After observing the “two track system” as used by the Utah School for the Deaf, I believe its operation offers Utah the greatest flexibility in individualization and yet its operation creates intense in-house and in-state strife that significantly impairs the effectiveness of the school.
I believe that a state that offers only one communicative system for all deaf children is denying children the MOST important educational alternative that a deaf child needs. There is no question that there is a loss of potential and a great deal of inappropriate placement of deaf children when only one communicative system is offered. I would strongly support the continuation of a two-track system if the internal and external strife can be eliminated. However, at this point, I believe the strife has reached catastrophic stages and the whole education process is endangered.
I would like to first point out what I feel to be the source of this strife, then the results of the strife, and lastly, some suggestions for dealing with the problem.
I believe the source of the strife is in two completely separate programs. Each program has its own dean, its own supervisor, its own teachers, students, parents and, of course, supporters and enemies.
Strife is inherent in such program division. Each program is threatened by the other and when a person is threatened, he fights and attempts to put down the source of the threat. For example, the entrance of a new child into the school has become a battleground for the two programs. The competition is fierce, and children and parents are solicited by each program. Movement from one program to another is very difficult because of the competition. If children are transferred from one program to another, it reduces the number of students a teacher has and often threatens the [teacher’s job] because there are no longer enough students. Children and parents are seen as vehicles to support a program. Thus, I would suggest that the two-track system is not providing the individualization it was created to do and at the same time it is creating strife. I have sensed a great deal of mistrust and suspicion among the staff of the school supervisors and administration.
The strife and competition generated among staff is spread to the parents. The parents soon “join one camp or the other,” become strong advocates of a method, and then try to “win converts to their cause.” We have found parents of children in the PIP [Parent-Infant Program] that are already so biased, they cannot accept communicative and educational recommendations from the PIP staff.
…..There must be structure which allows for a fluid system permitting the movement of children and staff to maximize the education for each child. I believe the school must hire educators of the deaf not oralists or manualists. These teachers should be able to teach all deaf children in their particular area of expertise, not total communication or oral. I believe the teachers and supervisors must be concerned with children not with methods. The method should be used only as educational (communicative) alternatives.
I realize this would be very difficult to achieve but I believe it must be done or TWO separate schools established. If the state establishes two separate schools for the deaf, they will eliminate the in-house strife, but the external strife will be escalated and the competition for children will become even greater. I believe the state should do everything possible to develop a functional two option communicative program. I believe the ‘two school’ notion would create more problems than it would solve.
I would suggest the place to begin is to change the current infant, pre-school, and 1st/2ndgrade programs into an “Early Childhood Program” with one person over the whole program. The teachers would work with either “TC” or “Oral” children or both. Those teachers who could not do this could be moved to another level. Children in the Early Childhood Program would not be placed in an “oral” or “total” program but would receive whatever training is recommended and appropriate. By the time a child leaves the Early Childhood Program, a complete communicative evaluation could have been completed and he could then be placed in a “total communication track” or “oral track.” As this system develops and becomes functional, it could be slowly moved to the other areas of the school.
I realize I am suggesting you open a huge “can of worms.” This would take a great deal of planning and commitment to implement” (p. 82-83).
Dr. Jay J. Campbell signing his speech “Humanizing Education” and Beth Ann Stewart signing her rendition in signs of “I.” There Be Peace on Earth at convention banquet. Source: UAD Bulletin, November 1973
As part of a study, the Utah State Office of Education assigned Dr. Robert G. Sanderson to conduct a survey of the alums of the Utah School for the Deaf to confirm their experience regarding the education they received there. The survey compared the opinions of graduates who completed their studies at the school before 1948, those who graduated between 1948 and 1959, and those who graduated between 1960 and 1977. The results revealed a significant difference in the alums' views. Graduates who completed their studies before 1949 had a more positive experience at the school; they understood their teachers better and enjoyed the administrators more than those who graduated between 1960 and 1977. The results for students who graduated between 1949 and 1959 fell into both categories (Sanderson, 1977).
Based on the research, Dr. Campbell developed these recommendations as follows:
Based on the research, Dr. Campbell developed these recommendations as follows:
- Restructure and strengthen the programs to reduce the competition and tension and meet the children's educational needs through a fair placement process,
- Improve the evaluation of each student in relation to communication methods used in educating the deaf,
- Provide periodic evaluations of all students and, if needed, recommendations for transfer,
- Provide aid and education to parents as they make decisions regarding placement,
- Set up an early intervention program for Deaf toddlers and preschoolers,
- Improve curriculum and offer vocational courses for skill-building targeted to obtain employment,
- Encourage teachers and parents to become involved with the Deaf community and have the right attitude towards the deaf,
- Include the state evaluative process for Deaf children in school districts under the direction of the Utah School for the Deaf and make recommendations along the spectrum of placements,
- Keep up with the research on services and education trends,
- Coordinate the educational research of Utah School for the Deaf with research from other states, and
- Reconsider and rewrite the Utah School for the Deaf policies to clarify their intent and ensure that they reflect a coherent and consistent policy (Campbell, 1977).
Dr. Robert G. Sanderson. Source: On the Green, July 12, 1981
Dr. Jay J. Campbell Presents His Research
on Deaf Education in Utah
to the Utah State Board of Education
on April 14, 1977
AND
The Oral and Total Communication Advocates
Present Their Case to the Utah State
Board of Education on That Day
on Deaf Education in Utah
to the Utah State Board of Education
on April 14, 1977
AND
The Oral and Total Communication Advocates
Present Their Case to the Utah State
Board of Education on That Day
From February to April 1977, the Utah State Board of Education engaged in a heated debate regarding the most effective ways to educate Deaf children. The central issue was a proposal to separate the two programs at the Utah School for the Deaf, which led to conflict between the oral communication method and the total communication approach (Peters, Deseret News, April 15, 1977). Rather than focusing on their differences, the Utah State Board of Education aimed to strengthen both programs (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, April 15, 1977).
On April 14, 1977, the Utah State Board of Education convened at the Utah School for the Deaf, where around 300 parents advocating for the oral method gathered for a debate. The third debate focused on the two instructional philosophies presented to the board. Questions arose regarding whether the oral approach or the total communication method is more effective for teaching Deaf children, and whether improving both programs would enhance Deaf education overall. There was also discussion about the possibility of establishing two separate schools, one for oral communication and another for total communication, as suggested in Dr. Campbell's comprehensive study. Dr. Sanderson and Gene Stewart advocated for the total communication approach, while supporters of the oral philosophy shared their perspectives during the meeting (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, March 26, 1977). The importance of parental choice was a recurring theme at the board meeting, with Dr. Bitter emphasizing the need to provide parents with options for their children and to preserve their rights to make decisions regarding their children's education.
Dr. Campbell presented his comprehensive 200-page study report to the board, outlining his findings and suggestions for enhancing education at the Utah School for the Deaf. He pushed for a more equitable evaluation and placement system. His study significantly contributed to the ongoing debate about Deaf education, offering a hopeful outlook for the school's future programs. In his research, Dr. Campbell provided findings, ideas, and recommendations aimed at improving the education system at the Utah School for the Deaf, including the proposal for more equitable evaluation and placement systems (Campbell, 1977).
However, Dr. Bitter strongly opposed Dr. Campbell's research, which indicated that Deaf children excel academically when using sign language. In front of 300 parents of oral Deaf children who supported his view, Dr. Bitter criticized both the oral and total communication groups for their ongoing debates over which approach is most effective. He challenged them to collaborate in improving the quality of Deaf education (Peters, Deseret News, April 15, 1977). Dr. Bitter stressed the importance of providing parents with options for their children and preserving their rights to make decisions regarding their children's education (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, April 15, 1977).
Moreover, Dr. Bitter expressed concerns about Dr. Campbell's research, claiming it contained inaccuracies and unfounded conclusions regarding the Teacher Oral Training Program at the University of Utah and educational programs statewide (G.B. Bitter, personal communication, March 6, 1978). This controversy over research and program bias added another layer of tension and uncertainty to the debate, complicating the decision-making process.
Dr. Bitter emphasized that the focus should not be on advocating for one of the two philosophies or determining which is best for all Deaf students; rather, the priority should be on improving the quality of existing Deaf education programs. He reiterated the need to provide parents with choices for their children and to protect their rights in educational decisions. Some participants claimed that the reports from February and March suggested bias in the orientation program for parents of students entering the Ogden facility, favoring the oral method over the total communication method (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, April 15, 1977).
Most of the criticism was directed at Dr. Sanderson's February report to the State Board and Dr. Campbell's study, which both recommended establishing separate schools for the two educational programs while continuing to support the total communication approach at Ogden's residential school. Dr. Sanderson also advocated for the separation of the two educational programs while retaining the Ogden's residential school for the total communication approach (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, April 15, 1977).
Additionally, Dr. Bitter criticized Dr. Sanderson's survey of Utah School for the Deaf alums, which he presented to the Utah State Board of Education. Dr. Bitter raised concerns about the validity and reliability of Dr. Sanderson's selection procedures for the population and sample, which led to considerable confusion. Some critics alleged that Dr. Sanderson supported the creation of two separate schools for the two educational approaches while maintaining the Total Communication Department on Ogden's residential campus. Others argued that previous reports indicated the orientation program for parents of new students at the Ogden campus was biased toward the oral approach (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, April 15, 1977).
Dr. Bitter emphasized the importance of improving existing Deaf education programs instead of debating which educational philosophy should be considered the best for all Deaf students. He reiterated the need to provide parents with choices for their children and to protect their rights in educational decision-making. Additionally, concerns were raised about potential bias in the reports from February and March regarding the orientation program for parents of students entering the Ogden facility, which seemed to favor the oral method over total communication. This bias has the potential to significantly influence parents' decisions and impact their choice of Deaf education in Utah.
Peter Viahos, an attorney and parent of a Deaf daughter, praised the alignment of the two state school officers with the overall program. However, he argued that this alignment should not grant them administrative control over the oral program. "Utah is fortunate to have both methods of instruction, but it is unfortunate that we have almost constant conflict over which method is best," he stated (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, April 15, 1977, p. 22).
While Dr. Bitter supported offering dual options for Deaf education, the oral program often promoted itself as the preferred choice for parents and Deaf children. Dr. Campbell, Dr. Sanderson, and the Utah Association for the Deaf have noted that many Deaf students struggle in the oral program and ultimately transition to the total communication approach. They have actively advocated for the total communication method and have encountered numerous parents who were unaware of this option when advised to choose the oral program. Until the board meeting on April 14th, Dr. Campbell remained dedicated to finding solutions that benefit both groups and was optimistic about the future of Deaf education in Utah.
On April 14, 1977, the Utah State Board of Education convened at the Utah School for the Deaf, where around 300 parents advocating for the oral method gathered for a debate. The third debate focused on the two instructional philosophies presented to the board. Questions arose regarding whether the oral approach or the total communication method is more effective for teaching Deaf children, and whether improving both programs would enhance Deaf education overall. There was also discussion about the possibility of establishing two separate schools, one for oral communication and another for total communication, as suggested in Dr. Campbell's comprehensive study. Dr. Sanderson and Gene Stewart advocated for the total communication approach, while supporters of the oral philosophy shared their perspectives during the meeting (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, March 26, 1977). The importance of parental choice was a recurring theme at the board meeting, with Dr. Bitter emphasizing the need to provide parents with options for their children and to preserve their rights to make decisions regarding their children's education.
Dr. Campbell presented his comprehensive 200-page study report to the board, outlining his findings and suggestions for enhancing education at the Utah School for the Deaf. He pushed for a more equitable evaluation and placement system. His study significantly contributed to the ongoing debate about Deaf education, offering a hopeful outlook for the school's future programs. In his research, Dr. Campbell provided findings, ideas, and recommendations aimed at improving the education system at the Utah School for the Deaf, including the proposal for more equitable evaluation and placement systems (Campbell, 1977).
However, Dr. Bitter strongly opposed Dr. Campbell's research, which indicated that Deaf children excel academically when using sign language. In front of 300 parents of oral Deaf children who supported his view, Dr. Bitter criticized both the oral and total communication groups for their ongoing debates over which approach is most effective. He challenged them to collaborate in improving the quality of Deaf education (Peters, Deseret News, April 15, 1977). Dr. Bitter stressed the importance of providing parents with options for their children and preserving their rights to make decisions regarding their children's education (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, April 15, 1977).
Moreover, Dr. Bitter expressed concerns about Dr. Campbell's research, claiming it contained inaccuracies and unfounded conclusions regarding the Teacher Oral Training Program at the University of Utah and educational programs statewide (G.B. Bitter, personal communication, March 6, 1978). This controversy over research and program bias added another layer of tension and uncertainty to the debate, complicating the decision-making process.
Dr. Bitter emphasized that the focus should not be on advocating for one of the two philosophies or determining which is best for all Deaf students; rather, the priority should be on improving the quality of existing Deaf education programs. He reiterated the need to provide parents with choices for their children and to protect their rights in educational decisions. Some participants claimed that the reports from February and March suggested bias in the orientation program for parents of students entering the Ogden facility, favoring the oral method over the total communication method (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, April 15, 1977).
Most of the criticism was directed at Dr. Sanderson's February report to the State Board and Dr. Campbell's study, which both recommended establishing separate schools for the two educational programs while continuing to support the total communication approach at Ogden's residential school. Dr. Sanderson also advocated for the separation of the two educational programs while retaining the Ogden's residential school for the total communication approach (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, April 15, 1977).
Additionally, Dr. Bitter criticized Dr. Sanderson's survey of Utah School for the Deaf alums, which he presented to the Utah State Board of Education. Dr. Bitter raised concerns about the validity and reliability of Dr. Sanderson's selection procedures for the population and sample, which led to considerable confusion. Some critics alleged that Dr. Sanderson supported the creation of two separate schools for the two educational approaches while maintaining the Total Communication Department on Ogden's residential campus. Others argued that previous reports indicated the orientation program for parents of new students at the Ogden campus was biased toward the oral approach (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, April 15, 1977).
Dr. Bitter emphasized the importance of improving existing Deaf education programs instead of debating which educational philosophy should be considered the best for all Deaf students. He reiterated the need to provide parents with choices for their children and to protect their rights in educational decision-making. Additionally, concerns were raised about potential bias in the reports from February and March regarding the orientation program for parents of students entering the Ogden facility, which seemed to favor the oral method over total communication. This bias has the potential to significantly influence parents' decisions and impact their choice of Deaf education in Utah.
Peter Viahos, an attorney and parent of a Deaf daughter, praised the alignment of the two state school officers with the overall program. However, he argued that this alignment should not grant them administrative control over the oral program. "Utah is fortunate to have both methods of instruction, but it is unfortunate that we have almost constant conflict over which method is best," he stated (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, April 15, 1977, p. 22).
While Dr. Bitter supported offering dual options for Deaf education, the oral program often promoted itself as the preferred choice for parents and Deaf children. Dr. Campbell, Dr. Sanderson, and the Utah Association for the Deaf have noted that many Deaf students struggle in the oral program and ultimately transition to the total communication approach. They have actively advocated for the total communication method and have encountered numerous parents who were unaware of this option when advised to choose the oral program. Until the board meeting on April 14th, Dr. Campbell remained dedicated to finding solutions that benefit both groups and was optimistic about the future of Deaf education in Utah.
Dr. Jay J. Campbell's 1977 Comprehensive Study of Deaf Education in Utah
Dr. Grant B. Bitter's Key Recommendations for
Improving Educational Programs for the Deaf and
Creating a Statewide Comprehensive Plan
Improving Educational Programs for the Deaf and
Creating a Statewide Comprehensive Plan
On the same day, Dr. Grant B. Bitter presented his recommendations for improving educational programs for the Deaf to the Utah State Board of Education. Representing the Utah Council of Parents of Deaf Children, Dr. Bitter acknowledged the significant achievements Utah has made in the field of Deaf education. These accomplishments have set a high standard for other states to follow.
Dr. Bitter outlined several recommendations to assist in implementing the new Public Law 94-142, which addresses the rights of individuals with disabilities within the educational system:
He strongly advocated for adequate support personnel to meet the emerging needs of Deaf students under Public Law 94-142, which includes the use of appropriate diagnostic procedures and tracking systems. Dr. Bitter emphasized the importance of parental involvement in this process. He proposed the creation of a State Advisory Council for Hearing Conservation to strengthen all areas of concern and improve educational excellence. He had the support of his alliance of parents who advocate for oral communication.
Dr. Bitter recommended assigning representation to various groups, agencies, organizations, and institutions, and suggested the state review its current educational, social, and vocational services. His recommendations included:
1. A review of the effectiveness of the currently constituted Governor's Advisory Council to the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind.
2. Conducting a long-term cost-benefit analysis to evaluate the costs per pupil per year for education in:
3. Hiring at least one qualified professional rehabilitation counselor with expertise in oral/aural skills to assist oral/aural Deaf individuals seeking help from the Division of Rehabilitation Services for the Deaf.
4. Organizing a statewide Comprehensive Advisory Council for Hearing Conservation.
Finally, Dr. Bitter stated, "None of us can allow ourselves to waste tax dollars, human energy, and resources on the historic, destructive, and divisive conflict over philosophy and methodology among various groups of the hearing impaired. The question is not whether to choose 'either-or,' but rather 'How can we improve the quality of existing programs for the hearing impaired to make them more efficient and effective?' We must safeguard equal educational rights and opportunities and ensure educational alternatives in the least restrictive environment" (Bitter, personal communication, April 14, 1977).
- Utah's commitment to the development and preservation of parents' rights, opportunities, and responsibilities in the education of their Deaf children is a cornerstone of our educational system.
- The right to choose educational alternatives, such as an oral track or a total communication track, in separate and adequately equipped facilities.
- Utah provides unique opportunities for placing deaf children in regular public school classes, Extension Day Classes, or the Residential School in Ogden. The Utah School for the Deaf offers day class placements in public schools, which is a distinctive option in Utah. The willingness of school districts to collaborate with parents and the Utah School for the Deaf for both day class placements and full-time enrollment in district schools is commendable.
Dr. Bitter outlined several recommendations to assist in implementing the new Public Law 94-142, which addresses the rights of individuals with disabilities within the educational system:
- The right to due process.
- Protection against discriminatory testing during the diagnosis process.
- Placement in the least restrictive educational setting.
- Development of Individualized Education Plans (IEPs)
He strongly advocated for adequate support personnel to meet the emerging needs of Deaf students under Public Law 94-142, which includes the use of appropriate diagnostic procedures and tracking systems. Dr. Bitter emphasized the importance of parental involvement in this process. He proposed the creation of a State Advisory Council for Hearing Conservation to strengthen all areas of concern and improve educational excellence. He had the support of his alliance of parents who advocate for oral communication.
Dr. Bitter recommended assigning representation to various groups, agencies, organizations, and institutions, and suggested the state review its current educational, social, and vocational services. His recommendations included:
1. A review of the effectiveness of the currently constituted Governor's Advisory Council to the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind.
2. Conducting a long-term cost-benefit analysis to evaluate the costs per pupil per year for education in:
- Utah School for the Deaf, Ogden,
- Extension Day Classes, Salt Lake City,
- Multiple handicapped facilities,
- School districts providing full-time enrollment for deaf children in regular classes
3. Hiring at least one qualified professional rehabilitation counselor with expertise in oral/aural skills to assist oral/aural Deaf individuals seeking help from the Division of Rehabilitation Services for the Deaf.
4. Organizing a statewide Comprehensive Advisory Council for Hearing Conservation.
Finally, Dr. Bitter stated, "None of us can allow ourselves to waste tax dollars, human energy, and resources on the historic, destructive, and divisive conflict over philosophy and methodology among various groups of the hearing impaired. The question is not whether to choose 'either-or,' but rather 'How can we improve the quality of existing programs for the hearing impaired to make them more efficient and effective?' We must safeguard equal educational rights and opportunities and ensure educational alternatives in the least restrictive environment" (Bitter, personal communication, April 14, 1977).
Dr. Grant B. Bitter. Source: Utahn, 1963
Education for the Deaf Sparks Debate at the
Utah State Board of Education: No Action Taken
Utah State Board of Education: No Action Taken
During an emotional presentation at the Utah State Board of Education, Pete Vlahos remarked, "Dr. Campbell may have little interest in what parents have to say here today." He continued, "The stigma of deafness is so strong that parents do not want any of their associates to know they have a child in a special school. Parents must keep their immediate relatives—grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins—from learning that they have a handicapped family member. Likewise, they do not feel the need to admit they have a handicapped child. I resent that personally" (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, April 15, 1977, p. 15).
Another parent, Legia Johnson, fiercely defended her children's rights amid accusations against the Utah School for the Deaf. She declared, "We resent public statements that our children are poor students. First and foremost, they are children—not deaf people. They are people with a problem." Legia also shared her daughter's perspective, who sees herself as "not handicapped, but inconvenienced" (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, April 15, 1977, p. 15).
Dr. Bitter expressed concern that Dr. Campbell's study did not include interviews with the parents of the school's students. Pete Vlahos added in his prepared remarks that the parents of two-thirds of the Deaf school students he represented had requested that Dr. Campbell and Dr. Sanderson not continue to influence oral students. Despite Dr. Campbell and Dr. Sanderson's recommendation to separate the two schools, neither the oral nor the total communication parent groups strongly supported or opposed the establishment of separate campuses for oral and total schools (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, April 15, 1977, p. 15).
In this context, Dr. Bitter requested that the State Board postpone action on Dr. Campbell's report and recommendations (G.B. Bitter, personal communication, April 14, 1977).
Another parent, Legia Johnson, fiercely defended her children's rights amid accusations against the Utah School for the Deaf. She declared, "We resent public statements that our children are poor students. First and foremost, they are children—not deaf people. They are people with a problem." Legia also shared her daughter's perspective, who sees herself as "not handicapped, but inconvenienced" (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, April 15, 1977, p. 15).
Dr. Bitter expressed concern that Dr. Campbell's study did not include interviews with the parents of the school's students. Pete Vlahos added in his prepared remarks that the parents of two-thirds of the Deaf school students he represented had requested that Dr. Campbell and Dr. Sanderson not continue to influence oral students. Despite Dr. Campbell and Dr. Sanderson's recommendation to separate the two schools, neither the oral nor the total communication parent groups strongly supported or opposed the establishment of separate campuses for oral and total schools (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, April 15, 1977, p. 15).
In this context, Dr. Bitter requested that the State Board postpone action on Dr. Campbell's report and recommendations (G.B. Bitter, personal communication, April 14, 1977).
John Cummins, 'Deaf Education Method Best Served by 'Re-Channeling Energy.' Source: The Salt Lake Tribune, April 15, 1977, p. 22
During a board meeting, Peter Vlahos made a compelling argument, pointing out that Utah has access to both educational methods for Deaf children, but they often conflict with one another. He expressed pride in his daughter's accomplishments and questioned the need to prove one educational method superior to the other, emphasizing that the focus should be on educating children (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, April 15, 1977).
As previously mentioned, Peter Vlahos revealed that two-thirds of parents were in favor of removing Dr. Campbell and Dr. Sanderson from their roles in Utah's Deaf education. Over 300 parents, united behind advocates like Dr. Bitter and Peter Vlahos, stood in support of the oral method during the heated meeting (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, April 15, 1977). The discussions were intense, making it challenging to reach a unified approach to Deaf education that prioritizes the needs of children.
A group of parents, influenced by Dr. Bitter, petitioned the Utah State Board of Education to suspend Dr. Campbell's comprehensive study, which aimed to compare the effectiveness of oral and sign language methods in Deaf education, citing its inconclusive nature. Additionally, dissatisfied with his research findings, they demanded his termination (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, 2006; Dr. Jay J. Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007). Approximately 50 to 60 Deaf individuals attended the meeting (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987). Notable attendees included Ned C. Wheeler, W. David Mortensen, Lloyd H. Perkins, Dennis R. Platt, Kenneth L. Kinner, and others.
Dr. Bitter, a spokesperson for the oral advocates, presented Dr. Campbell's boss, Dr. Walter D. Talbot, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, with three options:
As previously mentioned, Peter Vlahos revealed that two-thirds of parents were in favor of removing Dr. Campbell and Dr. Sanderson from their roles in Utah's Deaf education. Over 300 parents, united behind advocates like Dr. Bitter and Peter Vlahos, stood in support of the oral method during the heated meeting (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, April 15, 1977). The discussions were intense, making it challenging to reach a unified approach to Deaf education that prioritizes the needs of children.
A group of parents, influenced by Dr. Bitter, petitioned the Utah State Board of Education to suspend Dr. Campbell's comprehensive study, which aimed to compare the effectiveness of oral and sign language methods in Deaf education, citing its inconclusive nature. Additionally, dissatisfied with his research findings, they demanded his termination (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, 2006; Dr. Jay J. Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007). Approximately 50 to 60 Deaf individuals attended the meeting (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987). Notable attendees included Ned C. Wheeler, W. David Mortensen, Lloyd H. Perkins, Dennis R. Platt, Kenneth L. Kinner, and others.
Dr. Bitter, a spokesperson for the oral advocates, presented Dr. Campbell's boss, Dr. Walter D. Talbot, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, with three options:
- Dr. Bitter suggested removing Dr. Campbell from his position to reduce his influence on the board's decision.
- Assigning him to another position, or
- Requesting a grand jury investigation into the evidence demonstrating how oral Deaf individuals were intimidated by some of the state's programs (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987).
Dr. Walter D. Talbot. Source: The Utah Eagle, April 1970
Dr. Talbot's response to Dr. Bitter's appeal by assigning him to another position within the Utah State Office of Education to reduce his influence on the Utah School for the Deaf. His decision sparked a wave of tension. The Deaf group, which was in attendance, strongly opposed the State Board's decision to reassign Dr. Campbell within the Utah State Office of Education. Their dissatisfaction was intense, leading them to express their protest by stomping their feet on the floor. In his 1987 interview with the University of Utah, Dr. Bitter described the scene as highly emotional and wild, prompting him to consider leaving the room. Concerned about the escalating conflict, Dr. Talbot asked the members of the Deaf community to leave the room (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987). There are ongoing disagreements about the actions of Deaf individuals during the meeting, with different accounts circulating about what transpired.
The Utah State Board of Education accepted Dr. Campbell's report and supporting documentation. However, amidst the controversy surrounding his analysis—which included data from independent researchers—the board chose to disregard all of his recommendations (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, April 15, 1977). Unfortunately, Dr. Bitter, a key decision-maker, blocked Dr. Campbell's comprehensive study, which aimed to improve Utah's Deaf education system by advocating for separating the oral and total communication departments into their own administrations and teaching staff. This separation was intended to reduce conflicts between the two groups.
The board's decision had profound consequences: Dr. Campbell's plan—a two-year study designed to enhance education through fair assessment and placement procedures—was not only rejected but ultimately dismantled. The Utah Deaf community can't help but feel a sense of loss, as this once-promising plan has since been buried and forgotten (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, 2006; Dr. Jay J. Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007). As a result, the Utah School for the Deaf continued its trend of placing Deaf students in the oral program, which often did not meet their needs (Dr. Jay J. Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007).
Despite this setback, the two-track program continued under the leadership of a principal who advocated for oral education. This principal oversaw both the oral and total communication departments, leading to a power imbalance and a lack of voice for the total communication department. As a result, parents remained unaware of their full range of communication options available, and Deaf students continued to struggle with language deprivation. Gene D. Stewart, a vocal advocate, spoke out against the dominance of the oral advocacy group at the Utah School for the Deaf. His powerful statement, "We're living in the dark ages in Utah," resonated with the leaders of the Utah Deaf community.
In a 1987 interview with the University of Utah, Dr. Bitter stated that he and the school administration challenged Dr. Campbell and Dr. Sanderson, who were members of the committee studying the Utah School for the Deaf. Superintendent Robert W. Tegeder, under Dr. Campbell's supervision, had to exercise caution. It appeared that Superintendent Tegeder became caught in the conflict between Bitter and Campbell-Sanderson and needed to be careful not to jeopardize his job, as the school administrators supported Dr. Bitter (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987).
It was not until 2010 that the Parent Infant Program Orientation was established at the Utah School for the Deaf. This initiative aimed to provide parents of Deaf children with fair and balanced options. The development followed a long history of recommendations, beginning with Dr. Campbell's proposal for an orientation in the 1970s. However, Dr. Bitter initially rejected this idea because total communication was not recognized as an official language. The details below provide additional information on this topic.
The Utah State Board of Education accepted Dr. Campbell's report and supporting documentation. However, amidst the controversy surrounding his analysis—which included data from independent researchers—the board chose to disregard all of his recommendations (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, April 15, 1977). Unfortunately, Dr. Bitter, a key decision-maker, blocked Dr. Campbell's comprehensive study, which aimed to improve Utah's Deaf education system by advocating for separating the oral and total communication departments into their own administrations and teaching staff. This separation was intended to reduce conflicts between the two groups.
The board's decision had profound consequences: Dr. Campbell's plan—a two-year study designed to enhance education through fair assessment and placement procedures—was not only rejected but ultimately dismantled. The Utah Deaf community can't help but feel a sense of loss, as this once-promising plan has since been buried and forgotten (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, 2006; Dr. Jay J. Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007). As a result, the Utah School for the Deaf continued its trend of placing Deaf students in the oral program, which often did not meet their needs (Dr. Jay J. Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007).
Despite this setback, the two-track program continued under the leadership of a principal who advocated for oral education. This principal oversaw both the oral and total communication departments, leading to a power imbalance and a lack of voice for the total communication department. As a result, parents remained unaware of their full range of communication options available, and Deaf students continued to struggle with language deprivation. Gene D. Stewart, a vocal advocate, spoke out against the dominance of the oral advocacy group at the Utah School for the Deaf. His powerful statement, "We're living in the dark ages in Utah," resonated with the leaders of the Utah Deaf community.
In a 1987 interview with the University of Utah, Dr. Bitter stated that he and the school administration challenged Dr. Campbell and Dr. Sanderson, who were members of the committee studying the Utah School for the Deaf. Superintendent Robert W. Tegeder, under Dr. Campbell's supervision, had to exercise caution. It appeared that Superintendent Tegeder became caught in the conflict between Bitter and Campbell-Sanderson and needed to be careful not to jeopardize his job, as the school administrators supported Dr. Bitter (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987).
It was not until 2010 that the Parent Infant Program Orientation was established at the Utah School for the Deaf. This initiative aimed to provide parents of Deaf children with fair and balanced options. The development followed a long history of recommendations, beginning with Dr. Campbell's proposal for an orientation in the 1970s. However, Dr. Bitter initially rejected this idea because total communication was not recognized as an official language. The details below provide additional information on this topic.
*****
Did You Know?
Jay A. Monson, a former chairman of the Utah State Board of Education, believed that proponents of oral education at the University of Utah played a role in causing many personnel issues at the Utah School for the Deaf during a time of controversy (Cole, 1977).
Acknowledgment
Thirty years after the debate held by the Utah State Board of Education in 1977, I discovered Dr. Jay J. Campbell's comprehensive study in 2007. This work is of immense significance in the history of Deaf education in Utah. I am deeply grateful to my father-in-law, Kenneth L. Kinner, who graduated from the Utah School for the Deaf in 1954 and is the father of two Deaf children, Deanne and Duane. His efforts to introduce me to Dr. Campbell's important advocacy for the Utah Deaf community in 2006 made a lasting impact on me. In 2007, I felt compelled to explore the study further and asked Ken if I could see a copy of the book. He retrieved Dr. Campbell's study from its dusty resting place and handed it to me, igniting a personal connection to the Utah Deaf community that continues to shape my perspective.
Thank you, Ken, for sharing the history of Deaf education in Utah with me and for bringing Dr. Campbell's book out of the dust. Without your efforts, this history website would not have been possible. I also want to express my gratitude to my mother-in-law, Ilene Coles Kinner, for donating the other book, which I had previously given to the George Sutherland Archives at Utah Valley University for preservation. Thank you, Ken and Ilene, for caring for Dr. Campbell's books and keeping them safe all these years!
Thank you, Ken, for sharing the history of Deaf education in Utah with me and for bringing Dr. Campbell's book out of the dust. Without your efforts, this history website would not have been possible. I also want to express my gratitude to my mother-in-law, Ilene Coles Kinner, for donating the other book, which I had previously given to the George Sutherland Archives at Utah Valley University for preservation. Thank you, Ken and Ilene, for caring for Dr. Campbell's books and keeping them safe all these years!
Kenneth L. Kinner
I, too, would like to express my gratitude to my colleague, Julie Hesterman Smith, an interpreter, who, through a family friend, had a connection with Dr. Jay J. Campbell, whom I was intrigued by and eager to meet. This connection enabled me to interview him and learn more about his work on July 1, 2007. Dr. Campbell's research had a profound impact on me, and it was a privilege to meet him and his wife, Beth Ann, who is a Child of Deaf Adults (CODA) and also an interpreter. Dr. Campbell's legacy as a vital ally of the Utah Deaf community continues, even after his passing on January 3, 2020, at the age of 96. Thank you, Julie, for introducing me to Dr. Campbell and his wife, Beth Ann!
Julie Hesterman Smith
Like Ken and Julie, I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Jay J. Campbell for his support and investment in his study, "Education of the Deaf in Utah: A Comprehension Study." This research was a crucial step in improving education and services at the Utah School for the Deaf. Unfortunately, Dr. Campbell's comprehensive study faced significant opposition, and his efforts to enhance education through fair assessment and placement procedures ultimately failed. However, after being initially buried and forgotten, his two-year study resurfaced in 2007 and gained recognition as a valuable source of information.
Notably, his work continues to shape the future of Deaf education, offering hope for a more equitable system and highlighting the lasting impact of his research. Dr. Campbell's study remains a guiding light in the field, demonstrating the importance of his contributions and the potential for positive change. The disagreement surrounding his study led to a deep controversy that still resonates in Deaf education today.
Thank you, Dr. Campbell, for your unwavering support and dedication to our community. Your contributions have been invaluable, and we are deeply grateful for everything you have done. Your work has profoundly influenced the field of Deaf education, and we will never forget and honor your legacy.
Last but not least, Beth Ann Stewart Campbell shared a crucial insight at the interpreting workshop held at Salt Lake Community College on October 15, 2010. Her husband, Dr. Jay J. Campbell, was also present at the workshop. She noted that I shed light on Dr. Campbell's comprehensive study and interviewed him about his research in 2007. Beth Ann expressed her surprise at the reemergence of this issue, emphasizing the importance of raising awareness. She mentioned that there were challenging times (Beth Ann Stewart Campbell Interview, YouTube, October 15, 2010). The following details the history of Dr. Campbell's comprehensive study and the obstacles that hindered its potential to enhance Deaf education in Utah.
We are deeply appreciative of Beth Ann for her inspiring advocacy on behalf of the Utah Deaf community. Her experiences as an interpreter during the pre-Americans with Disabilities Act era and her firsthand knowledge of the Deaf education battles during the Bitter/Sanderson era were truly enlightening. During the interview, she spoke about the ongoing conflict between oral and sign language, but believed it was not as vicious as it had been during the Bitter/Sanderson era. Thank you, Beth Ann, for interpreting and advocating for our causes!
Notably, his work continues to shape the future of Deaf education, offering hope for a more equitable system and highlighting the lasting impact of his research. Dr. Campbell's study remains a guiding light in the field, demonstrating the importance of his contributions and the potential for positive change. The disagreement surrounding his study led to a deep controversy that still resonates in Deaf education today.
Thank you, Dr. Campbell, for your unwavering support and dedication to our community. Your contributions have been invaluable, and we are deeply grateful for everything you have done. Your work has profoundly influenced the field of Deaf education, and we will never forget and honor your legacy.
Last but not least, Beth Ann Stewart Campbell shared a crucial insight at the interpreting workshop held at Salt Lake Community College on October 15, 2010. Her husband, Dr. Jay J. Campbell, was also present at the workshop. She noted that I shed light on Dr. Campbell's comprehensive study and interviewed him about his research in 2007. Beth Ann expressed her surprise at the reemergence of this issue, emphasizing the importance of raising awareness. She mentioned that there were challenging times (Beth Ann Stewart Campbell Interview, YouTube, October 15, 2010). The following details the history of Dr. Campbell's comprehensive study and the obstacles that hindered its potential to enhance Deaf education in Utah.
We are deeply appreciative of Beth Ann for her inspiring advocacy on behalf of the Utah Deaf community. Her experiences as an interpreter during the pre-Americans with Disabilities Act era and her firsthand knowledge of the Deaf education battles during the Bitter/Sanderson era were truly enlightening. During the interview, she spoke about the ongoing conflict between oral and sign language, but believed it was not as vicious as it had been during the Bitter/Sanderson era. Thank you, Beth Ann, for interpreting and advocating for our causes!
Beth Ann Stewart Campbell and Jay J. Campbell, 1987. Photo: Robert L. Bonnell
Did You Know?
Norman Williams, a 1962 graduate of the Utah School for the Deaf and father of two Deaf daughters, Penny and Jan, recalls finding Dr. Campbell's comprehensive study in the trash can at the Utah State Office of Education a few years after the fateful presentation. He had heard a lot about this research and was overjoyed to have the book finally in his hands (Norman Williams, personal communication, January 20, 1010). Kenneth L. Kinner and Norman Williams deserve credit for keeping Dr. Jay J. Campbell's book safe for all these years.
Kenneth L. Kinner and Norman Williams deserve credit for keeping Dr. Jay J. Campbell's book safe for all these years.
Kenneth L. Kinner and Norman Williams deserve credit for keeping Dr. Jay J. Campbell's book safe for all these years.
Norman Williams
*****
The Oral and Total Communication Advocates
Present Their Case to the Utah State Board of Education
on August 19, 1977
Present Their Case to the Utah State Board of Education
on August 19, 1977
The Utah State Board of Education heard arguments for both oral communication and total communication approaches during meetings held in February, March, and April. On August 19, 1977, the board convened for another discussion featuring Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, a proponent of total communication, and Dr. Grant B. Bitter, who advocated for oral communication. Dr. Sanderson acknowledged that some students who struggle with speech might benefit more from the total communication approach. Similarly, Dr. Bitter conceded that students could find value in his oral program.
Dr. Bitter explained that the oral approach emphasizes speaking and lipreading, while sign language conveys concepts rather than specific words. He noted the nationwide conflict between the two teaching philosophies and stressed that the debate is ongoing, inviting the audience to stay engaged. He expressed the importance of moving beyond the idea that one approach is superior to the other, stating, "We must get out of the idea that my side is better than your side" (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, August 20, 1977, p. 25).
In contrast, Dr. Sanderson believed that the child's needs should be prioritized over strict adherence to a single method. He pointed out that children often learn to communicate more quickly through total communication, which also involves the participation of all family members. He emphasized, "My personal choice would not focus on one program or the other but on the child's needs. However, children learn to communicate more quickly through total communication, which involves all members of the child's family" (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, August 20, 1977, p. 25).
Following the removal of Dr. Jay J. Campbell, a key figure in the debate due to controversies surrounding oral and total communication philosophies at the Utah State Board of Education, on April 14, 1977, Dr. Bitter made three additional recommendations for revising statewide services for the deaf. He presented these recommendations to the Utah State Board of Education.
Dr. Bitter emphasized the following needs:
Dr. Bitter criticized the Governor's Advisory Council to the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind for its limited power and restricted scope. Originally designed to guide the governor on issues related to the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind, the council had transformed into a heated debate between oral and manual methods, resulting in a minimal positive impact on the effectiveness of the children's programs. He described their efforts as "an exercise in futility."
Dr. Bitter called for a broader-based committee to address emerging trends in Deaf education. This committee would support the Advisory Council in achieving its mission for Deaf and hard-of-hearing children in the state. He proposed that the Utah State Board of Education approve the formation of a statewide Advisory Commission for Hearing Conservation, with the following mission:
Dr. Bitter also reported that parents and oral Deaf young people seeking assistance from the Utah State Office of Vocational Rehabilitation—Division of Services for the Deaf often encountered bewilderment and disappointment due to bias, intimidation, and a lack of professionalism there. He asserted that this situation, under the State Office of Education, required immediate action. Dr. Bitter recommended that the Board direct the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation Services (OVRS) to hire a professional counselor who understands the workplace needs of individuals who are Deaf or hard of hearing, ensuring a more experienced and unbiased approach to Deaf services.
After disagreeing with Dr. Campbell's 1977 study on Deaf education in Utah, Dr. Bitter suggested to the Board that they create clear steps for studying, training, and assessing the methods used for the education and support of Deaf individuals in the state (Bitter, personal communication, August 19, 1977).
Ultimately, the State Board did not reach a decision based on these presentations (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, August 20, 1977). The complexity of the issue and the need for further discussion were cited as the main reasons for this. However, Dr. Sanderson's emphasis on each child's individual needs remained a key consideration. Notably, in 2016, the Utah School for the Deaf implemented a personalized deaf education placement that aligns with this focus, highlighting the importance of individual needs in decision-making.
Dr. Bitter explained that the oral approach emphasizes speaking and lipreading, while sign language conveys concepts rather than specific words. He noted the nationwide conflict between the two teaching philosophies and stressed that the debate is ongoing, inviting the audience to stay engaged. He expressed the importance of moving beyond the idea that one approach is superior to the other, stating, "We must get out of the idea that my side is better than your side" (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, August 20, 1977, p. 25).
In contrast, Dr. Sanderson believed that the child's needs should be prioritized over strict adherence to a single method. He pointed out that children often learn to communicate more quickly through total communication, which also involves the participation of all family members. He emphasized, "My personal choice would not focus on one program or the other but on the child's needs. However, children learn to communicate more quickly through total communication, which involves all members of the child's family" (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, August 20, 1977, p. 25).
Following the removal of Dr. Jay J. Campbell, a key figure in the debate due to controversies surrounding oral and total communication philosophies at the Utah State Board of Education, on April 14, 1977, Dr. Bitter made three additional recommendations for revising statewide services for the deaf. He presented these recommendations to the Utah State Board of Education.
Dr. Bitter emphasized the following needs:
- He acknowledged the fragmentation, lack of communication, and the proliferation of services in Utah that aimed to meet the needs of the deaf community. Many agencies and organizations in the state lacked the necessary data for making informed referrals and were unable to provide accurate and unbiased information about Deaf services. This situation needed urgent correction.
- He noted the increasing number of Deaf and hard-of-hearing children entering public school classes. He recommended that administrators from the Utah Schools for the Deaf (USD) and all 40 school district administrators establish a cooperative and efficient plan for referring and tracking these students. This plan would evaluate their progress and develop support systems to help these children succeed in their educational placements.
- Citing Public Law 94-142 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Dr. Bitter expressed that the State Board of Education should collaborate with various professional agencies, clinics, hospitals, schools, parent groups, and universities. He envisioned a future role for USD working alongside Utah school districts to ensure the appropriate placement of Deaf children and youth. He emphasized the importance of an orderly transition, anticipating shifts in school populations and the need for professional staff members to be effectively utilized. Dr. Bitter recognized the future needs of Deaf children in both urban and rural areas of the state, as well as at the Utah School for the Deaf in Ogden and its extension programs. He wanted to prepare for these needs proactively rather than wait until later.
Dr. Bitter criticized the Governor's Advisory Council to the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind for its limited power and restricted scope. Originally designed to guide the governor on issues related to the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind, the council had transformed into a heated debate between oral and manual methods, resulting in a minimal positive impact on the effectiveness of the children's programs. He described their efforts as "an exercise in futility."
Dr. Bitter called for a broader-based committee to address emerging trends in Deaf education. This committee would support the Advisory Council in achieving its mission for Deaf and hard-of-hearing children in the state. He proposed that the Utah State Board of Education approve the formation of a statewide Advisory Commission for Hearing Conservation, with the following mission:
- Prepare a comprehensive plan to ensure the education of all Deaf children and youth in Utah, utilizing the expertise of a broad-based commission to study, review, analyze, and evaluate programs for the Deaf while minimizing bias, contention, and inaccuracies or inadequacies in the data.
- Include in the plan a consideration of the relationship between education, rehabilitation, and the Deaf-related challenges of aging. Recommend ways to adequately meet the needs of Deaf citizens throughout their lifespan, from birth to death, with the Parent Infant Program (PIP) continuing as a vital part of this continuum.
Dr. Bitter also reported that parents and oral Deaf young people seeking assistance from the Utah State Office of Vocational Rehabilitation—Division of Services for the Deaf often encountered bewilderment and disappointment due to bias, intimidation, and a lack of professionalism there. He asserted that this situation, under the State Office of Education, required immediate action. Dr. Bitter recommended that the Board direct the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation Services (OVRS) to hire a professional counselor who understands the workplace needs of individuals who are Deaf or hard of hearing, ensuring a more experienced and unbiased approach to Deaf services.
After disagreeing with Dr. Campbell's 1977 study on Deaf education in Utah, Dr. Bitter suggested to the Board that they create clear steps for studying, training, and assessing the methods used for the education and support of Deaf individuals in the state (Bitter, personal communication, August 19, 1977).
Ultimately, the State Board did not reach a decision based on these presentations (Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, August 20, 1977). The complexity of the issue and the need for further discussion were cited as the main reasons for this. However, Dr. Sanderson's emphasis on each child's individual needs remained a key consideration. Notably, in 2016, the Utah School for the Deaf implemented a personalized deaf education placement that aligns with this focus, highlighting the importance of individual needs in decision-making.
The Oral and Total Communication Advocates
Present Their Case to the Utah State Board of Education
on November 18, 1977
Present Their Case to the Utah State Board of Education
on November 18, 1977
Hannah P. Lewis, a parent of a grown Deaf son, wrote an impactful article during the Utah State Board of Education meeting on November 18, 1977. In her article, published by the Deseret News on November 24, 1977, she discussed the study of total communication and the academic challenges faced by Deaf students, posing a critical question: How many more years would this study require?
At the board meeting, Dr. Bitter advocated for oral methods of communication, but Hannah, who is deeply empathetic, expressed concern that many Deaf children struggle to master these methods and often cannot use their voices for effective communication. She recognizes the importance of sign language in the lives of Deaf students and believes it is essential for their communication. While she questions whether a person who can speak truly needs sign language assistance, she insists it is crucial to encourage them to speak the words as they sign. Hannah pointed out that Dr. Bitter was worried that if a student can speak but chooses not to, they might rely on signs and not use their voices.
Hannah recounted her experience with her son, who attended the Utah School for the Deaf and felt "dumb" during a visit home because he struggled to be understood. She reassured him that he and his Deaf friends were intelligent and that being Deaf was only a barrier to expressing that intelligence. Realizing that Deaf individuals can hold jobs, raise families, and contribute to their communities, she regretted not allowing him to learn sign language, as the school superintendent had advised her 36 years ago. Hannah asserted that no one should allow a dictator to determine their preferred mode of expression, emphasizing the need to resist Dr. Bitter's imposition of communication standards and highlighting his limited understanding of the Deaf community's needs from the perspective of those who can hear. She expressed gratitude for Dr. Sanderson's ongoing support of the Deaf community, especially in helping her son.
During the political dispute between Dr. Sanderson and Dr. Bitter, Hannah noted that Dr. Sanderson has been a guiding light for the Deaf community and stressed the importance of his continued support. She said, "I cannot thank him enough for all the help he has given my son throughout his growing-up years," adding, "Thank God for a man like him" (Lewis, Deseret News, November 24, 1977, p. A4). After earning his Ph.D., Dr. Sanderson continued to advocate for the Deaf community, culminating in the naming of the Deaf Center in his honor in 2003.
In an interview with the University of Utah in 1987, Dr. Bitter stated that Dr. Sanderson, who became deaf at the age of 11 and attended both public school and a state school for the deaf, "knew nothing about school programs, but because he was deaf and an advocate of the deaf community, he obviously played a vital role as far as the deaf community was concerned" (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987, p. 30). Dr. Frank R. Turk, the national director of the Jr. NAD, worked alongside Dr. Sanderson, who served as the president of the National Association of the Deaf in the 1960s. Dr. Turk's assessment of Dr. Sanderson contradicted Dr. Bitter's portrayal, as he regarded Dr. Sanderson as an outstanding educator and a passionate advocate for the education of Deaf individuals. Dr. Sanderson recognized the crucial link between a Deaf child's K–12 education and their prospects for higher education, ultimately leading to successful employment outcomes. As a dedicated advocate for young people with leadership potential, Dr. Sanderson made significant contributions to promoting social, educational, economic, and communal equality for Deaf Americans (Turk, 2019). Hannah would likely agree with Dr. Turk's assessment of Dr. Sanderson.
At the board meeting, Dr. Bitter advocated for oral methods of communication, but Hannah, who is deeply empathetic, expressed concern that many Deaf children struggle to master these methods and often cannot use their voices for effective communication. She recognizes the importance of sign language in the lives of Deaf students and believes it is essential for their communication. While she questions whether a person who can speak truly needs sign language assistance, she insists it is crucial to encourage them to speak the words as they sign. Hannah pointed out that Dr. Bitter was worried that if a student can speak but chooses not to, they might rely on signs and not use their voices.
Hannah recounted her experience with her son, who attended the Utah School for the Deaf and felt "dumb" during a visit home because he struggled to be understood. She reassured him that he and his Deaf friends were intelligent and that being Deaf was only a barrier to expressing that intelligence. Realizing that Deaf individuals can hold jobs, raise families, and contribute to their communities, she regretted not allowing him to learn sign language, as the school superintendent had advised her 36 years ago. Hannah asserted that no one should allow a dictator to determine their preferred mode of expression, emphasizing the need to resist Dr. Bitter's imposition of communication standards and highlighting his limited understanding of the Deaf community's needs from the perspective of those who can hear. She expressed gratitude for Dr. Sanderson's ongoing support of the Deaf community, especially in helping her son.
During the political dispute between Dr. Sanderson and Dr. Bitter, Hannah noted that Dr. Sanderson has been a guiding light for the Deaf community and stressed the importance of his continued support. She said, "I cannot thank him enough for all the help he has given my son throughout his growing-up years," adding, "Thank God for a man like him" (Lewis, Deseret News, November 24, 1977, p. A4). After earning his Ph.D., Dr. Sanderson continued to advocate for the Deaf community, culminating in the naming of the Deaf Center in his honor in 2003.
In an interview with the University of Utah in 1987, Dr. Bitter stated that Dr. Sanderson, who became deaf at the age of 11 and attended both public school and a state school for the deaf, "knew nothing about school programs, but because he was deaf and an advocate of the deaf community, he obviously played a vital role as far as the deaf community was concerned" (Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987, p. 30). Dr. Frank R. Turk, the national director of the Jr. NAD, worked alongside Dr. Sanderson, who served as the president of the National Association of the Deaf in the 1960s. Dr. Turk's assessment of Dr. Sanderson contradicted Dr. Bitter's portrayal, as he regarded Dr. Sanderson as an outstanding educator and a passionate advocate for the education of Deaf individuals. Dr. Sanderson recognized the crucial link between a Deaf child's K–12 education and their prospects for higher education, ultimately leading to successful employment outcomes. As a dedicated advocate for young people with leadership potential, Dr. Sanderson made significant contributions to promoting social, educational, economic, and communal equality for Deaf Americans (Turk, 2019). Hannah would likely agree with Dr. Turk's assessment of Dr. Sanderson.
Hannah P. Lewis, 'Forum: Letters from our Readers.' Source: Deseret News, November 24, 1977
State Superintendent Walter D. Talbot requested that the UAD address several long-standing issues. In a proactive move, the UAD sought support from the association to facilitate a meeting with Dr. Talbot. This engagement aimed to secure the state's assistance in improving the quality of education for Deaf children and enhancing support for Deaf adults within the Division of Rehabilitation Services.
Three days later, on November 21, a dedicated delegation from the UAD, led by President W. David Mortensen and Vice President Paul Chamberlain, met with Dr. Talbot. Their purpose was to clarify three issues raised by Dr. Talbot on November 18 and to persuade him to implement changes.
The issues discussed were:
1. The separation policy imposed on students at the Utah School for the Deaf.
2. The restructuring of the Deaf unit within the Rehabilitation Services Administration.
3. The composition of the 22-member Hearing Conservation Committee.
Dr. Talbot and the UAD delegation agreed to prioritize the issue of methodological separation as presented in the new policy at the Utah School for the Deaf (The Silent Spotlight, November 1977). Dr. Talbot had also been in discussions with advocates for oral communication and planned to meet with them on December 5. He aimed to develop a policy with input from both groups.
Following the protests on November 18 and 28 by the Utah Association of the Deaf at the Utah State Office of Education and the University of Utah on December 6, 1977, Dr. Talbot wrote to Dr. Bitter on December 6, 1977. In his letter, he explained that after agreeing to the proposed policy, the UAD had requested a legal opinion from the Utah Attorney General. They sought clarification on whether the mandatory social and academic separation conflicted with anti-discrimination laws, such as Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Dr. Talbot, personal communication, December 6, 1977). This request underscored the UAD's thorough approach to the issue, demonstrating their dedication to finding a comprehensive solution.
In his letter to Dr. Bitter, Dr. Talbot expressed disappointment that there was no unanimous support for his Alternative Number 9. This proposal suggested that the degree of separation in instruction, living accommodations, and social life for each student should be based on their IEP. He argued that using the IEP would create a better framework for separation, as it was already designed to guide educational decisions. The IEP process involves school officials, parents, and occasionally the students themselves working together to agree on educational goals. Dr. Talbot believed that utilizing a pre-existing policy would be preferable to creating a new one that could limit the Utah School for the Deaf's ability to integrate students if parents requested it (Dr. Talbot, personal communication, December 6, 1977).
Three days later, on November 21, a dedicated delegation from the UAD, led by President W. David Mortensen and Vice President Paul Chamberlain, met with Dr. Talbot. Their purpose was to clarify three issues raised by Dr. Talbot on November 18 and to persuade him to implement changes.
The issues discussed were:
1. The separation policy imposed on students at the Utah School for the Deaf.
2. The restructuring of the Deaf unit within the Rehabilitation Services Administration.
3. The composition of the 22-member Hearing Conservation Committee.
Dr. Talbot and the UAD delegation agreed to prioritize the issue of methodological separation as presented in the new policy at the Utah School for the Deaf (The Silent Spotlight, November 1977). Dr. Talbot had also been in discussions with advocates for oral communication and planned to meet with them on December 5. He aimed to develop a policy with input from both groups.
Following the protests on November 18 and 28 by the Utah Association of the Deaf at the Utah State Office of Education and the University of Utah on December 6, 1977, Dr. Talbot wrote to Dr. Bitter on December 6, 1977. In his letter, he explained that after agreeing to the proposed policy, the UAD had requested a legal opinion from the Utah Attorney General. They sought clarification on whether the mandatory social and academic separation conflicted with anti-discrimination laws, such as Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Dr. Talbot, personal communication, December 6, 1977). This request underscored the UAD's thorough approach to the issue, demonstrating their dedication to finding a comprehensive solution.
In his letter to Dr. Bitter, Dr. Talbot expressed disappointment that there was no unanimous support for his Alternative Number 9. This proposal suggested that the degree of separation in instruction, living accommodations, and social life for each student should be based on their IEP. He argued that using the IEP would create a better framework for separation, as it was already designed to guide educational decisions. The IEP process involves school officials, parents, and occasionally the students themselves working together to agree on educational goals. Dr. Talbot believed that utilizing a pre-existing policy would be preferable to creating a new one that could limit the Utah School for the Deaf's ability to integrate students if parents requested it (Dr. Talbot, personal communication, December 6, 1977).
Segregation Policy at the Utah School for the Deaf
Discussed with Key Leaders and at the
Utah State Board of Education on December 16, 1977
Discussed with Key Leaders and at the
Utah State Board of Education on December 16, 1977
After months of discussions with key leaders, Dr. Walter D. Talbot drafted what he called a "Policy on Education of the Hearing Impaired," which he presented to the Utah State Board of Education on December 16, 1977. The board accepted the document, including the controversial Item 9, which addressed the separation of oral students and those using total communication. This item did not satisfy either group (G.B. Bitter, personal communication, March 6, 1978).
The Policy on Education of the Hearing Impaired emphasized the following:
The Policy on Education of the Hearing Impaired emphasized the following:
- Two distinct programs of instruction (oral and total communication) would be available to all students at the State School for the Deaf in Ogden. Students would be assigned based on individual needs as determined by the student, parents, and school officials (Item 9).
- The Utah School for the Deaf would report to Dr. LaRue Winget of the State Board's Office of Instructional Services, which was under Special Education. Previously, the Utah School for the Deaf had reported to Dr. Jay J. Campbell of the Office of Administration Services.
- Deaf students in the Utah School for the Deaf's programs would remain separate through the junior high school years. High school students would be allowed to socialize with each other. Students attending a mainstreamed high school for half a day or more were expected to participate in that school's extracurricular activities instead of joining after-school activities at Ogden's residential school (Chaffin, Deseret News, December 16, 1977).
"Two-track system adopted. Deaf instruction separated. Source: Chaffin, Deseret News, December 16, 1977
To respond to UAD's question, the Utah Attorney General stated that there was no conflict with separating students on Ogden's residential campus, citing that the philosophy of the oral program did not allow interaction with students who used sign language. After receiving this information, the UAD decided to consult additional legal advisors, as they believed that the mandatory separation could still be considered discriminatory and therefore illegal (The Silent Spotlight, January 1978).
Following this, on April 11, 1978, UAD requested that Dr. Jay J. Campbell write a letter to David S. Tatel, the Director of the Office for Civil Rights in Washington, D.C. In his letter, he asked, "Does Section 504 allow a school system to segregate or separate one group of deaf students from another on the same campus?"
David S. Tatel responded on July 10, 1978, stating that if there are sound pedagogical reasons for determining that it is inappropriate to educate a particular Deaf child in a regular educational environment, and if an alternative placement provides a free appropriate public education, then it would not be considered a violation of Section 504 to separate those children. However, this did not answer Dr. Campbell's question.
The main question Dr. Campbell wanted Director Tatel to address was whether it is legal under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or the Civil Rights Act to segregate or separate deaf children on the same campus based on the educational philosophy of the school or the preferences of the parents, just as it is illegal to segregate children based on race.
Director Tatel later addressed Dr. Campbell's concern regarding segregation on the same school campus based on educational philosophy in another letter, which follows:
*****
"Thank you for your letter of April 11, 1978, clarifying your inquiry of December 15, 1977, concerning the Department's Regulations implementing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 [as restated]. Your question is whether it is legal under Section 504 to segregate or separate certain deaf children from other deaf children on the same campus based on the educational philosophy of the school and/or the parents.
Attached to your letter of April 11, 1978, was a paper entitled "The Deaf Child Controversy Over Teaching Methods," describing a controversy among educators regarding the best method for teaching prelingually, severely, or profoundly deaf children. On the one hand, the advocates of the oralist school of thought contend that most deaf children can be taught to speak and lip-read. They also contend that (a) sign language segregates the deaf into their own subculture, (b) gestures should be kept to a minimum, and (c) sign language should be forbidden because it will destroy the chance of oral success.
On the other hand, the advocates of the total communication school of thought contend that (a) most of the deaf cannot become oral successes, (b) sign language does not inhibit speech development, and (c) all methods are to be used, including sign language, speech, and lip-reading. Only time will tell which combination best suits a particular deaf child. Subpart D of the Regulation generally prescribes the requirements that recipients operating preschool, elementary, and secondary education programs must satisfy.
As you may know, Section 84.33 of the Regulation generally requires recipients to provide a free and appropriate public education to each qualified handicapped person within their jurisdiction. Section 84.34 (a) provides that a qualified handicapped person must be educated with persons who are not handicapped "to the maximum extent appropriate to the needs of the handicapped person." Once it has been determined that it is inappropriate to educate a particular deaf child in the regular educational environment and an alternative placement provides a free and appropriate public education, this office will not require the recipient to choose between two competing educational philosophies. To the extent it is necessary, for sound pedagogical reasons, to separate children enrolled in the oralist program from the children enrolled in the total communications program, no violation of Section 504 will be deemed to have occurred."
David S. Tatel, Director
Office for Civil Rights (David S. Tatel, Education on the Handicapped Law Report, July 10, 1978).
*****
This information highlights the ongoing issue of segregation among students at the Utah School for the Deaf. Despite Director Tatel's letter indicating that Section 504 would not immediately resolve the segregation on Ogden's residential campus, it became evident that a more comprehensive approach was necessary. This realization prompted a deeper exploration of alternative strategies to promote inclusivity and support for all students. Engaging community stakeholders and advocating for policy changes became crucial steps in addressing the persistent segregation.
Additionally, the debate between oral and total communication within the Utah State Board of Education did not conclude by the December 16, 1977 deadline. Instead, it continued, emphasizing the complexity and ongoing nature of the issue.
In the fall of 1977, a conflict emerged between the UAD and the University of Utah concerning the integration of total communication into the university's curriculum. Dr. Bitter and the University of Utah opposed UAD's proposals to include total communication in their oral training program. This disagreement resulted in protests on November 18, 1977, outside the Utah State Office of Education, and again on November 28, 1977, in front of the Park Building on the University of Utah campus, as detailed in the following section.
Additionally, these protests were fueled by various complaints, including a perception of favoritism towards oral methods, unfair treatment of total communication methods, a preference for day schools, insufficient Deaf representation on the Advisory Committee, and a lack of respect for the concerns raised by the UAD. The tireless work of the UAD and their allies during these protests not only captured the attention of the Utah State Board of Education but also inspired significant reforms in the state's approach to Deaf education. Due to the advocacy efforts of the UAD, Utah State University established the Total Communication Program in 1985 with funding support. This program was later renamed the Bilingual and Bicultural Program, as described in detail below.
The year 1977 presented considerable challenges for the UAD due to the opposition from Dr. Bitter and supporters of oralism. It was a dark year for the association. Nonetheless, Dr. Campbell and Dr. Sanderson worked tirelessly to improve Deaf education in Utah. Their remarkable contributions and relentless commitment have earned them well-deserved recognition, ensuring that their efforts were not in vain.
Moreover, the Utah Association for the Deaf and the Parent Teacher Student Association fought vigorously to support Deaf children, despite facing significant obstacles. Their persistence and dedication in the face of adversity are commendable and deserve respect and admiration.
Following this, on April 11, 1978, UAD requested that Dr. Jay J. Campbell write a letter to David S. Tatel, the Director of the Office for Civil Rights in Washington, D.C. In his letter, he asked, "Does Section 504 allow a school system to segregate or separate one group of deaf students from another on the same campus?"
David S. Tatel responded on July 10, 1978, stating that if there are sound pedagogical reasons for determining that it is inappropriate to educate a particular Deaf child in a regular educational environment, and if an alternative placement provides a free appropriate public education, then it would not be considered a violation of Section 504 to separate those children. However, this did not answer Dr. Campbell's question.
The main question Dr. Campbell wanted Director Tatel to address was whether it is legal under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or the Civil Rights Act to segregate or separate deaf children on the same campus based on the educational philosophy of the school or the preferences of the parents, just as it is illegal to segregate children based on race.
Director Tatel later addressed Dr. Campbell's concern regarding segregation on the same school campus based on educational philosophy in another letter, which follows:
*****
"Thank you for your letter of April 11, 1978, clarifying your inquiry of December 15, 1977, concerning the Department's Regulations implementing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 [as restated]. Your question is whether it is legal under Section 504 to segregate or separate certain deaf children from other deaf children on the same campus based on the educational philosophy of the school and/or the parents.
Attached to your letter of April 11, 1978, was a paper entitled "The Deaf Child Controversy Over Teaching Methods," describing a controversy among educators regarding the best method for teaching prelingually, severely, or profoundly deaf children. On the one hand, the advocates of the oralist school of thought contend that most deaf children can be taught to speak and lip-read. They also contend that (a) sign language segregates the deaf into their own subculture, (b) gestures should be kept to a minimum, and (c) sign language should be forbidden because it will destroy the chance of oral success.
On the other hand, the advocates of the total communication school of thought contend that (a) most of the deaf cannot become oral successes, (b) sign language does not inhibit speech development, and (c) all methods are to be used, including sign language, speech, and lip-reading. Only time will tell which combination best suits a particular deaf child. Subpart D of the Regulation generally prescribes the requirements that recipients operating preschool, elementary, and secondary education programs must satisfy.
As you may know, Section 84.33 of the Regulation generally requires recipients to provide a free and appropriate public education to each qualified handicapped person within their jurisdiction. Section 84.34 (a) provides that a qualified handicapped person must be educated with persons who are not handicapped "to the maximum extent appropriate to the needs of the handicapped person." Once it has been determined that it is inappropriate to educate a particular deaf child in the regular educational environment and an alternative placement provides a free and appropriate public education, this office will not require the recipient to choose between two competing educational philosophies. To the extent it is necessary, for sound pedagogical reasons, to separate children enrolled in the oralist program from the children enrolled in the total communications program, no violation of Section 504 will be deemed to have occurred."
David S. Tatel, Director
Office for Civil Rights (David S. Tatel, Education on the Handicapped Law Report, July 10, 1978).
*****
This information highlights the ongoing issue of segregation among students at the Utah School for the Deaf. Despite Director Tatel's letter indicating that Section 504 would not immediately resolve the segregation on Ogden's residential campus, it became evident that a more comprehensive approach was necessary. This realization prompted a deeper exploration of alternative strategies to promote inclusivity and support for all students. Engaging community stakeholders and advocating for policy changes became crucial steps in addressing the persistent segregation.
Additionally, the debate between oral and total communication within the Utah State Board of Education did not conclude by the December 16, 1977 deadline. Instead, it continued, emphasizing the complexity and ongoing nature of the issue.
In the fall of 1977, a conflict emerged between the UAD and the University of Utah concerning the integration of total communication into the university's curriculum. Dr. Bitter and the University of Utah opposed UAD's proposals to include total communication in their oral training program. This disagreement resulted in protests on November 18, 1977, outside the Utah State Office of Education, and again on November 28, 1977, in front of the Park Building on the University of Utah campus, as detailed in the following section.
Additionally, these protests were fueled by various complaints, including a perception of favoritism towards oral methods, unfair treatment of total communication methods, a preference for day schools, insufficient Deaf representation on the Advisory Committee, and a lack of respect for the concerns raised by the UAD. The tireless work of the UAD and their allies during these protests not only captured the attention of the Utah State Board of Education but also inspired significant reforms in the state's approach to Deaf education. Due to the advocacy efforts of the UAD, Utah State University established the Total Communication Program in 1985 with funding support. This program was later renamed the Bilingual and Bicultural Program, as described in detail below.
The year 1977 presented considerable challenges for the UAD due to the opposition from Dr. Bitter and supporters of oralism. It was a dark year for the association. Nonetheless, Dr. Campbell and Dr. Sanderson worked tirelessly to improve Deaf education in Utah. Their remarkable contributions and relentless commitment have earned them well-deserved recognition, ensuring that their efforts were not in vain.
Moreover, the Utah Association for the Deaf and the Parent Teacher Student Association fought vigorously to support Deaf children, despite facing significant obstacles. Their persistence and dedication in the face of adversity are commendable and deserve respect and admiration.
SECTION III:
Protests by the Utah Association for the Deaf
at the Utah State Office of Education
and the University of Utah
Protests by the Utah Association for the Deaf
at the Utah State Office of Education
and the University of Utah
The following timeline outlines the correspondence between the Utah Association for the Deaf, the University of Utah, the Utah School for the Deaf, and the Parent Teacher Association leading up to the Utah State Board of Education meeting on December 16, 1977. This communication, initiated by the Utah Association for the Deaf, ultimately led to protests at both the Utah State Office of Education and the University of Utah on November 18 and 28, 1977.
Lloyd H. Perkins Requests for a Written Review of the
University of Utah's Teacher Preparation Program for the Deaf
University of Utah's Teacher Preparation Program for the Deaf
The issues arose from inequalities in Deaf education, particularly regarding the University of Utah's teacher training program, which focused on oral education. In 1971, the Utah Association for the Deaf, led by Lloyd H. Perkins, Chairperson of the UAD Educational Committee, formally requested a written review of the Teacher Training Program (Lloyd Perkins, personal communication, date unknown).
On December 7, 1971, Dr. Erdman, Chairperson of the Department of Special Education and supervisor of Dr. Grant B. Bitter, responded to Lloyd's request, confirming that a meeting would be held on December 13 to review the Teacher Training Program. On December 16, 1971, Dr. Stephen Hencley, Dean of the Graduate School of Education, replied to Lloyd's letter, assuring him that the Teacher Training Program would undergo curriculum changes to include a sign language component (Dr. Erdman, personal communication, December 6, 1971). This addition was seen as a potential game-changer in Deaf-sign language education, offering hope for a more inclusive and effective curriculum. However, some educators expressed concerns that adding a sign language component might shift focus away from other critical areas of the curriculum. Additionally, there were doubts about whether the necessary resources and training for instructors would be sufficient to support the implementation of these changes.
There was a disagreement between the Utah Association for the Deaf and the Special Education Department regarding the extent of total communication courses that the program would offer. The Utah Association for the Deaf expected a comprehensive Total Communication Program, while the Teacher Training Program held a different perspective on this expectation.
On December 7, 1971, Dr. Erdman, Chairperson of the Department of Special Education and supervisor of Dr. Grant B. Bitter, responded to Lloyd's request, confirming that a meeting would be held on December 13 to review the Teacher Training Program. On December 16, 1971, Dr. Stephen Hencley, Dean of the Graduate School of Education, replied to Lloyd's letter, assuring him that the Teacher Training Program would undergo curriculum changes to include a sign language component (Dr. Erdman, personal communication, December 6, 1971). This addition was seen as a potential game-changer in Deaf-sign language education, offering hope for a more inclusive and effective curriculum. However, some educators expressed concerns that adding a sign language component might shift focus away from other critical areas of the curriculum. Additionally, there were doubts about whether the necessary resources and training for instructors would be sufficient to support the implementation of these changes.
There was a disagreement between the Utah Association for the Deaf and the Special Education Department regarding the extent of total communication courses that the program would offer. The Utah Association for the Deaf expected a comprehensive Total Communication Program, while the Teacher Training Program held a different perspective on this expectation.
Lloyd H. Perkins. Source: UAD Bulletin, Winter 1970
Dr. Jay J. Campbell Requests a Report from the
University of Utah Regarding its
Teachers for the Deaf Preparation Program
University of Utah Regarding its
Teachers for the Deaf Preparation Program
Four years later, on July 23, 1974, Dr. Jay J. Campbell followed up with Dr. Erdman, the Chairperson of the Department of Special Education at the University of Utah. He requested a report to confirm the implementation of a comprehensive communication curriculum in the Teacher Training Program (Dr. Campbell, personal communication, July 23, 1974).
In response, Dr. Erdman informed Dr. Campbell that in 1972, Gene Stewart had been hired to teach two mandatory courses: a sign language course (SPA 782, Basic Communication and Counseling of Deaf Adults) and a counseling course (SP ED 624, Guidance and Counseling of the Hearing Impaired) as part of the Teacher Preparation Program (Dr. Erdman, personal communication, August 15, 1974).
To address the situation, the university established a committee to assess personnel needs for programs focused on the deaf. The committee's final report concluded that establishing a total communication program would not be economically feasible, as it would require hiring new staff and incur additional administrative costs (Committee to Study Personnel Needs in Programs for the Deaf, June 6, 1974).
Dr. Erdman's letter also outlined a new policy, stating, "All students preparing to become teachers of the hearing impaired are required to master the basic manual communication competencies through involvement in one or both of the classes described above or demonstrate those competencies if they have previous manual communication experiences and/or coursework in that area" (Dr. Erdman, personal communication, August 15, 1974, p. 2).
The Utah State Board of Education also evaluated the feasibility of creating a parallel Teacher Preparation Program in Total Communication at the University of Utah. They concurred that implementing a comprehensive communication program for the Deaf Preparation Program was not economically viable. Consequently, the State Board approved funding to recruit Total Communication teachers from outside the state and agreed to incorporate some total communication experiences into the existing oral training program at the University of Utah (Committee to Study Personnel Needs in Programs for the Deaf, June 6, 1974, p. 3). The following three years, from 1974 to 1976, were relatively non-controversial (Jeff W. Pollock, The Utah Deaf Education Controversy, May 4, 2005).
In response, Dr. Erdman informed Dr. Campbell that in 1972, Gene Stewart had been hired to teach two mandatory courses: a sign language course (SPA 782, Basic Communication and Counseling of Deaf Adults) and a counseling course (SP ED 624, Guidance and Counseling of the Hearing Impaired) as part of the Teacher Preparation Program (Dr. Erdman, personal communication, August 15, 1974).
To address the situation, the university established a committee to assess personnel needs for programs focused on the deaf. The committee's final report concluded that establishing a total communication program would not be economically feasible, as it would require hiring new staff and incur additional administrative costs (Committee to Study Personnel Needs in Programs for the Deaf, June 6, 1974).
Dr. Erdman's letter also outlined a new policy, stating, "All students preparing to become teachers of the hearing impaired are required to master the basic manual communication competencies through involvement in one or both of the classes described above or demonstrate those competencies if they have previous manual communication experiences and/or coursework in that area" (Dr. Erdman, personal communication, August 15, 1974, p. 2).
The Utah State Board of Education also evaluated the feasibility of creating a parallel Teacher Preparation Program in Total Communication at the University of Utah. They concurred that implementing a comprehensive communication program for the Deaf Preparation Program was not economically viable. Consequently, the State Board approved funding to recruit Total Communication teachers from outside the state and agreed to incorporate some total communication experiences into the existing oral training program at the University of Utah (Committee to Study Personnel Needs in Programs for the Deaf, June 6, 1974, p. 3). The following three years, from 1974 to 1976, were relatively non-controversial (Jeff W. Pollock, The Utah Deaf Education Controversy, May 4, 2005).
George D. Wilding Speaks Up Against Discrimination
by Dr. Grant B. Bitter in the Classroom
by Dr. Grant B. Bitter in the Classroom
On July 4, 1977, three months after the dispute at the Utah State Board of Education, George D. Wilding, a Deaf individual, wrote to Dr. Orlando Rivera, Vice President for Academic Affairs at the University of Utah. In his letter, he shared his experiences in Dr. Grant B. Bitter's classroom, addressing issues of discrimination he encountered there.
George recounted walking into Dr. Bitter's Special Education 502 class, accompanied by his interpreter, Wilma Powell. This course, titled "Introduction to Special Education," was held during the Summer Quarter of 1975 and was required for his employment. George reported that Dr. Bitter was not pleased to see him and instructed him to "go to the back of the classroom." He felt that Dr. Bitter wanted to prevent his classmates from seeing the interpreter. To George, this felt like a form of prejudice and discrimination, reminiscent of the Jim Crow laws in the South. He likened his experience to that of a Black person being ordered to the back of the bus. George believed he was denied his right to choose his seat, while the other students were deprived of the opportunity to observe an interpreter facilitating the course material. After that first day, George decided he would no longer sit at the back of the room and instead chose his preferred seat in the front.
In his letter, George also emphasized the necessity of understanding and acceptance within the educational system. He expressed disappointment that the University of Utah seemed to tolerate such bigotry and bias from one of its professors. According to George, Dr. Bitter's actions reflected a disdain for Deaf individuals who disagreed with him and a resistance to having Deaf adults become teachers for the Deaf. He asserted that if a professor could not accept sign language interpreters, then he lacked an understanding of the fundamental needs of most Deaf individuals. His words highlighted the importance of inclusivity and acceptance in education, particularly for students with unique communication needs.
George recounted walking into Dr. Bitter's Special Education 502 class, accompanied by his interpreter, Wilma Powell. This course, titled "Introduction to Special Education," was held during the Summer Quarter of 1975 and was required for his employment. George reported that Dr. Bitter was not pleased to see him and instructed him to "go to the back of the classroom." He felt that Dr. Bitter wanted to prevent his classmates from seeing the interpreter. To George, this felt like a form of prejudice and discrimination, reminiscent of the Jim Crow laws in the South. He likened his experience to that of a Black person being ordered to the back of the bus. George believed he was denied his right to choose his seat, while the other students were deprived of the opportunity to observe an interpreter facilitating the course material. After that first day, George decided he would no longer sit at the back of the room and instead chose his preferred seat in the front.
In his letter, George also emphasized the necessity of understanding and acceptance within the educational system. He expressed disappointment that the University of Utah seemed to tolerate such bigotry and bias from one of its professors. According to George, Dr. Bitter's actions reflected a disdain for Deaf individuals who disagreed with him and a resistance to having Deaf adults become teachers for the Deaf. He asserted that if a professor could not accept sign language interpreters, then he lacked an understanding of the fundamental needs of most Deaf individuals. His words highlighted the importance of inclusivity and acceptance in education, particularly for students with unique communication needs.
George Wilding
George further explained that the curriculum for training teachers of the Deaf exemplified Dr. Bitter's bias toward oralism and the negative impact this bias had on Deaf individuals. The University had compelled Dr. Bitter to set up sign language classes for teacher candidates who would work with the Deaf. However, he only established one three-credit-hour class. Compared to other languages offered on campus, and the number of classes available, this single class—three hours a week for one quarter—was insufficient for the candidates to achieve any real proficiency. In contrast, candidates for teaching speech were required to take fifteen or more credit hours of speech classes. This discrepancy in requirements revealed an oral-training bias within the curriculum.
The higher number of speech classes that teacher candidates had to complete did not result in better speech production from Deaf students. Most students who learned to speak from these trained teachers quickly realized that, except for their teachers and parents, very few people could understand them. When this realization set in, the students switched to using sign language as soon as they were free from the oral program and could discontinue speech classes. In George's critique of Dr. Bitter's program, it appeared that Dr. Bitter promoted teaching skills that Deaf children would rarely use (speech and listening) while neglecting the teaching of sign language skills that would be relevant throughout their lives.
In George's view, Dr. Bitter's priorities were misleading. He believed that sign language should be the primary language for Deaf students, while English could serve as a second language, and speech could be introduced as a third language. This approach reflected the realities of life for Deaf individuals in the adult world. George sensed that Dr. Bitter wanted to dismiss this reality, but it was nonetheless how Deaf adults lived, worked, and engaged socially.
George posed a rhetorical question: Can you imagine how Spanish speakers would feel if Dr. Bitter sought to eliminate the Spanish language? Would they resent him and rebel? This was akin to how the Utah Deaf community felt about Dr. Bitter's attempts to eradicate sign language. The Deaf community is similar to any other minority group with its own language and culture (George Wilding, personal communication, June 4, 1977).
On July 11, 1977, Dr. Bitter responded to George Wilding's comments in a letter to his supervisor, Dr. Donald R. Logan, the chairman of the Department of Special Education. He denied forcing George to sit at the back of the room, explaining that George was one of 60 students in the class and that the only available seats were near the back. Dr. Bitter noted that George's interpreter arrived late, hence she had to sit beside him. He assured Dr. Logan that he consulted with both George and his interpreter after class regarding future seating arrangements, and they mutually agreed that George could sit anywhere that was suitable for him and his interpreter. Dr. Bitter concluded that George's claim of being forced to sit at the back and being unable to choose his own seat did not accurately reflect the situation.
Dr. Bitter expressed confusion over George's accusations of prejudice. To his knowledge, George was a respected member of the class who had ample opportunities to voice his opinions on various issues, problems, trends, concerns, learning, and experiences. Dr. Bitter believed that the class members appreciated George's participation. Every effort was made to assist him, and his interpreter felt welcomed and comfortable throughout the quarter (G. B. Bitter, personal communication, July 11, 1977).
The higher number of speech classes that teacher candidates had to complete did not result in better speech production from Deaf students. Most students who learned to speak from these trained teachers quickly realized that, except for their teachers and parents, very few people could understand them. When this realization set in, the students switched to using sign language as soon as they were free from the oral program and could discontinue speech classes. In George's critique of Dr. Bitter's program, it appeared that Dr. Bitter promoted teaching skills that Deaf children would rarely use (speech and listening) while neglecting the teaching of sign language skills that would be relevant throughout their lives.
In George's view, Dr. Bitter's priorities were misleading. He believed that sign language should be the primary language for Deaf students, while English could serve as a second language, and speech could be introduced as a third language. This approach reflected the realities of life for Deaf individuals in the adult world. George sensed that Dr. Bitter wanted to dismiss this reality, but it was nonetheless how Deaf adults lived, worked, and engaged socially.
George posed a rhetorical question: Can you imagine how Spanish speakers would feel if Dr. Bitter sought to eliminate the Spanish language? Would they resent him and rebel? This was akin to how the Utah Deaf community felt about Dr. Bitter's attempts to eradicate sign language. The Deaf community is similar to any other minority group with its own language and culture (George Wilding, personal communication, June 4, 1977).
On July 11, 1977, Dr. Bitter responded to George Wilding's comments in a letter to his supervisor, Dr. Donald R. Logan, the chairman of the Department of Special Education. He denied forcing George to sit at the back of the room, explaining that George was one of 60 students in the class and that the only available seats were near the back. Dr. Bitter noted that George's interpreter arrived late, hence she had to sit beside him. He assured Dr. Logan that he consulted with both George and his interpreter after class regarding future seating arrangements, and they mutually agreed that George could sit anywhere that was suitable for him and his interpreter. Dr. Bitter concluded that George's claim of being forced to sit at the back and being unable to choose his own seat did not accurately reflect the situation.
Dr. Bitter expressed confusion over George's accusations of prejudice. To his knowledge, George was a respected member of the class who had ample opportunities to voice his opinions on various issues, problems, trends, concerns, learning, and experiences. Dr. Bitter believed that the class members appreciated George's participation. Every effort was made to assist him, and his interpreter felt welcomed and comfortable throughout the quarter (G. B. Bitter, personal communication, July 11, 1977).
Myrna Burbank, Former President of the Parent Teacher
Association, Receives Threatening Letters
from the Utah Deaf Community
Association, Receives Threatening Letters
from the Utah Deaf Community
On August 12, 1977, Myrna Burbank, former president of the Parent Teacher Association of the Oral Department at the Utah School for the Deaf, received an unsigned letter opposing oralism and supporting total communication (M. Burbank, personal communication, August 12, 1977). The anonymous author accused Myrna of "trying to hurt Jay J. Campbell and Robert G. Sanderson for advocating total communication." The letter claimed that Myrna's daughter would ultimately believe that total communication "is the best way." It implied that Ms. Burbank was being paternalistic by deciding what was best for the Deaf community. Additionally, an 8.5 by 11-inch sheet of paper was printed and distributed, stating: "Jay J. Campbell will put Burbank down. Power is UAD." See the letters below.
The letter of "Jay J. Campbell will put Burbank down. Power is UAD." Source: Dr. Grant B. Bitter Paper. J. Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah
The anonymous author accused Myrna Burbank of "trying to hurt Jay J. Campbell and Robert G. Sanderson for advocating total communication." Source: Dr. Grant B. Bitter Paper. J. Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah
J. Boyd Nielsen, an Assistant Principal of the Utah School for the Deaf, Receives Threatening Letters from the Utah Deaf Community
J. Boyd Nielsen, a graduate of Dr. Bitter's teacher training program in 1966, also served as an assistant principal in the Oral Department at the Utah School for the Deaf. He received two threatening letters.
The first letter, dated August 15, 1977, explicitly warned of his potential job loss, stating, "J.J. Campbell and Dr. Robert Sanderson will throw Boyd Nielsen out of a job in Utah, in America, and out of this world. UAD is deaf power."
The first letter, dated August 15, 1977, explicitly warned of his potential job loss, stating, "J.J. Campbell and Dr. Robert Sanderson will throw Boyd Nielsen out of a job in Utah, in America, and out of this world. UAD is deaf power."
The letter of "J.J. Campbell and Dr. Robert Sanderson will throw Boyd Nielsen out of a job in Utah, in America, and out of this world. UAD is deaf power." Source: Dr. Grant B. Bitter Paper. J. Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah
The second, an anonymous letter, included a disturbing drawing of Nielsen with a noose around his neck, reflecting the intense debate over communication methods—oral versus total communication—during that time. This letter appears to have been created around 1970.
An anonymous letter of J. Boyd Nielsen with a noose around his neck, reflecting the intense debate over communication methods—oral versus total communication—during that time. Source: Dr. Grant B. Bitter Paper. J. Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah
In an interview with the University of Utah in 1987, Dr. Bitter revealed that he had been the target of a vicious attack by the Utah Deaf community. Community leaders perceived him as a scoundrel who lacked knowledge about deafness. During this time, picketers gathered on the University of Utah campus and at the Utah State Office of Education, staging protests that included burning his effigy. The paper titled "Years of Controversy" also contains slanderous statements, as detailed in Jeffrey W. Pollock's work. For example, it includes phrases like, "Jay J. Campbell will put Burbank down. Power is UAD," and "J.J. Campbell and R. Sanderson will throw Boyd Nielsen out of a job in Utah, in America, and out of this world. UAD is Deaf power" (Bluhm, Grant Bitter, Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987).
Dr. Bitter seems to have a limited understanding of the experiences of Deaf individuals within oral and mainstream educational systems. His failure to engage with Deaf individuals and their communities represents a missed opportunity for gaining valuable insights into the challenges they face and the effectiveness of various educational approaches. This deeper understanding could have enriched his perspective and led to more inclusive practices that genuinely empower Deaf students, but it was a potential progress in Deaf education that was never realized.
Dr. Bitter seems to have a limited understanding of the experiences of Deaf individuals within oral and mainstream educational systems. His failure to engage with Deaf individuals and their communities represents a missed opportunity for gaining valuable insights into the challenges they face and the effectiveness of various educational approaches. This deeper understanding could have enriched his perspective and led to more inclusive practices that genuinely empower Deaf students, but it was a potential progress in Deaf education that was never realized.
The Utah Association for the Deaf Advocates for
Comprehensive Curriculum Inclusion in the University of Utah's
Teacher Preparation Program for the Deaf
Comprehensive Curriculum Inclusion in the University of Utah's
Teacher Preparation Program for the Deaf
In 1977, the Utah Association for the Deaf continued its advocacy for the inclusion of a total communication curriculum in educational programs. The association urged President Alfred C. Emery of the University of Utah, along with other university administrators, to review and modify the Teacher Training Program. They pressed for the integration of sign language as an equal component alongside oralism.
In late August or early September of that year, UAD representatives convened with Dr. Pete D. Gardner, the Vice President for Academic Affairs at the University, to discuss a detailed 9-point list of concerns regarding the Teacher Training Program. During this meeting, Lloyd Perkins and his fellow representatives requested to meet directly with President Emery to voice their concerns. However, Dr. Gardner replied by sending a letter to Madeleine Burton Perkins, Lloyd's wife and the interpreter for the meeting. In his correspondence, Dr. Gardner stated that a meeting with President Emery would likely be unproductive and asserted that Dr. Bitter had not violated any academic standards (P.D. Gardner, personal communication, September 14, 1977).
In late August or early September of that year, UAD representatives convened with Dr. Pete D. Gardner, the Vice President for Academic Affairs at the University, to discuss a detailed 9-point list of concerns regarding the Teacher Training Program. During this meeting, Lloyd Perkins and his fellow representatives requested to meet directly with President Emery to voice their concerns. However, Dr. Gardner replied by sending a letter to Madeleine Burton Perkins, Lloyd's wife and the interpreter for the meeting. In his correspondence, Dr. Gardner stated that a meeting with President Emery would likely be unproductive and asserted that Dr. Bitter had not violated any academic standards (P.D. Gardner, personal communication, September 14, 1977).
The Utah Association for the Deaf has released a nine-point list of complaints about the Teacher Training Program at the University of Utah. Source: J. Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah
The University of Utah Continues to Decline
to Meet with the Utah Association for the Deaf
to Meet with the Utah Association for the Deaf
On September 27, 1977, Lloyd H. Perkins wrote to Dr. Pete D. Gardner, Vice President for Academic Affairs, expressing his disappointment with the content of the communication. He felt that Dr. Gardner had missed the critical points that the Utah Association for the Deaf was attempting to convey. Lloyd again requested a meeting to discuss these issues.
In anticipation of this situation, Dr. Bitter prepared a detailed response to what he deemed "slanderous" charges made by Lloyd Perkins. In his letter, he meticulously listed each charge and provided substantial evidence to support his responses (G.B. Bitter, personal communication, October 10, 1977).
Dr. Cedric I. Davern, Vice President for Academic Affairs at the University of Utah, was assigned the responsibility of addressing this situation. He wrote to Lloyd Perkins to inform him that the Utah State Board of Education was conducting hearings on the oral method versus the total communication method. A report on this controversy will be available soon. Until that report is published, Dr. Davern stated that no changes would be made to the teacher training program (Cedric I. Davern, personal communication, October 28, 1977).
Lloyd Perkins felt that Dr. Davern did not fully understand the nature of the problem concerning the teacher training program for the deaf. He questioned Dr. Davern's familiarity with this program. While the Utah Deaf Community had general concerns, the teacher training program brought specific issues to light that the UAD wanted to address with Dr. Davern. Lloyd emphasized that UAD wished to meet with university administrators to address these concerns (Lloyd H. Perkins, personal communication, November 7, 1977). However, University of Utah President Emery declined to meet with them.
In anticipation of this situation, Dr. Bitter prepared a detailed response to what he deemed "slanderous" charges made by Lloyd Perkins. In his letter, he meticulously listed each charge and provided substantial evidence to support his responses (G.B. Bitter, personal communication, October 10, 1977).
Dr. Cedric I. Davern, Vice President for Academic Affairs at the University of Utah, was assigned the responsibility of addressing this situation. He wrote to Lloyd Perkins to inform him that the Utah State Board of Education was conducting hearings on the oral method versus the total communication method. A report on this controversy will be available soon. Until that report is published, Dr. Davern stated that no changes would be made to the teacher training program (Cedric I. Davern, personal communication, October 28, 1977).
Lloyd Perkins felt that Dr. Davern did not fully understand the nature of the problem concerning the teacher training program for the deaf. He questioned Dr. Davern's familiarity with this program. While the Utah Deaf Community had general concerns, the teacher training program brought specific issues to light that the UAD wanted to address with Dr. Davern. Lloyd emphasized that UAD wished to meet with university administrators to address these concerns (Lloyd H. Perkins, personal communication, November 7, 1977). However, University of Utah President Emery declined to meet with them.
Protests at the Utah State Office of
Education and the University of Utah
Education and the University of Utah
Tensions escalated when President Alfred C. Emery of the University of Utah declined to engage with the UAD. In response, W. David Mortensen, a prominent political activist and president of the UAD, organized two protests. These demonstrations were significant, as they marked a turning point in the Deaf education controversy in the state of Utah. The first took place on November 18, 1977, outside the Utah State Office of Education. The second occurred on November 28, 1977, in front of the Park Building on the University of Utah campus (Chaffin, Daily Utah Chronicle, November 19, 1977, p. 30A; UAD letter, 1977; UAD flyer, 1977).
W. David Mortensen
"Deaf group contends U ignores their needs. Source: Chronicle, The Daily Utah, November 29, 1977
Alfred C. Emery. Source: J. Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah
These demonstrations were sparked by the university's unfair focus on oral communication over total communication training, its preference for oral-only education, discrimination against the total communication method, preference for day schools, the lack of a Deaf representative on the Advisory Committee, and the ongoing disregard for the concerns of the UAD and the Utah Deaf community.
Around twenty Deaf individuals gathered in front of the Park Building on November 28 to protest the university's handling of these issues. M.J. Lewis published a letter in the Deseret News stating, "Dr. Bitter has so brainwashed and instilled fear in parents that their children will never be able to function as normal human beings" (Lewis, Deseret News, November 28, 1977; Jeff W. Pollock, The Utah Deaf Education Controversy, May 4, 2005). This statement reflects the deep frustration within the Utah Deaf community regarding the perceived lack of support and understanding from the university. It emphasizes the need to promote effective communication and the acceptance of the total communication method as a means to foster independence and success among Deaf individuals.
Around twenty Deaf individuals gathered in front of the Park Building on November 28 to protest the university's handling of these issues. M.J. Lewis published a letter in the Deseret News stating, "Dr. Bitter has so brainwashed and instilled fear in parents that their children will never be able to function as normal human beings" (Lewis, Deseret News, November 28, 1977; Jeff W. Pollock, The Utah Deaf Education Controversy, May 4, 2005). This statement reflects the deep frustration within the Utah Deaf community regarding the perceived lack of support and understanding from the university. It emphasizes the need to promote effective communication and the acceptance of the total communication method as a means to foster independence and success among Deaf individuals.
Pickets are outside the Utah State Office of Education, protesting the University of Utah's oral teaching method for the Deaf. Source: Deseret News, November 19, 1977
Dr. Bitter demonstrated a strong commitment to the oral method of teaching. His stance on the education of Deaf children continued to polarize the Utah Deaf community. In response to the UAD protest, he stated, "We are endeavoring to be fair and meet individual needs" (Hunt, The Daily Utah Chronicle, November 29, 1977, p. 1; Hunt, The Daily Utah Chronicle, December 2, 1977). He explained his preference for the oral-only approach, believing it was the most effective way to help Deaf children become functional members of society (Hunt, The Daily Utah Chronicle, November 29, 1977, p. 1). He genuinely believed that oralism would provide Deaf children with a healthy self-concept and better prepare them for everyday life. He argued that the oral method would free them from reliance on interpreters and grant them the independence they would need as adults.
Referring to the University of Utah's teacher training program, Dr. Bitter reminded the UAD that a class in basic sign language skills was part of the curriculum. He also highlighted the program's connection with the Utah Deaf community through its practicum. Dr. Bitter demonstrated to the protesters that the University of Utah had met its obligation to the Utah State Board of Education by integrating experiences in total communication into its oral curriculum (Graduate School of Education, November 28, 1977; Hunt, The Daily Utah Chronicle, December 2, 1977).
Referring to the University of Utah's teacher training program, Dr. Bitter reminded the UAD that a class in basic sign language skills was part of the curriculum. He also highlighted the program's connection with the Utah Deaf community through its practicum. Dr. Bitter demonstrated to the protesters that the University of Utah had met its obligation to the Utah State Board of Education by integrating experiences in total communication into its oral curriculum (Graduate School of Education, November 28, 1977; Hunt, The Daily Utah Chronicle, December 2, 1977).
Arnold Moon. Source: The Daily Utah Chronicle, November 29, 1977
|
Zelma Moon. Source: The Daily Utah Chronicle, November 29, 1977
|
Despite Dr. Bitter's response, the UAD continued to advocate for change. UAD President Mortensen led this persistent effort, which the Utah State Board of Education took note of. Following the protest, the Utah State Board of Education made several decisions based on the information presented to them, which represents a significant step forward in the improvement of Deaf education:
The Utah State Board of Education was expected to maintain a neutral stance in disputes concerning methodologies in Deaf education. At that time, it was determined that an additional advisory committee was unnecessary. Furthermore, the State Board requested studies to assess the need for a Total Communication Teacher Preparation Program at the university level within the state.
As a result, in April 1979, the State Board passed a motion 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 W. Pollock, The Utah Deaf Education Controversy, May 4, 2005). Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, a prominent Deaf leader, was hired as an adjunct professor in the Division of Communication Disorders at the University of Utah from 1979 to 1985. He taught total communication, which later transitioned to American Sign Language (ASL), while also exploring the social, psychological, and cultural aspects of hearing loss (Newman, 2006). His contributions significantly influenced the curriculum, equipping students with a comprehensive understanding of the complexities surrounding hearing loss. Dr. Sanderson emphasized the importance of cultural competency and effective communication strategies in educating Deaf students, paving the way for advancements in the field.
- Long-range research will be initiated to determine the characteristics of deaf students for whom specific programs are most effective.
- A procedure will be established for the diagnosis, evaluation, and placement of deaf students according to their needs, requiring the approval of parents or guardians.
- Two distinct instructional programs will be offered at the Utah School for the Deaf in Ogden: the Oral Program and the Total Communication Program.
- Students enrolled in each program will be kept separate until they reach junior high school.
- The Utah School for the Deaf will report to the Utah State Board of Education, through their Special Education Instructional Services Department, headed by LaRue Winget.
- Faculty members from the Utah School for the Deaf and the Utah State
The Utah State Board of Education was expected to maintain a neutral stance in disputes concerning methodologies in Deaf education. At that time, it was determined that an additional advisory committee was unnecessary. Furthermore, the State Board requested studies to assess the need for a Total Communication Teacher Preparation Program at the university level within the state.
As a result, in April 1979, the State Board passed a motion 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 W. Pollock, The Utah Deaf Education Controversy, May 4, 2005). Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, a prominent Deaf leader, was hired as an adjunct professor in the Division of Communication Disorders at the University of Utah from 1979 to 1985. He taught total communication, which later transitioned to American Sign Language (ASL), while also exploring the social, psychological, and cultural aspects of hearing loss (Newman, 2006). His contributions significantly influenced the curriculum, equipping students with a comprehensive understanding of the complexities surrounding hearing loss. Dr. Sanderson emphasized the importance of cultural competency and effective communication strategies in educating Deaf students, paving the way for advancements in the field.
*****
Acknowledgment
I am particularly grateful to Jeff W. Pollock, a Deaf education advocate, for his efforts in uncovering and preserving the essential documents related to Dr. Grant B. Bitter. His research for his master's degree at the University of Utah played a crucial role in bringing these documents to light. When Dr. Bitter retired in 1987, he generously donated his collection to the J. Willard Marriott Library.
In 2005, Jeff presented his findings at the Utah Association for the Deaf Conference, which was a turning point in this journey. His discovery of Dr. Bitter's detailed records, combined with my 2006 manuscript, "The Deaf Education History in Utah," which discusses Dr. Bitter's influence on Deaf education, led to the creation of this website—a digital tribute to his remarkable preservation efforts. None of those efforts would have been possible without his generous donation of documents to the library.
You can access Jeff W. Pollock's research paper titled "The Utah Deaf Education Controversy: Total Communication Versus Oralism at the University of Utah," which he submitted for his master's degree in "History of Higher Education" at the University of Utah on May 4, 2005."
Jeff, your dedication and passion for the project have not gone unnoticed. I am truly grateful for your invaluable contribution. Thank you!
In 2005, Jeff presented his findings at the Utah Association for the Deaf Conference, which was a turning point in this journey. His discovery of Dr. Bitter's detailed records, combined with my 2006 manuscript, "The Deaf Education History in Utah," which discusses Dr. Bitter's influence on Deaf education, led to the creation of this website—a digital tribute to his remarkable preservation efforts. None of those efforts would have been possible without his generous donation of documents to the library.
You can access Jeff W. Pollock's research paper titled "The Utah Deaf Education Controversy: Total Communication Versus Oralism at the University of Utah," which he submitted for his master's degree in "History of Higher Education" at the University of Utah on May 4, 2005."
Jeff, your dedication and passion for the project have not gone unnoticed. I am truly grateful for your invaluable contribution. Thank you!
Jeff W. Pollock
*****
Utah Association for the Deaf President W. David Mortensen
Seeks to Address Concerns about Grant B. Bitter
Seeks to Address Concerns about Grant B. Bitter
On February 2, 1978, Dave Mortensen, president of the Utah Association for the Deaf, wrote a letter to Dr. Edward W. Clyde, chairman of the University of Utah's Institutional Council, which was responsible for managing the university's growth. In his letter, President Mortensen criticized Dr. Bitter's unprofessional conduct during a presentation to the Utah State Board of Education on August 19, 1977. He asked that Dr. Bitter be "reprimanded and put on probation or other corrective measures to stop the unprofessional conduct of a man who should not be at the University of Utah in the first place."
A month later, on March 6, 1978, Dr. Bitter replied to Dr. Clyde, denying any wrongdoing. Due to Dr. Bitter's adept self-defense and his talent for presenting his recommendations and philosophy in a non-threatening manner, no action was taken to address President Mortensen's concerns (Dave Mortensen, personal communication, February 2, 1978).
A month later, on March 6, 1978, Dr. Bitter replied to Dr. Clyde, denying any wrongdoing. Due to Dr. Bitter's adept self-defense and his talent for presenting his recommendations and philosophy in a non-threatening manner, no action was taken to address President Mortensen's concerns (Dave Mortensen, personal communication, February 2, 1978).
Ongoing Controversy Over the Teacher
Preparation Program at the University of Utah
Preparation Program at the University of Utah
On August 27, 1979, Dr. Walter D. Talbot, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, wrote a letter to Dr. Don Logan, Chairman of the Department of Special Education at the University of Utah. Members of the Utah State Board of Education raised concerns about the university's teacher preparation program, which Dr. Talbot acknowledged. These board members agreed with the Utah Association for the Deaf that the program lacked a balanced approach to teaching total communication skills compared to oral requirements. Dr. Logan confirmed that the university's training was primarily oral, despite providing minimal experience in total communication for candidate teachers. He noted that the Utah State Board of Education recognized the need for a teacher preparation program in total communication that would be equal in all aspects to the existing oral/aural preparation program.
To address these concerns, Dr. Talbot proposed three recommendations:
Dr. Talbot's first recommendation did not come to fruition until 1982 (Bitter, Utah’s Hearing Impaired Children…At High Risk, 1986).
To address these concerns, Dr. Talbot proposed three recommendations:
- The State Board of Regents should allow a Total Communication Teacher for the Deaf Training Program to be established at another teacher-training institution in Utah.
- The State Board of Education could disapprove the University of Utah's program by refusing to certify graduates from it.
- The state could revoke the University of Utah's teacher training program entirely, leaving no program for training teachers of the deaf in any of Utah's universities.
Dr. Talbot's first recommendation did not come to fruition until 1982 (Bitter, Utah’s Hearing Impaired Children…At High Risk, 1986).
Utah State University Establishes a
Total Communication Education Program
Total Communication Education Program
The Utah Association for the Deaf achieved a vital turning point in Deaf education after years of lobbying and advocacy. On April 20, 1982, the Utah State Board of Regents granted Utah State University (USU) approval to establish a new Deaf Education major, just three years after State Superintendent Talbot's letter to Don Logan. This program, which focuses on total communication education, marks a pivotal moment in the history of Deaf education in Utah.
Leading this initiative was Dr. Thomas C. Clark, the founder of SKI-HI, which offered support for Deaf babies and toddlers in their home environments. He also contributed valuable insights on hearing loss, which were integrated into the total communication program launched at Utah State University.
Additionally, Dr. Clark established the Deaf Mentor Program, connecting
hearing families with Deaf adult mentors. This program allows hearing parents to ask questions about hearing loss and receive practical guidance and support from their Deaf Mentor, who serves as a role model in American Sign Language. This mentorship approach has been instrumental in alleviating the fears and uncertainties that hearing families often face when they welcome a Deaf baby.
This decision represented a major step forward in enhancing educational opportunities for Deaf students in Utah. It emphasized the importance of comprehensive communication methods in teaching and fostering a more inclusive learning environment for Deaf children.
At that time, the University of Utah still had a Teacher Preparation Program focused on speech and listening skills (G.B. Bitter Papers, 1970). The debate over this program had died down after the introduction of the total communication major at Utah State University (Jeff W. Pollock, The Utah Deaf Education Controversy, May 4, 2005).
Leading this initiative was Dr. Thomas C. Clark, the founder of SKI-HI, which offered support for Deaf babies and toddlers in their home environments. He also contributed valuable insights on hearing loss, which were integrated into the total communication program launched at Utah State University.
Additionally, Dr. Clark established the Deaf Mentor Program, connecting
hearing families with Deaf adult mentors. This program allows hearing parents to ask questions about hearing loss and receive practical guidance and support from their Deaf Mentor, who serves as a role model in American Sign Language. This mentorship approach has been instrumental in alleviating the fears and uncertainties that hearing families often face when they welcome a Deaf baby.
This decision represented a major step forward in enhancing educational opportunities for Deaf students in Utah. It emphasized the importance of comprehensive communication methods in teaching and fostering a more inclusive learning environment for Deaf children.
At that time, the University of Utah still had a Teacher Preparation Program focused on speech and listening skills (G.B. Bitter Papers, 1970). The debate over this program had died down after the introduction of the total communication major at Utah State University (Jeff W. Pollock, The Utah Deaf Education Controversy, May 4, 2005).
Dr. Thomas C. Clark
Dr. Clark's background adds layers to his contributions; he was the hearing son of John H. Clark, who graduated from the Utah School for the Deaf in 1897. John was also the first graduate from Utah to attend Gallaudet College in 1902. Dr. Clark was the second cousin of Elizabeth DeLong, another remarkable figure who graduated from the Utah School for the Deaf in 1897 and became the first female graduate from Gallaudet College the same year as John. In 1909, Elizabeth made history as the first female president of the Utah Association of the Deaf, and the Elizabeth DeLong School of the Deaf is named in her honor.
John H. Clark. Source: FamilySearch.org
|
Elizabeth DeLong. Source: FamilySearch.org
|
However, it is important to note that funding for this new major was not available until 1985, when Utah State University established a preparation program that included a total communication component.
Despite the lack of immediate funding, the establishment of the Deaf education program at Utah State University represented a significant victory for the Utah Deaf community and the Utah Association of the Deaf. For years, most total communication teachers in Utah had come from out of state, while many oral teachers were graduates of the University of Utah. It took Dr. Clark three years to develop the new program, with substantial support from UAD, Deaf individuals in Utah, Utah Senator Lyle Hillyard, and USU Dean Oral Ballam (Dr. Thomas C. Clark, personal communication, November 13, 2008). This program, a testament to their collective efforts, opened its doors in 1985.
On a side note, in 1974, the SKI-HI Model packet featured Duane L. Kinner—the son of Deaf parents Kenneth L. Kinner and Ilene Coles—on its front cover. This packet provided training through amplification and home intervention for families with Deaf infants and toddlers. The goal was not only to provide resources but also to empower families by enhancing their communication skills and creating a supportive environment for their children. This emphasis on early intervention ensured that Deaf infants and toddlers received the essential resources needed for their development and success, inspiring a new wave of support for the Deaf community in Utah.
Despite the lack of immediate funding, the establishment of the Deaf education program at Utah State University represented a significant victory for the Utah Deaf community and the Utah Association of the Deaf. For years, most total communication teachers in Utah had come from out of state, while many oral teachers were graduates of the University of Utah. It took Dr. Clark three years to develop the new program, with substantial support from UAD, Deaf individuals in Utah, Utah Senator Lyle Hillyard, and USU Dean Oral Ballam (Dr. Thomas C. Clark, personal communication, November 13, 2008). This program, a testament to their collective efforts, opened its doors in 1985.
On a side note, in 1974, the SKI-HI Model packet featured Duane L. Kinner—the son of Deaf parents Kenneth L. Kinner and Ilene Coles—on its front cover. This packet provided training through amplification and home intervention for families with Deaf infants and toddlers. The goal was not only to provide resources but also to empower families by enhancing their communication skills and creating a supportive environment for their children. This emphasis on early intervention ensured that Deaf infants and toddlers received the essential resources needed for their development and success, inspiring a new wave of support for the Deaf community in Utah.
Duane L. Kinner, the son of Deaf parents, Kenneth and Ilene Kinner, is featured on the front cover of the SKI-Hi Model packet
The launch of the Total Communication program at Utah State University represented a significant victory for the Utah Association for the Deaf and the Deaf community in Utah. Previously, most total communication teachers in Utah were from other states, while most oral teachers were from the University of Utah.
The Transformation of Deaf Education in a
Bilingual and Bicultural Program at Utah State University
Bilingual and Bicultural Program at Utah State University
The Deaf Education teacher program at Utah State University underwent a significant transformation under the leadership of Dr. J. Freeman King. When Dr. King took over in 1991, he shifted the program from the Total Communication approach to a more comprehensive Bilingual/Bicultural model (UAD Bulletin, October 1991), which was later renamed the ASL/English Bilingual program. This change, based on years of research and learning, marked a new era for the program and aligned it with best practices in Deaf education. Dr. King's gradual elimination of required speech pathology and audiology classes for the Total Communication major, replacing them with more pedagogical coursework, was a strategic decision aimed at training teachers rather than clinicians. The program had switched from a pathological model of hearing loss to a socio-cultural model.
Dr. King explained that the shift from the Total Communication program to the Bilingual/Bicultural program was a logical progression. Research indicated that the Total Communication method did not provide a comprehensive language model in either English or American Sign Language (ASL). The ASL/English bilingual program is grounded in solid linguistic principles. The goal of USU's Deaf Education program is to prepare teachers with a strong foundation in ASL, the language that Deaf children can naturally acquire. Teacher candidates are trained to teach English as a second language to Deaf students by presenting it in written form. The Bilingual Program aims to help Deaf children and teenagers achieve mastery of academic content and become literate, contributing members of society.
Deaf adults have played a crucial role in the success of Dr. King's students by serving as mentors, language role models, and cultural experts. Their involvement has been invaluable, guiding the program's approach and ensuring a deep understanding of the Deaf community.
Dr. King emphasized that the wait was over for Deaf education teachers who truly understand the educational needs of Deaf children. There was no longer a need to compromise the education of Deaf children due to ignorance in legislation and education. New ideas and paradigms provided a renewed sense of purpose as new teachers of the Deaf are trained and prepared.
According to Dr. King, Deaf children are primarily visual learners and should be educated using a language that takes advantage of their visual strengths rather than their hearing limitations.
Dr. King explained that the shift from the Total Communication program to the Bilingual/Bicultural program was a logical progression. Research indicated that the Total Communication method did not provide a comprehensive language model in either English or American Sign Language (ASL). The ASL/English bilingual program is grounded in solid linguistic principles. The goal of USU's Deaf Education program is to prepare teachers with a strong foundation in ASL, the language that Deaf children can naturally acquire. Teacher candidates are trained to teach English as a second language to Deaf students by presenting it in written form. The Bilingual Program aims to help Deaf children and teenagers achieve mastery of academic content and become literate, contributing members of society.
Deaf adults have played a crucial role in the success of Dr. King's students by serving as mentors, language role models, and cultural experts. Their involvement has been invaluable, guiding the program's approach and ensuring a deep understanding of the Deaf community.
Dr. King emphasized that the wait was over for Deaf education teachers who truly understand the educational needs of Deaf children. There was no longer a need to compromise the education of Deaf children due to ignorance in legislation and education. New ideas and paradigms provided a renewed sense of purpose as new teachers of the Deaf are trained and prepared.
According to Dr. King, Deaf children are primarily visual learners and should be educated using a language that takes advantage of their visual strengths rather than their hearing limitations.
Dr. J. King Freeman
In summary, Dr. King stated that the USU Deaf Education program equipped candidates with fluency in ASL and essential training on how to use it for teaching academic subjects and English literacy. Graduates from this program obtained certification not only in Deaf Education but also in Elementary Education, Secondary Education, or Special Education. In contrast, the Teacher for the Deaf Training Program at the University of Utah primarily focused on training teachers in audiology and speech pathology, offering minimal instruction on teaching academic subjects to Deaf children.
Additionally, Dr. King highlighted that the ASL/English Bilingual program fully incorporates the use of residual hearing and provides options for teaching speech and listening skills. Here, speech is viewed as a tool that can enhance a Deaf child's communication with hearing family members or peers, rather than being the primary goal, which could overshadow a complete and appropriate education.
The ultimate objective was to ensure that the education of Deaf children matches, in all respects, that of their hearing peers. Studies suggested that achieving this goal required Deaf and hard-of-hearing children to become bilingual. Instruction in American Sign Language, along with English learning, acknowledges and respects both languages and cultures. Families were no longer forced to choose between signing and speaking, as was often the case in the past. Instead, Deaf children and their families can fully benefit from a high-quality bilingual and bicultural program (Dr. Freeman King, personal communication, April 22, 2009).
However, in 2007, Dr. Karl R. White, a psychology professor at Utah State University, founded the Listening and Spoken Language Program. This decision ignited a heated debate between the Bilingual-Bicultural Program and the Listening and Spoken Language Program, which continued to coexist within the same department. The LSL program focused on developing auditory skills and speech, but critics argued that it risked overshadowing the cultural and linguistic identity promoted by the Bilingual-Bicultural Program. This tension highlighted a broader philosophical divide in the field, with some educators advocating for a bilingual approach that better addressed the diverse needs of students with hearing loss. For more details about this issue, refer to Part IV and Part VI below.
Additionally, Dr. King highlighted that the ASL/English Bilingual program fully incorporates the use of residual hearing and provides options for teaching speech and listening skills. Here, speech is viewed as a tool that can enhance a Deaf child's communication with hearing family members or peers, rather than being the primary goal, which could overshadow a complete and appropriate education.
The ultimate objective was to ensure that the education of Deaf children matches, in all respects, that of their hearing peers. Studies suggested that achieving this goal required Deaf and hard-of-hearing children to become bilingual. Instruction in American Sign Language, along with English learning, acknowledges and respects both languages and cultures. Families were no longer forced to choose between signing and speaking, as was often the case in the past. Instead, Deaf children and their families can fully benefit from a high-quality bilingual and bicultural program (Dr. Freeman King, personal communication, April 22, 2009).
However, in 2007, Dr. Karl R. White, a psychology professor at Utah State University, founded the Listening and Spoken Language Program. This decision ignited a heated debate between the Bilingual-Bicultural Program and the Listening and Spoken Language Program, which continued to coexist within the same department. The LSL program focused on developing auditory skills and speech, but critics argued that it risked overshadowing the cultural and linguistic identity promoted by the Bilingual-Bicultural Program. This tension highlighted a broader philosophical divide in the field, with some educators advocating for a bilingual approach that better addressed the diverse needs of students with hearing loss. For more details about this issue, refer to Part IV and Part VI below.
Dr. Karl R. White. Source: Utah State University
The Closure of the Teacher Preparation
Program at the University of Utah
Program at the University of Utah
The Teacher for the Deaf Preparation Program in the Department of Special Education at the University of Utah was discontinued in 1986, after nearly 23 years of operation, a decision that had a profound impact on the Deaf community and the field of Deaf education.
Dr. Grant B. Bitter wrote a letter to Dr. Irvin Altman, Vice President of Academic Affairs, titled "Utah's Hearing Impaired Children…At High Risk!" He garnered support from numerous advocates who joined him in an effort to prevent the program's closure. However, the University of Utah decided to eliminate the program due to budgetary constraints imposed by the state, low student enrollment, and a decline in the number of graduates each year (Bitter, "Utah's Hearing Impaired Children…At Risk," 1986).
In his quest for broader support, Dr. Bitter approached the Utah Deaf community, asking UAD President Dave Mortensen to rally the community's support in opposing the program's closure. However, President Mortensen bluntly stated that he and the Utah Association for the Deaf, a prominent organization advocating for the rights and education of Deaf individuals, would not support Dr. Bitter's efforts (Dave Mortensen, personal communication, March 27, 2009).
After the Teacher for the Deaf Preparation Program was closed, Dr. Bitter retired from his position as Associate Professor of Special Education on June 30, 1987, at the age of 65.
Over the years, Dr. Bitter has strongly advocated oralism and mainstreaming. The decline of education at the Utah School for the Deaf, as well as the increasing integration of Deaf students into mainstream education, deeply saddened its alums. In Utah, the oral and mainstreaming movements have influenced Deaf education since the early 1960s, with Dr. Bitter playing a pivotal role. He used his influence and parental power to promote oralism in Deaf education, making it difficult for the Utah Association for the Deaf to challenge him. After the Teacher Training Program in the Department of Special Education at the University of Utah closed in 1986, Dr. Bitter retired in 1987 (Bitter, A Summary Report for Tenure, March 15, 1985). Today, the Department of Special Education at the University of Utah offers a specialization in the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Program. While the curriculum includes classes in American Sign Language, it places a stronger emphasis on listening and speaking practices. This focus reflects the lasting impact of Dr. Bitter, who passed away in 2000, on Deaf education in Utah.
Dr. Grant B. Bitter wrote a letter to Dr. Irvin Altman, Vice President of Academic Affairs, titled "Utah's Hearing Impaired Children…At High Risk!" He garnered support from numerous advocates who joined him in an effort to prevent the program's closure. However, the University of Utah decided to eliminate the program due to budgetary constraints imposed by the state, low student enrollment, and a decline in the number of graduates each year (Bitter, "Utah's Hearing Impaired Children…At Risk," 1986).
In his quest for broader support, Dr. Bitter approached the Utah Deaf community, asking UAD President Dave Mortensen to rally the community's support in opposing the program's closure. However, President Mortensen bluntly stated that he and the Utah Association for the Deaf, a prominent organization advocating for the rights and education of Deaf individuals, would not support Dr. Bitter's efforts (Dave Mortensen, personal communication, March 27, 2009).
After the Teacher for the Deaf Preparation Program was closed, Dr. Bitter retired from his position as Associate Professor of Special Education on June 30, 1987, at the age of 65.
Over the years, Dr. Bitter has strongly advocated oralism and mainstreaming. The decline of education at the Utah School for the Deaf, as well as the increasing integration of Deaf students into mainstream education, deeply saddened its alums. In Utah, the oral and mainstreaming movements have influenced Deaf education since the early 1960s, with Dr. Bitter playing a pivotal role. He used his influence and parental power to promote oralism in Deaf education, making it difficult for the Utah Association for the Deaf to challenge him. After the Teacher Training Program in the Department of Special Education at the University of Utah closed in 1986, Dr. Bitter retired in 1987 (Bitter, A Summary Report for Tenure, March 15, 1985). Today, the Department of Special Education at the University of Utah offers a specialization in the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Program. While the curriculum includes classes in American Sign Language, it places a stronger emphasis on listening and speaking practices. This focus reflects the lasting impact of Dr. Bitter, who passed away in 2000, on Deaf education in Utah.
Dr. Grant B. Bitter. Source: The Utahn, 1973
SECTION IV: Restructuring the Administrative
System and Consolidating the
Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind
System and Consolidating the
Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind
Restructuring the Administrative System
at the Utah School for the Deaf
at the Utah School for the Deaf
The controversy between the oral and total communication programs, a long-standing issue in Deaf education in Utah, continued to escalate during the years 1986-1987. The debate centered around the most effective method of communication and education for Deaf students. In 1986, Dr. Thomas S. Bannister was appointed superintendent of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind. Knowing sign language, he was appalled by the biased and one-sided information provided to families (UAD Bulletin, November 1986).
Dr. Thomas S. Bannister
Dr. Jay J. Campbell's comprehensive study, conducted in 1977, revealed various instances where the principal, Tony Christopulos, demonstrated a less committed approach to total communication as an educational philosophy. He did not provide the necessary leadership to support the total communication division and favored the oral division (Campbell, 1977). In response to the ongoing controversy, Superintendent Bannister decided to overhaul the administrative system. Unhappy with these changes, Tony Christopulos resigned and retired (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011).
Superintendent Bannister introduced the concept of 'program directors' who would be responsible for specific geographic areas of the state and oversee educational programs within those regions. To ensure fairness and prevent bias—a crucial step in the restructuring process—Superintendent Bannister implemented new rules. Steven W. Noyce, a strong advocate for the oral approach and a former student of Dr. Bitter's oral training program at the University of Utah, was appointed as the program director for the Utah School for the Deaf in Orem, Utah. Deaf leaders Dave Mortensen and Lloyd Perkins visited Orem's Deaf program. They were pleased to discover that, despite the separation of oral and total communication classrooms, all students were now allowed to interact during lunch and recess, which represented a major change in student dynamics (Kenneth K. Kinner, personal communication, April 17, 2011).
Superintendent Bannister introduced the concept of 'program directors' who would be responsible for specific geographic areas of the state and oversee educational programs within those regions. To ensure fairness and prevent bias—a crucial step in the restructuring process—Superintendent Bannister implemented new rules. Steven W. Noyce, a strong advocate for the oral approach and a former student of Dr. Bitter's oral training program at the University of Utah, was appointed as the program director for the Utah School for the Deaf in Orem, Utah. Deaf leaders Dave Mortensen and Lloyd Perkins visited Orem's Deaf program. They were pleased to discover that, despite the separation of oral and total communication classrooms, all students were now allowed to interact during lunch and recess, which represented a major change in student dynamics (Kenneth K. Kinner, personal communication, April 17, 2011).
Consolidation of the Utah Schools
for the Deaf and the Blind
for the Deaf and the Blind
To provide historical context, the Utah School for the Deaf was established in Salt Lake City in 1884. In 1896, it relocated to Ogden, coinciding with the establishment of the Utah School for the Blind. This transition led to the formation of a combined institution known as the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind.
While collectively referred to as the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind, the two schools operated on separate campuses. The Blind campus was located at 7th Street and Harrison Boulevard, while the Deaf campus was at 20th Street and Monroe Avenue. In 1993, facing low enrollment at the Deaf school due to mainstreaming initiatives, the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind consolidated into a single entity on the Blind campus at 7th Street and Harrison Boulevard. This significant change affected students, staff, and resources, ultimately shaping the current school structure. Following the consolidation, the Ogden City School District assumed control of the former Deaf school campus at 20th Street and Monroe Avenue, which remains in place today. This historical background highlights the interconnectedness between the Deaf and Blind schools and illustrates how this has influenced their resource distribution and overall structure. The section below provides an overview of how the consolidations of the Deaf and Blind schools occurred.
By 1980, the number of day schools and mainstream classes had increased significantly nationwide (Baldwin, 1990). This situation impacted the Utah School for the Deaf. During the legislative session in February 1986, a proposal was made to consolidate the Deaf School and the Blind School onto a single campus. Lawmakers noted that the Deaf School, located at 20th Street and Monroe Avenue in Ogden, was only half-filled. They proposed studying the effects of moving the Deaf School to the Blind School campus at 7th Street and Harrison Boulevard in Ogden (Deseret News, September 13, 1986).
A legislative work group was formed during the summer of 1986, specifically to review the details of merging the two state schools. Although the work group lacked the expertise to make a definitive decision, they believed that combining the two campuses would be more cost-effective (UAD Bulletin, November 1986). They learned from Thomas Bannister, the Superintendent of the USDB, that the consolidation could save between $110,000 and $130,000 per year (UAD Bulletin, July 1987). As part of their investigation, Design West in Logan, Utah, received $50,000 in planning funds in February 1988. They were tasked with developing architectural designs for a campus that would accommodate children who are Deaf, Blind, DeafBlind, or autistic, should new buildings need to be constructed (UAD Bulletin, October 1988).
Various scenarios were considered feasible. One group favored closing both Ogden campuses and relocating the schools to Salt Lake City. This option seemed reasonable since most deaf and blind students registered for the schools came from the Salt Lake City area. However, due to an oversight, Salt Lake City was not included as a potential relocation site that the work group studied.
UAD President Dave Mortensen voiced support for another, equally viable idea. He suggested that the Utah School for the Deaf (USD) be constructed on land adjacent to the new Utah Community Center for the Deaf (UCCD) facility. USD and UCCD could share the proposed pool and gym, which would primarily serve the school during the day, while UCCD patrons could utilize them in the evenings. President Mortensen argued that having the Deaf School next door would facilitate transitional activities to help students move from school life into adulthood. The study indicated that buying property in Salt Lake City and building new facilities there would be costly. Most of Utah's Deaf students were being mainstreamed into local public school systems and were not attending the state school, making it difficult to justify such a large financial investment (UAD Bulletin, October 1988).
Officials from both the Utah School for the Deaf and the Utah School for the Blind strongly opposed the merger. They feared that consolidation would jeopardize the quality of services provided to students. They petitioned the legislature to keep the two schools on separate campuses, encouraging them to seek alternative ways to save money.
Their petition stated that:
The Utah Council of the Blind also voiced objections, sending a letter stating, "Those of us who are blind have never been able to understand why anyone would seek to connect two completely opposite disabilities." They noted that no state deaf or blind programs in the nation had been consolidated since 1912 (Ipaktchian, The Ogden Standard Examiner, September 11, 1986).
The legislative study recommended combining the Deaf and Blind Schools at the Blind School campus in Ogden. It was reasoned that keeping the Blind students on their own campus would be less traumatic for them, as they would face difficulties in adapting to new and different surroundings if their school were relocated.
The vote of the Institutional Council, which oversees the operations and policies of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind, followed the conclusions of the work group. The vote resulted in a three-to-one recommendation to the Utah Board of Education to locate the Deaf school on the campus of the Blind school. Dennis R. Platt, a Deaf member of the Institutional Council, was the sole vote in favor of keeping the Deaf services at their current site at 846 20th Street in Ogden, citing tradition and a desire to preserve the school's century-old origins (UAD Bulletin, December 1988). This diverse range of perspectives was crucial in the decision-making process.
While collectively referred to as the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind, the two schools operated on separate campuses. The Blind campus was located at 7th Street and Harrison Boulevard, while the Deaf campus was at 20th Street and Monroe Avenue. In 1993, facing low enrollment at the Deaf school due to mainstreaming initiatives, the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind consolidated into a single entity on the Blind campus at 7th Street and Harrison Boulevard. This significant change affected students, staff, and resources, ultimately shaping the current school structure. Following the consolidation, the Ogden City School District assumed control of the former Deaf school campus at 20th Street and Monroe Avenue, which remains in place today. This historical background highlights the interconnectedness between the Deaf and Blind schools and illustrates how this has influenced their resource distribution and overall structure. The section below provides an overview of how the consolidations of the Deaf and Blind schools occurred.
By 1980, the number of day schools and mainstream classes had increased significantly nationwide (Baldwin, 1990). This situation impacted the Utah School for the Deaf. During the legislative session in February 1986, a proposal was made to consolidate the Deaf School and the Blind School onto a single campus. Lawmakers noted that the Deaf School, located at 20th Street and Monroe Avenue in Ogden, was only half-filled. They proposed studying the effects of moving the Deaf School to the Blind School campus at 7th Street and Harrison Boulevard in Ogden (Deseret News, September 13, 1986).
A legislative work group was formed during the summer of 1986, specifically to review the details of merging the two state schools. Although the work group lacked the expertise to make a definitive decision, they believed that combining the two campuses would be more cost-effective (UAD Bulletin, November 1986). They learned from Thomas Bannister, the Superintendent of the USDB, that the consolidation could save between $110,000 and $130,000 per year (UAD Bulletin, July 1987). As part of their investigation, Design West in Logan, Utah, received $50,000 in planning funds in February 1988. They were tasked with developing architectural designs for a campus that would accommodate children who are Deaf, Blind, DeafBlind, or autistic, should new buildings need to be constructed (UAD Bulletin, October 1988).
Various scenarios were considered feasible. One group favored closing both Ogden campuses and relocating the schools to Salt Lake City. This option seemed reasonable since most deaf and blind students registered for the schools came from the Salt Lake City area. However, due to an oversight, Salt Lake City was not included as a potential relocation site that the work group studied.
UAD President Dave Mortensen voiced support for another, equally viable idea. He suggested that the Utah School for the Deaf (USD) be constructed on land adjacent to the new Utah Community Center for the Deaf (UCCD) facility. USD and UCCD could share the proposed pool and gym, which would primarily serve the school during the day, while UCCD patrons could utilize them in the evenings. President Mortensen argued that having the Deaf School next door would facilitate transitional activities to help students move from school life into adulthood. The study indicated that buying property in Salt Lake City and building new facilities there would be costly. Most of Utah's Deaf students were being mainstreamed into local public school systems and were not attending the state school, making it difficult to justify such a large financial investment (UAD Bulletin, October 1988).
Officials from both the Utah School for the Deaf and the Utah School for the Blind strongly opposed the merger. They feared that consolidation would jeopardize the quality of services provided to students. They petitioned the legislature to keep the two schools on separate campuses, encouraging them to seek alternative ways to save money.
Their petition stated that:
- While acknowledging the importance of short-term financial concerns, it's crucial to remember that human factors and long-term finances are equally critical in deciding whether to combine campuses.
- Although enrollment had declined over the past three years at the Deaf School while the extension program was being organized, enrollments were now on the rise and expected to increase for the next four years.
- The building the Blind School would occupy if merged onto the Deaf School campus was too small for their needs. The cost of enlarging it and furnishing it with necessary equipment would exceed the cost of maintaining a separate campus.
- Bringing together Deaf and Blind students would hinder their progress, as the differing disabilities make communication between them challenging (Deseret News, September 13, 1986).
The Utah Council of the Blind also voiced objections, sending a letter stating, "Those of us who are blind have never been able to understand why anyone would seek to connect two completely opposite disabilities." They noted that no state deaf or blind programs in the nation had been consolidated since 1912 (Ipaktchian, The Ogden Standard Examiner, September 11, 1986).
The legislative study recommended combining the Deaf and Blind Schools at the Blind School campus in Ogden. It was reasoned that keeping the Blind students on their own campus would be less traumatic for them, as they would face difficulties in adapting to new and different surroundings if their school were relocated.
The vote of the Institutional Council, which oversees the operations and policies of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind, followed the conclusions of the work group. The vote resulted in a three-to-one recommendation to the Utah Board of Education to locate the Deaf school on the campus of the Blind school. Dennis R. Platt, a Deaf member of the Institutional Council, was the sole vote in favor of keeping the Deaf services at their current site at 846 20th Street in Ogden, citing tradition and a desire to preserve the school's century-old origins (UAD Bulletin, December 1988). This diverse range of perspectives was crucial in the decision-making process.
Dennis R. Platt
Most members of the Institutional Council believed that the Blind school campus on Harrison Blvd. offered the greatest advantages. It provided space for expansion and was situated near Ben Lomond High School, Highland Middle School, and Horace Mann Elementary School, thereby providing opportunities for mainstreaming (UAD Bulletin, December 1988). The proposed facility would include classrooms, residential cottages, an administration center, a multipurpose building, and a resource/media center (UAD Bulletin, February 1989).
The merger was approved during the Institutional Council's meeting on September 28, 1988 (Leer, Deseret News, November 11, 1988, p. B1; Deseret News, November 4, 1988, p. A10). On November 11, 1988, the USDB Institutional Council presented its recommendations to the Utah State Board of Education. The Utah Deaf community opposed stopping the merger process, delivering a petition to the Board against such actions. Board members Margaret Nelson and Dr. M. Richard Maxwell expressed their desire for both schools to remain in Ogden, arguing that the proposed merger did not adequately consider potential costs. They were joined in this sentiment by Kleda Barker Quigley from the Salt Lake Deaf community (UAD Bulletin, December 1988).
The merger was approved during the Institutional Council's meeting on September 28, 1988 (Leer, Deseret News, November 11, 1988, p. B1; Deseret News, November 4, 1988, p. A10). On November 11, 1988, the USDB Institutional Council presented its recommendations to the Utah State Board of Education. The Utah Deaf community opposed stopping the merger process, delivering a petition to the Board against such actions. Board members Margaret Nelson and Dr. M. Richard Maxwell expressed their desire for both schools to remain in Ogden, arguing that the proposed merger did not adequately consider potential costs. They were joined in this sentiment by Kleda Barker Quigley from the Salt Lake Deaf community (UAD Bulletin, December 1988).
Kleda Barker Quigley
Despite this last-minute feedback, both the state school's Institutional Council and the State Board of Education supported the consolidation proposal (UAD Bulletin, October 1988). The Utah State Board of Education approved the consolidation of both schools onto the Blind School campus at 742 Harrison Blvd. in Ogden (Leer, Deseret News, November 2, 1988).
By July 1988, the Utah legislature approved the merger, making it unsurprising when the legislature voted in September 1988 to consolidate the campuses. This measure included a mandate for state funding to remodel the campus buildings and ensure ongoing general maintenance (UAD Bulletin, October 1987; UAD Bulletin, October 1988). A funding request for the relocation would be submitted to the 1989 session of the Utah Legislature after being reviewed by the state's Division of Facilities Construction Management (UAD Bulletin, December 1988). The legislature was expected to approve this funding allocation. The decision to consolidate the two campuses was time-sensitive, as some buildings on both campuses were found to be out of compliance with fire and safety codes (Leers, Deseret News, November 11, 1988, p. B1). Superintendent Bannister expressed the state's reluctance to invest several hundred thousand dollars in bringing the buildings on both campuses into compliance. The planned renovations could address code compliance issues since the schools would merge (Leer, Deseret News, November 2, 1988).
It was a sad day when the Utah School for the Deaf campus closed. This campus, which had been in operation for over 100 years, held a rich history. The property and buildings were set to be transferred to the Ogden City School District (Leer, Deseret News, November 2, 1988).
The proposal for the merger was an emotional issue for many people. The Utah Deaf community was reluctant to see the Deaf school campus abandoned, but justifying the need for a separate campus proved challenging, given the small student population. There were fewer than ten Deaf students in the residential program, while about 100 students attended day schools at both sites. The total number of residential students was approximately 40, most of whom had disabilities so severe that they could not be educated in the regular school system. It was emphasized that merging the two campuses would not result in the integration of the Deaf and Blind programs themselves (Leers, Deseret News, November 11, 1988, p. B1; Deseret News, November 4, 1988).
In 1989, Superintendent Bannister left Utah for a new position at the Alabama School for the Deaf and Blind. Assistant Superintendent Lee Robinson stated that Thomas Bannister's legacy would include the consolidation of the Deaf and Blind schools onto one campus, utilizing both schools as state resource centers (UAD Bulletin, December 1989).
In 1990, David West succeeded Thomas Bannister as Superintendent of the USDB. David was a Deaf educator and administrator with experience in various state Deaf schools.
By July 1988, the Utah legislature approved the merger, making it unsurprising when the legislature voted in September 1988 to consolidate the campuses. This measure included a mandate for state funding to remodel the campus buildings and ensure ongoing general maintenance (UAD Bulletin, October 1987; UAD Bulletin, October 1988). A funding request for the relocation would be submitted to the 1989 session of the Utah Legislature after being reviewed by the state's Division of Facilities Construction Management (UAD Bulletin, December 1988). The legislature was expected to approve this funding allocation. The decision to consolidate the two campuses was time-sensitive, as some buildings on both campuses were found to be out of compliance with fire and safety codes (Leers, Deseret News, November 11, 1988, p. B1). Superintendent Bannister expressed the state's reluctance to invest several hundred thousand dollars in bringing the buildings on both campuses into compliance. The planned renovations could address code compliance issues since the schools would merge (Leer, Deseret News, November 2, 1988).
It was a sad day when the Utah School for the Deaf campus closed. This campus, which had been in operation for over 100 years, held a rich history. The property and buildings were set to be transferred to the Ogden City School District (Leer, Deseret News, November 2, 1988).
The proposal for the merger was an emotional issue for many people. The Utah Deaf community was reluctant to see the Deaf school campus abandoned, but justifying the need for a separate campus proved challenging, given the small student population. There were fewer than ten Deaf students in the residential program, while about 100 students attended day schools at both sites. The total number of residential students was approximately 40, most of whom had disabilities so severe that they could not be educated in the regular school system. It was emphasized that merging the two campuses would not result in the integration of the Deaf and Blind programs themselves (Leers, Deseret News, November 11, 1988, p. B1; Deseret News, November 4, 1988).
In 1989, Superintendent Bannister left Utah for a new position at the Alabama School for the Deaf and Blind. Assistant Superintendent Lee Robinson stated that Thomas Bannister's legacy would include the consolidation of the Deaf and Blind schools onto one campus, utilizing both schools as state resource centers (UAD Bulletin, December 1989).
In 1990, David West succeeded Thomas Bannister as Superintendent of the USDB. David was a Deaf educator and administrator with experience in various state Deaf schools.
David West
Integration of Public Schools and the
Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind
Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind
The Institutional Council, which governs the operations of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind (USDB), was central to the debate over their integration. In June 1989, the Council received a petition signed by twenty-five parents of children attending the Utah School for the Deaf. By September of that year, the parents requested the transfer of their children to a designated public elementary school. They believed that their children would benefit more from social and cultural interactions with peers who could hear. John Galli, an Ogden resident and parent representative, explained, "We're not talking mainstreaming; we're talking integration" (Deseret News, June 15, 1989, p. A19; UAD Bulletin, July 1989).
The parents wanted their kids to be educated by teachers and administrators from the Utah School for the Deaf, but in classrooms located at a public school. This arrangement would enable their children to engage in lunch, recess, and regular education classes alongside their hearing peers. Superintendent Bannister speculated that the parents might have been reacting to terms like "school for the deaf" or "state institution," which could carry negative connotations on the Individualized Education Program (IEP) forms (Deseret News, June 15, 1989, p. A19; UAD Bulletin, July 1989).
In response to the request for integration, administrators from the Utah School for the Deaf engaged in discussions with various school districts about the possibility of offering USD extension classes in their schools (UAD Bulletin, October 1989). However, the Utah Association for the Deaf warned that Deaf students might feel isolated in a public school setting. Drawing from their childhood experiences of feeling excluded in public schools, Dr. Robert G. Sanderson argued that Deaf children are happiest when they are together, warning that they would quickly form a distinct Deaf clique (Deseret News, June 15, 1989, p. A19; UAD Bulletin, July 1989).
This discussion prompted Shirley Hortie Platt, a Utah Deaf community member and Deaf mentor at the Utah School for the Deaf, to express her deep concerns regarding the emotional and social well-being of Deaf students:
*****
"There has always been a solid front in the deaf community. It has existed since Laurent Clerc, a deaf man, [helped Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet] begin the American School for the Deaf in Hartford, CT, in 1817. The deaf community, with its own culture, history, and language, has been a frontrunner in establishing long, successful organizations of, by, and for the deaf, as compared to other disabled groups. Other disabled groups in sports, for example, (i.e., Paralympics) did not begin organizing until the 1970s and later.
Still, hearing people try to tell us what to do, how to do it, how to live our lives, and how to educate "our" children. If we deaf adults are bitter, it is NOT because our parents were never told about sign language or deaf schools, and thus never had that option to consider. My deaf sister and I are certainly not bitter towards our family. My parents now realize that many things they had to do in the past were not right, especially regarding our education in public school.
We are fed up with seeing "our" deaf children repeatedly used as guinea pigs in the state of Utah while different groups test different theories and systems. These are kids' lives you are playing with; they are not laboratory animals to be tested on a whim. Giving birth to a deaf child doesn't give one the experience or know-how to deal with or educate a deaf child. Proven research has repeatedly stated that deaf children do better with deaf peers and role models in schools for the Deaf. What's more, our deaf school is NOT an institution in the antiquated sense that language implies – it is a ridiculous stigma, and these parents just don't want it known that their children are there. They are embarrassed – but why? These are NOT little imitation hearing children. These are deaf children who will ALWAYS be Deaf, so let them be.
If the parents feel the program needs changing, why not start at USD, where even some teachers are not totally educated in deafness and the Deaf culture; where our sign language is abused to the point that teachers make up signs, use wrong concepts, and destroy the meaning and beauty of American Sign Language; where there is a program coordinator who many of us feel does not even support the program and is not impartial but blatantly supports an oral philosophy; where former students have left because there is no sports program anymore or because of the former superintendents; and now where parents want to pull out an entire elementary program to give their children a dream world of what could but never will be, promoted by a few misguided individuals; and yet, sadly, USD is the place where many successful deaf Utahans grew up in the 50's, 60's, and 70's, not with unhappy memories of their abuse by cruel former school administrators, but instead of their large association and social life with other deaf children and adult role models.
Superintendent Thomas Bannister is the best thing that has ever happened to this school, so why not work to rebuild it?"
Shirley H. Platt
Ogden
(Platt, UAD Bulletin, August 1989, p. 2)
The parents wanted their kids to be educated by teachers and administrators from the Utah School for the Deaf, but in classrooms located at a public school. This arrangement would enable their children to engage in lunch, recess, and regular education classes alongside their hearing peers. Superintendent Bannister speculated that the parents might have been reacting to terms like "school for the deaf" or "state institution," which could carry negative connotations on the Individualized Education Program (IEP) forms (Deseret News, June 15, 1989, p. A19; UAD Bulletin, July 1989).
In response to the request for integration, administrators from the Utah School for the Deaf engaged in discussions with various school districts about the possibility of offering USD extension classes in their schools (UAD Bulletin, October 1989). However, the Utah Association for the Deaf warned that Deaf students might feel isolated in a public school setting. Drawing from their childhood experiences of feeling excluded in public schools, Dr. Robert G. Sanderson argued that Deaf children are happiest when they are together, warning that they would quickly form a distinct Deaf clique (Deseret News, June 15, 1989, p. A19; UAD Bulletin, July 1989).
This discussion prompted Shirley Hortie Platt, a Utah Deaf community member and Deaf mentor at the Utah School for the Deaf, to express her deep concerns regarding the emotional and social well-being of Deaf students:
*****
"There has always been a solid front in the deaf community. It has existed since Laurent Clerc, a deaf man, [helped Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet] begin the American School for the Deaf in Hartford, CT, in 1817. The deaf community, with its own culture, history, and language, has been a frontrunner in establishing long, successful organizations of, by, and for the deaf, as compared to other disabled groups. Other disabled groups in sports, for example, (i.e., Paralympics) did not begin organizing until the 1970s and later.
Still, hearing people try to tell us what to do, how to do it, how to live our lives, and how to educate "our" children. If we deaf adults are bitter, it is NOT because our parents were never told about sign language or deaf schools, and thus never had that option to consider. My deaf sister and I are certainly not bitter towards our family. My parents now realize that many things they had to do in the past were not right, especially regarding our education in public school.
We are fed up with seeing "our" deaf children repeatedly used as guinea pigs in the state of Utah while different groups test different theories and systems. These are kids' lives you are playing with; they are not laboratory animals to be tested on a whim. Giving birth to a deaf child doesn't give one the experience or know-how to deal with or educate a deaf child. Proven research has repeatedly stated that deaf children do better with deaf peers and role models in schools for the Deaf. What's more, our deaf school is NOT an institution in the antiquated sense that language implies – it is a ridiculous stigma, and these parents just don't want it known that their children are there. They are embarrassed – but why? These are NOT little imitation hearing children. These are deaf children who will ALWAYS be Deaf, so let them be.
If the parents feel the program needs changing, why not start at USD, where even some teachers are not totally educated in deafness and the Deaf culture; where our sign language is abused to the point that teachers make up signs, use wrong concepts, and destroy the meaning and beauty of American Sign Language; where there is a program coordinator who many of us feel does not even support the program and is not impartial but blatantly supports an oral philosophy; where former students have left because there is no sports program anymore or because of the former superintendents; and now where parents want to pull out an entire elementary program to give their children a dream world of what could but never will be, promoted by a few misguided individuals; and yet, sadly, USD is the place where many successful deaf Utahans grew up in the 50's, 60's, and 70's, not with unhappy memories of their abuse by cruel former school administrators, but instead of their large association and social life with other deaf children and adult role models.
Superintendent Thomas Bannister is the best thing that has ever happened to this school, so why not work to rebuild it?"
Shirley H. Platt
Ogden
(Platt, UAD Bulletin, August 1989, p. 2)
Shirley Hortie and Dennis R. Platt
Superintendent Thomas Bannister played a key role in the decision-making process regarding the education of Deaf children and was supportive of the parents' wishes. The Utah Deaf community raised concerns, but ultimately, the decision to grant parents' wishes stood. The Deaf children involved were consequently enrolled in nearby school districts.
During the 1990 legislative session, the Institutional Council provided a fact sheet about the Utah School for the Deaf and Blind to legislators, aiming to demonstrate that the state schools served not just the city of Ogden. However, the political climate was not entirely favorable to the USDB. Representative Haze Hunter, chair of the appropriations subcommittee on capital facilities and general government, questioned the justification for spending $8.1 million on the consolidation. He inquired, "Do we really want to spend $8.1 million on 35 students?" (UAD Bulletin, February 1990).
At that time, there were 35 residential Deaf students on the school campus and about 45 to 50 students at the Utah School for the Blind. In comparison, there were 916 Deaf and blind students throughout the state attending the extension programs of the USDB, which were housed in local public schools (UAD Bulletin, February 1990).
As Shirley Hortie Platt noted, the Utah School for the Deaf alums were saddened to watch the school change over the years. The school had provided them with a fully accessible environment that supported their language, communication style, literacy, academic, social, and emotional development. The Deaf school also offered the necessary support services to help them become educated, successful, and contributing adults. They were sad that future Deaf children wouldn't have the same fond memories of the school.
During the 1990 legislative session, the Institutional Council provided a fact sheet about the Utah School for the Deaf and Blind to legislators, aiming to demonstrate that the state schools served not just the city of Ogden. However, the political climate was not entirely favorable to the USDB. Representative Haze Hunter, chair of the appropriations subcommittee on capital facilities and general government, questioned the justification for spending $8.1 million on the consolidation. He inquired, "Do we really want to spend $8.1 million on 35 students?" (UAD Bulletin, February 1990).
At that time, there were 35 residential Deaf students on the school campus and about 45 to 50 students at the Utah School for the Blind. In comparison, there were 916 Deaf and blind students throughout the state attending the extension programs of the USDB, which were housed in local public schools (UAD Bulletin, February 1990).
As Shirley Hortie Platt noted, the Utah School for the Deaf alums were saddened to watch the school change over the years. The school had provided them with a fully accessible environment that supported their language, communication style, literacy, academic, social, and emotional development. The Deaf school also offered the necessary support services to help them become educated, successful, and contributing adults. They were sad that future Deaf children wouldn't have the same fond memories of the school.
Groundbreaking for the New
Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind Facility
Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind Facility
The groundbreaking ceremony for the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind was a major event in the school's history. It took place on October 1, 1991, at the campus located at 742 Harrison Boulevard in Ogden. The Utah legislature allocated $8.4 million for the first phase of the new 91,000-square-foot facility. This integrated school is designed to include an educational resource center, outreach services, educational support services, a distribution center, administrative offices, a media library, a cafeteria, conference rooms, and residential cottages for students.
The one-hour ceremony showcased the widespread support for the project, with numerous state and local school officials, members of the legislature, representatives from the governor's office, the Ogden City Council, and the teacher training program at Utah State University in attendance, along with many members of the Utah Deaf community, teachers, and students. Jean Greenwood Thomas served as an interpreter during the event.
Jack Wheeler, a graduate of the Utah School for the Deaf, spoke about the school's history. He reminisced about the days when the Utah School for the Deaf was self-sufficient, with its barn and garden, recalling fond memories of his time at school.
David West, Superintendent of USDB, discussed the efforts that went into making the concept of a new consolidated school a reality. He assured the attendees that the schools for the Deaf and the Blind will maintain their independence, despite sharing the same campus.
The ceremony also provided an opportunity to reflect on the rich history of the USDB. At 107 years old, the school has seen generations of students pass through its doors. Kenneth C. Burdett, who was present, had enrolled at the Utah School for the Deaf 75 years ago, demonstrating the school's enduring legacy. Dr. Thomas Clark, also in attendance, shared that his father, John H. Clark, had enrolled at the Utah School for the Deaf 105 years ago, further emphasizing the school's deep roots in the community.
As the shovels broke ground, students released a multitude of red, white, and blue balloons into the sky, marking the occasion (UAD Bulletin, October 1991; UAD Bulletin, November 1991).
The one-hour ceremony showcased the widespread support for the project, with numerous state and local school officials, members of the legislature, representatives from the governor's office, the Ogden City Council, and the teacher training program at Utah State University in attendance, along with many members of the Utah Deaf community, teachers, and students. Jean Greenwood Thomas served as an interpreter during the event.
Jack Wheeler, a graduate of the Utah School for the Deaf, spoke about the school's history. He reminisced about the days when the Utah School for the Deaf was self-sufficient, with its barn and garden, recalling fond memories of his time at school.
David West, Superintendent of USDB, discussed the efforts that went into making the concept of a new consolidated school a reality. He assured the attendees that the schools for the Deaf and the Blind will maintain their independence, despite sharing the same campus.
The ceremony also provided an opportunity to reflect on the rich history of the USDB. At 107 years old, the school has seen generations of students pass through its doors. Kenneth C. Burdett, who was present, had enrolled at the Utah School for the Deaf 75 years ago, demonstrating the school's enduring legacy. Dr. Thomas Clark, also in attendance, shared that his father, John H. Clark, had enrolled at the Utah School for the Deaf 105 years ago, further emphasizing the school's deep roots in the community.
As the shovels broke ground, students released a multitude of red, white, and blue balloons into the sky, marking the occasion (UAD Bulletin, October 1991; UAD Bulletin, November 1991).
Kenneth C. Burdett, a 1929 Utah School for the Deaf Senior
Did You Know?
Following the USDB consolidation, the Ogden City School District took over the former Utah School for the Deaf buildings on campus, at 20th Street and Monroe Avenue, which remain visible today. It was a major shift in the institution's history. Driggs Hall became the new office building, symbolizing change and progress. Although Woodbury Hall remains unused, it still stands on campus today as a reminder of the school's past (this building was demolished in 2012). The Main Building underwent renovations to accommodate additional offices and classrooms, reflecting the school's growth. The Vocational Building serves a distinct purpose, yet it is also an integral part of the school's evolving narrative.
In 1986, a group of alums from the Utah School for the Deaf, recognizing the importance of their alma mater's history, requested permission from the school district to tour the 100-year-old buildings. Nostalgia hit the alums as they fondly recalled their school days. After their reunion in 1986, they were asked not to request any more tours. Now, as the custodians of their school's history, they rely on old photographs and stories shared among themselves to relive their wonderful school experiences (Utah School for the Deaf Alumni Reunion, 2009).
In 1986, a group of alums from the Utah School for the Deaf, recognizing the importance of their alma mater's history, requested permission from the school district to tour the 100-year-old buildings. Nostalgia hit the alums as they fondly recalled their school days. After their reunion in 1986, they were asked not to request any more tours. Now, as the custodians of their school's history, they rely on old photographs and stories shared among themselves to relive their wonderful school experiences (Utah School for the Deaf Alumni Reunion, 2009).
The Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind
Receive New Classrooms
Receive New Classrooms
Originally, the plans for the new facility, finalized in 1987, did not include classrooms. At that time, USDB Superintendent David West reported that Deaf students were moving out of Utah. Officials at the Utah School for the Deaf continued to work towards integrating Deaf and hard-of-hearing students into regular education schools whenever possible (UAD Bulletin, May 1993). However, the school's mission and changing student needs led to the decision to incorporate classrooms into the new facility.
During the 1993 Legislative Session, Superintendent West requested Phase II funding for the nearly completed facility on Harrison Boulevard. This funding would enable the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind to finish the new facility by adding 21 classrooms and associated offices, expanding the dining area, and constructing a community room for both the Deaf and Blind (UAD Bulletin, May 1993).
Initially, the USDB request ranked 38th on the legislative priority list, but it was subsequently moved into the top 20. On February 17, it reached 15th place. If the Phase II request had been in the top ten when it went through the House and Senate executive appropriations committees, it would have received funding. The move was crucial, as Superintendent West faced a crisis regarding where to place Deaf and Blind campus students for the next few years. Although Phase II encountered a difficult passage through the legislature, it ultimately passed (UAD Bulletin, March 1993).
From March to April 1993, the entire administrative personnel and the education resource center relocated to the new facility. However, the Deaf and Blind students and their teachers remained on the 20th Street campus. The Ogden School District, which owned the USDB campus located at 20th and Monroe Boulevard, intended to utilize that space. Teachers and Deaf students were uncertain about how long they would remain at the old campus, as the eventual move depended on the progress of the Phase II construction (UAD Bulletin, May 1993).
During the 1993 Legislative Session, Superintendent West requested Phase II funding for the nearly completed facility on Harrison Boulevard. This funding would enable the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind to finish the new facility by adding 21 classrooms and associated offices, expanding the dining area, and constructing a community room for both the Deaf and Blind (UAD Bulletin, May 1993).
Initially, the USDB request ranked 38th on the legislative priority list, but it was subsequently moved into the top 20. On February 17, it reached 15th place. If the Phase II request had been in the top ten when it went through the House and Senate executive appropriations committees, it would have received funding. The move was crucial, as Superintendent West faced a crisis regarding where to place Deaf and Blind campus students for the next few years. Although Phase II encountered a difficult passage through the legislature, it ultimately passed (UAD Bulletin, March 1993).
From March to April 1993, the entire administrative personnel and the education resource center relocated to the new facility. However, the Deaf and Blind students and their teachers remained on the 20th Street campus. The Ogden School District, which owned the USDB campus located at 20th and Monroe Boulevard, intended to utilize that space. Teachers and Deaf students were uncertain about how long they would remain at the old campus, as the eventual move depended on the progress of the Phase II construction (UAD Bulletin, May 1993).
The Utah Schools for the Deaf Moves Into A New Campus
On April 19, 1993, the Utah School for the Deaf moved into its new facility located at 742 Harrison Blvd and consolidated with the Utah School for the Blind on the same campus. The state-of-the-art facility caters to the unique needs of its students. It includes a comprehensive educational resource library that provides technology and supplies for teachers of Deaf and Blind students in public schools throughout the state. The facility also offers hearing and vision testing services, computer learning labs, and conference rooms. Additionally, the Parent Infant Program has a dedicated area on the new campus for teaching new parents how to support their Deaf or Blind infants.
The facility was meticulously designed with the students' needs in mind, emphasizing accessibility and safety to reassure parents and educators. For instance, there are no stairs in the buildings to ensure accessibility for students in wheelchairs. The swimming pool serves academic, recreational, and therapeutic purposes. The gymnasium features a multipurpose room with a stage for student theater productions and other events. A water fountain located in a key corridor produces the sound of flowing water, helping Blind students and staff navigate the building. Similarly, a clock with an audible tick is placed in another key hallway for the same purpose. One wing of the central facility is designated for students with autism, while another wing, located near the nurse's office, houses students with multiple disabilities.
Several cottages were built to foster a sense of community and comfort, creating a homelike atmosphere for students living on campus. Each cottage can accommodate up to six students, offering a supportive and welcoming environment. At that time, approximately 35 students lived at the school during the week (UAD Bulletin, May 1993).
The facility was meticulously designed with the students' needs in mind, emphasizing accessibility and safety to reassure parents and educators. For instance, there are no stairs in the buildings to ensure accessibility for students in wheelchairs. The swimming pool serves academic, recreational, and therapeutic purposes. The gymnasium features a multipurpose room with a stage for student theater productions and other events. A water fountain located in a key corridor produces the sound of flowing water, helping Blind students and staff navigate the building. Similarly, a clock with an audible tick is placed in another key hallway for the same purpose. One wing of the central facility is designated for students with autism, while another wing, located near the nurse's office, houses students with multiple disabilities.
Several cottages were built to foster a sense of community and comfort, creating a homelike atmosphere for students living on campus. Each cottage can accommodate up to six students, offering a supportive and welcoming environment. At that time, approximately 35 students lived at the school during the week (UAD Bulletin, May 1993).
Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind, Ogden, Utah. Source: Control, Inc.
Did You Know?
Many students transferred out of the Utah School for the Deaf within three years due to the poor quality of education. Their goal was to locate a better educational experience and greater social opportunities elsewhere. These students were:
Eileen Lunsford was the only one from this group to remain at the school until she graduated in 1989.
- Don Cochran – Model Secondary School for the Deaf – 1985
- Jan Williams – California School for the Deaf, Fremont – 1985
- Lisa Cochran – Model Secondary School for the Deaf – 1986
- Penny Simmons – Oregon School for the Deaf – 1986
- Darrie Duncan Albers – Oregon School for the Deaf – 1986
- Duane Kinner – Idaho School for the Deaf – 1986
- Paula Micolichek – Layton High School – 1987
- Mike Roach – Model Secondary School for the Deaf – 1987
- Tammy Guldager – Idaho School for the Deaf – 1987
- Debbie Fulton – Idaho School for the Deaf – 1987
- Jared Williams – Model Secondary School for the Deaf – 1988
Eileen Lunsford was the only one from this group to remain at the school until she graduated in 1989.
Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind
Becomes a State Institutional Resource
Becomes a State Institutional Resource
In 2001, Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, a member of the USDB Institutional Council at the time, observed that Utah had a different approach to Deaf education. Unlike other states that favored state residential schools, Utah prioritized mainstreaming, which involved integrating most Deaf and hard-of-hearing children into public schools. Only a small number of students lived on campus, marking a distinctive feature of Utah's educational system (Sanderson, UAD Bulletin, April 2001; Sanderson, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, May 13, 2001).
Dr. Sanderson reported that 90% of Deaf and hard-of-hearing students in Utah were enrolled in local school districts. These students also registered at the Utah School for the Deaf, which was specifically designed to address their educational needs within the public school system. Besides its primary function, the Utah School for the Deaf provided educational and consulting services to non-USD students who were Deaf or hard-of-hearing in public schools. This multifaceted role led the state of Utah to designate the Utah School for the Deaf as a state institutional resource, offering expertise to any educational programs serving Deaf and hard-of-hearing children in Utah (Sanderson, UAD Bulletin, April 2001; McAllister, 2002).
Before 2005, only a small number of students resided on the residential campus located at 742 Harrison Blvd in Ogden, despite its attractive facilities, which included classrooms and cottages with bedrooms. This school accounted for approximately 10% of the state's Deaf and hard-of-hearing student population.
Dr. Sanderson reported that 90% of Deaf and hard-of-hearing students in Utah were enrolled in local school districts. These students also registered at the Utah School for the Deaf, which was specifically designed to address their educational needs within the public school system. Besides its primary function, the Utah School for the Deaf provided educational and consulting services to non-USD students who were Deaf or hard-of-hearing in public schools. This multifaceted role led the state of Utah to designate the Utah School for the Deaf as a state institutional resource, offering expertise to any educational programs serving Deaf and hard-of-hearing children in Utah (Sanderson, UAD Bulletin, April 2001; McAllister, 2002).
Before 2005, only a small number of students resided on the residential campus located at 742 Harrison Blvd in Ogden, despite its attractive facilities, which included classrooms and cottages with bedrooms. This school accounted for approximately 10% of the state's Deaf and hard-of-hearing student population.
Dr. Robert G. Sanderson. Source: On the Green, January 11, 1982
Ronald J. Nelson, who served as president of the UAD in 2002 and was the spouse of Kristi Lee Mortensen, as well as a great-nephew of former USDB Superintendent Boyd E. Nelson, noted that the USD underwent a transformation during his tenure. The school's mission was redefined to position it as a statewide educational resource, marking its evolution from a traditional school to a state agency focused on broader educational support. This change in status had a profound impact on USDB's service delivery. No longer competing with school districts for state educational funding, USDB was able to offer services to any school that requested assistance, including the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf, a charter school in Salt Lake City at that time. President Nelson observed that this shift enabled the USDB to allocate its resources more effectively, thereby enhancing its focus on serving students who are deaf, blind, or deafblind (Nelson, UAD Bulletin, December 2002).
However, classifying the Deaf and Blind state schools as an agency rather than a traditional school came with significant drawbacks. As previously mentioned, USDB was not allowed to compete with school districts for legislative funding. Unlike local school districts, USDB did not have a local tax base to support its budget due to its status as an agency. If the legislature imposed financial restrictions on all Utah state agencies, it could result in a reduction in the USDB's budget. This situation might result in insufficient funding for educational programs, potentially putting USDB in violation of federal laws and the Utah Special Education Code (Toomer-Cook, Deseret News, 2001). Additionally, USDB's classification as a state agency has resulted in reduced accountability for the education it provides. For instance, the test scores of Deaf and hard-of-hearing students in self-contained classrooms were combined with scores from other special education students in the public school housing those classrooms. This situation posed a challenge in effectively assessing the quality of education that USDB students receive.
However, classifying the Deaf and Blind state schools as an agency rather than a traditional school came with significant drawbacks. As previously mentioned, USDB was not allowed to compete with school districts for legislative funding. Unlike local school districts, USDB did not have a local tax base to support its budget due to its status as an agency. If the legislature imposed financial restrictions on all Utah state agencies, it could result in a reduction in the USDB's budget. This situation might result in insufficient funding for educational programs, potentially putting USDB in violation of federal laws and the Utah Special Education Code (Toomer-Cook, Deseret News, 2001). Additionally, USDB's classification as a state agency has resulted in reduced accountability for the education it provides. For instance, the test scores of Deaf and hard-of-hearing students in self-contained classrooms were combined with scores from other special education students in the public school housing those classrooms. This situation posed a challenge in effectively assessing the quality of education that USDB students receive.
Ronald J. Nelson
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires all states to provide a continuum of appropriate educational placement options for children with disabilities, including all Deaf and hard-of-hearing students. Utah needed to maintain its state residential school. Like school districts, USD could receive federal financial support under IDEA. Lawrence M. Siegel, a special education attorney specializing in Deaf education, stated that there should be no legal or financial disincentives for placing these children in specialized schools (Siegel, National Deaf Education Project, 2000).
While Utah's approach to Deaf education emphasizes mainstreaming, it differs from that of other states. Initially, the Utah State Office of Education and the Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind interpreted the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Public Law 94-142, to mean that the least restrictive environment (LRE) for these students would be a mainstream public school. Consequently, the Utah School for the Deaf primarily focused on oral methods of instruction, reflecting this interpretation. However, the IEP team plays a critical role in assessing educational placement options that cannot be overstated. This team should make comprehensive choices that cater to each student's unique needs.
Despite Utah's interpretation of LRE, Attorney Siegel emphasized in 2000 that decisions regarding the educational placement of Deaf or hard-of-hearing students should prioritize communication-driven factors. This issue extends beyond educational rights; it also encompasses fundamental human rights. According to Attorney Siegel, Deaf and hard-of-hearing students share the same universal need for language and communication as any other individual. Therefore, this essential requirement should serve as the foundation for all educational decisions.
The educators made a misguided choice by placing a Deaf or hard-of-hearing student in the public school system, assuming it is the least restrictive environment, while overlooking the importance of language and communication accessibility needs for Deaf and hard-of-hearing students. The IEP documentation is a legal instrument that dictates all placement and goal determinations. The IEP team should thoroughly assess the student's language and communication accessibility needs before making any placement decisions (Siegel, National Deaf Education Project, 2000).
While Utah's approach to Deaf education emphasizes mainstreaming, it differs from that of other states. Initially, the Utah State Office of Education and the Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind interpreted the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Public Law 94-142, to mean that the least restrictive environment (LRE) for these students would be a mainstream public school. Consequently, the Utah School for the Deaf primarily focused on oral methods of instruction, reflecting this interpretation. However, the IEP team plays a critical role in assessing educational placement options that cannot be overstated. This team should make comprehensive choices that cater to each student's unique needs.
Despite Utah's interpretation of LRE, Attorney Siegel emphasized in 2000 that decisions regarding the educational placement of Deaf or hard-of-hearing students should prioritize communication-driven factors. This issue extends beyond educational rights; it also encompasses fundamental human rights. According to Attorney Siegel, Deaf and hard-of-hearing students share the same universal need for language and communication as any other individual. Therefore, this essential requirement should serve as the foundation for all educational decisions.
The educators made a misguided choice by placing a Deaf or hard-of-hearing student in the public school system, assuming it is the least restrictive environment, while overlooking the importance of language and communication accessibility needs for Deaf and hard-of-hearing students. The IEP documentation is a legal instrument that dictates all placement and goal determinations. The IEP team should thoroughly assess the student's language and communication accessibility needs before making any placement decisions (Siegel, National Deaf Education Project, 2000).
Lawrence M. Siegel, a Special Education attorney. Source: Child Law Group
The Commission on Education of the Deaf is
Assigned to Study the Status of Deaf Education in the
United States and Make Recommendations
Assigned to Study the Status of Deaf Education in the
United States and Make Recommendations
Since the enactment of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1975, the National Association of the Deaf (NAD) has observed a concerning decline in the quality of educational services available to Deaf and hard-of-hearing children nationwide. The individual states' interpretation of the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) provision and its inappropriate application to Deaf and hard-of-hearing students largely contribute to this decline. The situation is a critical issue that requires immediate attention.
In the February 1989 issue of The NAD Broadcaster, Gary Olsen published an article titled "Definitely Ours." Gary Olsen highlighted several rights denied to Deaf and hard-of-hearing children and their parents in his article, "Definitely Ours."
Within the national Deaf community, public schools were regarded as the "most restrictive environment" for many Deaf children. As an increasing number of Deaf children were placed into mainstream education, many felt isolated from their Deaf peers and lacked access to Deaf adult role models. This isolation hindered their ability to acquire American Sign Language during their formative school years (Erting et al., 1989).
On a national scale, legislators and educators recognized the low academic achievement levels of Deaf and hard-of-hearing children. In response, the U.S. Congress passed the Education of the Deaf Act in 1986, establishing the Commission on Education of the Deaf (COED). The Commission's task included assessing the state of Deaf education in the United States and proposing innovative solutions (NASDSE Educational Services Guidelines, 2006).
The Babbidge Committee, which predates COED by 22 years, was appointed by the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in March 1964 and headed by Homer Babbidge, Jr. The Babbidge Report, submitted in 1965, found significant weaknesses in the educational system for Deaf and hard-of-hearing students, concluding that it was failing to prepare Deaf children for full participation in society (Siegel, National Deaf Education Project, 2000). The report even referred to the oral education of Deaf students as a "dismal failure" (Deaf Jam website).
In the February 1989 issue of The NAD Broadcaster, Gary Olsen published an article titled "Definitely Ours." Gary Olsen highlighted several rights denied to Deaf and hard-of-hearing children and their parents in his article, "Definitely Ours."
- The right of parents to be informed about all educational placement options and learning strategies available for their child at the start of their child's education and at every Individualized Education Program (IEP) meeting.
- The right of the child to receive full support services at any chosen placement, ensuring they are not deprived of essential services. This includes having teachers and aides with competent communication skills, access to qualified interpreters (when in mainstream classes), deaf and hard-of-hearing awareness programs for both teachers and students in regular education settings, speech therapists trained in deafness, and programs that promote deaf heritage. Children should also have the opportunity to interact with peers with whom they can communicate directly.
- The right of the child to have a "barrier-free" language environment, where every child can continuously and openly receive and express communication.
- The right of the child to have knowledgeable individuals overseeing educational programs, ensuring that those in various administrative positions within school districts possess the requisite background knowledge and certification in programs related to deafness.
- The right of the child to attend programs with sufficient size to create an appropriate educational and social environment for Deaf and hard-of-hearing students (UAD Bulletin, April 1989, p. 6).
Within the national Deaf community, public schools were regarded as the "most restrictive environment" for many Deaf children. As an increasing number of Deaf children were placed into mainstream education, many felt isolated from their Deaf peers and lacked access to Deaf adult role models. This isolation hindered their ability to acquire American Sign Language during their formative school years (Erting et al., 1989).
On a national scale, legislators and educators recognized the low academic achievement levels of Deaf and hard-of-hearing children. In response, the U.S. Congress passed the Education of the Deaf Act in 1986, establishing the Commission on Education of the Deaf (COED). The Commission's task included assessing the state of Deaf education in the United States and proposing innovative solutions (NASDSE Educational Services Guidelines, 2006).
The Babbidge Committee, which predates COED by 22 years, was appointed by the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in March 1964 and headed by Homer Babbidge, Jr. The Babbidge Report, submitted in 1965, found significant weaknesses in the educational system for Deaf and hard-of-hearing students, concluding that it was failing to prepare Deaf children for full participation in society (Siegel, National Deaf Education Project, 2000). The report even referred to the oral education of Deaf students as a "dismal failure" (Deaf Jam website).
The 'Toward Equality: Education of the Deaf' book published in February 1988
Frank G. Bowe chaired the COED Committee and later became known as the Father of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The COED committee met for over eighteen months, involving a significant number of Deaf individuals. The President and Congress received their report, titled Toward Equality: Education of the Deaf, on February 4, 1988. The 144-page report expressed dissatisfaction with the state of Deaf education and contained numerous findings and recommendations at the national level. It concluded that the educational experiences of Deaf individuals in the United States were defined by inappropriate priorities and insufficient resources (Toward Equality: Education of the Deaf. A Report to the President and the Congress of the United States, 1988; Commission on Education of the Deaf, 1988; UAD Bulletin, June 1988).
The COED made it clear that the educational status of Deaf children nationwide was unacceptable. The report called for fundamental changes in the provision of educational services to Deaf and hard-of-hearing students. These recommendations included adjustments to the application of the guidelines under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). COED expressed concern that states' interpretations of the IDEA law had led to too many Deaf and hard-of-hearing children being placed in mainstream public schools rather than in special schools or centers specifically designed for the Deaf. COED emphasized that Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) should focus more on educational content and ensuring that students understand the material being taught, rather than merely on placement options. Furthermore, COED emphasized the need to pay increased attention to Deaf and hard-of-hearing students who are not college-bound (Deseret News, March 21, 1988, p. A2).
The report requested that the U.S. Department of Education clarify the definition of "Least Restrictive Environment," as mandated by the IDEA (Baldwin, 1990; NASDSE Educational Services Guidelines, 2006). The IDEA law itself does not use the terms "mainstreaming" or "full inclusion." These phrases emerged as states tried to interpret what the law required for their Deaf and hard-of-hearing students (NASDSE Educational Services Guidelines, 2006).
COED critiqued the education system for failing to recognize and utilize American Sign Language (ASL) and the Deaf community as vital resources for educating Deaf children. The report stated:
"Almost unrecognized is the legitimate status of American Sign Language (ASL) as a full-fledged native minority language to which all of the provisions of the Bilingual Education Act should apply. Also too seldom recognized is the need for a deaf child to have other deaf children as part of his or her peer group and to be exposed to deaf adults" (Toward Equality: Education of the Deaf, 1988, p. 9).
The COED made it clear that the educational status of Deaf children nationwide was unacceptable. The report called for fundamental changes in the provision of educational services to Deaf and hard-of-hearing students. These recommendations included adjustments to the application of the guidelines under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). COED expressed concern that states' interpretations of the IDEA law had led to too many Deaf and hard-of-hearing children being placed in mainstream public schools rather than in special schools or centers specifically designed for the Deaf. COED emphasized that Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) should focus more on educational content and ensuring that students understand the material being taught, rather than merely on placement options. Furthermore, COED emphasized the need to pay increased attention to Deaf and hard-of-hearing students who are not college-bound (Deseret News, March 21, 1988, p. A2).
The report requested that the U.S. Department of Education clarify the definition of "Least Restrictive Environment," as mandated by the IDEA (Baldwin, 1990; NASDSE Educational Services Guidelines, 2006). The IDEA law itself does not use the terms "mainstreaming" or "full inclusion." These phrases emerged as states tried to interpret what the law required for their Deaf and hard-of-hearing students (NASDSE Educational Services Guidelines, 2006).
COED critiqued the education system for failing to recognize and utilize American Sign Language (ASL) and the Deaf community as vital resources for educating Deaf children. The report stated:
"Almost unrecognized is the legitimate status of American Sign Language (ASL) as a full-fledged native minority language to which all of the provisions of the Bilingual Education Act should apply. Also too seldom recognized is the need for a deaf child to have other deaf children as part of his or her peer group and to be exposed to deaf adults" (Toward Equality: Education of the Deaf, 1988, p. 9).
Frank G. Bowe. Source: Deaf Life
On October 3, 1988, W. David Mortensen, president of the Utah Association of the Deaf (UAD), proposed that the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind (USDB) Institutional Council form a committee to review the report from the Commission on Education of the Deaf (COED). See his letter below. In response, USDB Superintendent Thomas S. Bannister appointed four Deaf individuals—W. David Mortensen, Lloyd H. Perkins, Ronald J. Nelson, and Dennis R. Platt—to serve on the 16-member committee, recognizing their expertise and contributions to Deaf education. Although President Mortensen felt that having only one-fourth representation of Deaf members was unfair, he accepted this arrangement to ensure diverse stakeholder input (UAD Bulletin, January 1989; UAD Bulletin, February 1989).
In addition to Deaf representatives, the COED Committee included a diverse range of stakeholders, such as USDB Superintendent Thomas S. Bannister, USDB teachers and staff, a representative for total communication, an oral communication representative, a special education representative, and a rehabilitation representative. They collaborated on reviewing the recommendations from "Toward Equality: Education of the Deaf: A Report to the President and the Congress of the United States."
The COED Report addressed several key topics, including preferred communication methods, linguistic needs, academic levels, learning styles, social needs, placement preferences, and family support. While the committee's recommendations aimed to influence state laws and practices, ongoing challenges persisted, highlighting the need for continued advocacy and policy adjustments to improve Deaf education in Utah.
The COED Committee met regularly to thoroughly review the COED Report's recommendations. They maintained accurate records and gathered input from various stakeholders. On August 25, 1989, they made their final recommendations to enhance Deaf education and services in Utah.
On September 7, 1989, the Institutional Council unanimously accepted all recommendations from the USDB committee, aiming to influence policies related to Deaf education. In October 1989, the USDB Institutional Council presented these recommendations to the Utah State Board of Education. However, despite the study and its recommendations, Utah's Deaf education policies remained unchanged, raising questions about the barriers to implementing the policies and the effectiveness of the review process (UAD Bulletin, October 1988). There was a significant disconnect between the recommendations and the existing policies.
For instance, the COED Committee recommended that the Utah State Board of Education recognize the Utah School for the Deaf as part of a continuum of education for Deaf students and establish specific standards for its on-campus programs. However, State Superintendent of Public Instruction James R. Moss explained that the school cannot meet COED's definition of a "center school" under Utah law due to legal and policy constraints. He noted that, as a state-funded institution, the Utah School for the Deaf offers a wide range of programs, including mainstreaming, beyond just residential options, as mentioned in his letter to the COED Committee. The existing policies created challenges in making and aligning recommendations.
Current regulations regarding the designation of resources limited what was available to Deaf students, thereby restricting their access to the Utah School for the Deaf. Advocates argued that amending these regulations could improve support and foster a more inclusive atmosphere for Deaf students on campus. Their efforts highlight the importance of advocacy, even in the face of resistance, a topic discussed by Dr. Robert G. Sanderson in his 1992 article in the UAD Bulletin, which is detailed in the section below.
In addition to Deaf representatives, the COED Committee included a diverse range of stakeholders, such as USDB Superintendent Thomas S. Bannister, USDB teachers and staff, a representative for total communication, an oral communication representative, a special education representative, and a rehabilitation representative. They collaborated on reviewing the recommendations from "Toward Equality: Education of the Deaf: A Report to the President and the Congress of the United States."
The COED Report addressed several key topics, including preferred communication methods, linguistic needs, academic levels, learning styles, social needs, placement preferences, and family support. While the committee's recommendations aimed to influence state laws and practices, ongoing challenges persisted, highlighting the need for continued advocacy and policy adjustments to improve Deaf education in Utah.
The COED Committee met regularly to thoroughly review the COED Report's recommendations. They maintained accurate records and gathered input from various stakeholders. On August 25, 1989, they made their final recommendations to enhance Deaf education and services in Utah.
On September 7, 1989, the Institutional Council unanimously accepted all recommendations from the USDB committee, aiming to influence policies related to Deaf education. In October 1989, the USDB Institutional Council presented these recommendations to the Utah State Board of Education. However, despite the study and its recommendations, Utah's Deaf education policies remained unchanged, raising questions about the barriers to implementing the policies and the effectiveness of the review process (UAD Bulletin, October 1988). There was a significant disconnect between the recommendations and the existing policies.
For instance, the COED Committee recommended that the Utah State Board of Education recognize the Utah School for the Deaf as part of a continuum of education for Deaf students and establish specific standards for its on-campus programs. However, State Superintendent of Public Instruction James R. Moss explained that the school cannot meet COED's definition of a "center school" under Utah law due to legal and policy constraints. He noted that, as a state-funded institution, the Utah School for the Deaf offers a wide range of programs, including mainstreaming, beyond just residential options, as mentioned in his letter to the COED Committee. The existing policies created challenges in making and aligning recommendations.
Current regulations regarding the designation of resources limited what was available to Deaf students, thereby restricting their access to the Utah School for the Deaf. Advocates argued that amending these regulations could improve support and foster a more inclusive atmosphere for Deaf students on campus. Their efforts highlight the importance of advocacy, even in the face of resistance, a topic discussed by Dr. Robert G. Sanderson in his 1992 article in the UAD Bulletin, which is detailed in the section below.
W. David Mortensen's Commission on Education of the Deaf to the USDB Institutional Council on October 3, 1988
W. David Mortensen's Commission on Education of the Deaf to the USDB Institutional Council on October 3, 1988
Dr. Robert G. Sanderson: Mainstreaming Is Not
the Answer for All Deaf Children
the Answer for All Deaf Children
Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, a 1936 graduate of the Utah School for the Deaf and a Council member representing the Utah Deaf community, reviewed the Council's two-page statement during the February 1992 meeting of the USDB Institutional Council of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind, known as the State Institute Resource. This statement emphasized the significant importance of mainstreaming students to the maximum extent possible. In January 1992, the Institutional Council endorsed this statement; however, Dr. Sanderson, a respected member, expressed his concerns about mainstreaming issues in the UAD Bulletin, which was published in February 1992. He stated that mainstreaming is not the answer for all Deaf children. He raised several critical issues regarding the practice and conduct of the Utah School for the Deaf, as listed below.
Dr. Sanderson argued against mainstreaming all Deaf children in the 1992 UAD Bulletin. As an educator and rehabilitation counselor, he worked with and advocated for hundreds of Deaf individuals. He witnessed firsthand the outcomes of various educational programs and philosophies, observing both the successes and failures of teenagers and adults. He assisted many in furthering their education and training, helping them secure jobs. Dr. Sanderson understood the emotional investment Deaf parents have in their children, recognizing their desire for a "normal" education in nearby schools, similar to that of their hearing peers. He noted that many parents, not just a few, realized that public school programs had consistently underserved their children, both educationally and socially, from the start. He emphasized the importance of individualized education plans, which can provide reassurance and confidence in the adaptability of the educational system.
- Practice of mainstreaming the majority of its Deaf students,
- Inappropriately biased educational placement, and
- Improper, biased, and one-sided educational information for parents that lacked a research based.
Dr. Sanderson argued against mainstreaming all Deaf children in the 1992 UAD Bulletin. As an educator and rehabilitation counselor, he worked with and advocated for hundreds of Deaf individuals. He witnessed firsthand the outcomes of various educational programs and philosophies, observing both the successes and failures of teenagers and adults. He assisted many in furthering their education and training, helping them secure jobs. Dr. Sanderson understood the emotional investment Deaf parents have in their children, recognizing their desire for a "normal" education in nearby schools, similar to that of their hearing peers. He noted that many parents, not just a few, realized that public school programs had consistently underserved their children, both educationally and socially, from the start. He emphasized the importance of individualized education plans, which can provide reassurance and confidence in the adaptability of the educational system.
Dr. Robert G. Sanderson. Photo: Robert L. Bonnell
Furthermore, Dr. Sanderson believed that Utah needs to make more efforts to investigate the outcomes of oral or total communication in mainstream programs. He observed that the term "research" raised concerns among school personnel and parents, and he was both amazed and dismayed that many seemed afraid of facts. He believed that conducting further research would improve our understanding of the programs at the Utah School for the Deaf. Emphasizing unbiased and comprehensive research can empower educators and parents, reassuring them that decisions are based on solid evidence. If research reveals that a program is experiencing difficulties—whether related to oral, total communication, or a mainstream model—the state will be better positioned to address and resolve these issues.
Robert R. Sanderson. 'Mainstreaming Is Not The Answer For All Deaf Children.' Source: UAD Bulletin, March 1992
Dr. Sanderson was clear that he does not dispute parents' rights to choose a program for their Deaf children, provided they have fair information. He strongly opposed improper, biased, and one-sided material lacking research support. He stressed the importance of parental choice, which can make parents feel respected and valued, knowing that their input is crucial in the education of Deaf children. He empathized with parents facing difficult decisions due to conflicting advice from so-called experts.
Dr. Sanderson referred to himself as a "mainstreamed failure" or "integrated failure." At the age of eleven, he received a diagnosis of spinal meningitis in seventh grade. He returned to his old class because there was no school for the deaf in Las Vegas, Nevada, at that time. Despite his classmates' and teachers' efforts, he was unable to overcome the obstacles. His teachers and principal recommended that he attend the Utah School for the Deaf in Ogden, Utah. He noted that his time at USD, in a residential setting from 1931 to 1936, motivated him to become a serious and disciplined student. Therefore, Dr. Sanderson believed that a Deaf child could have a positive educational experience if they received an education aligned with their natural abilities and perceptual positioning, along with the support of parents and teachers. He emphasized the importance of avoiding limiting the child by prolonging unsuitable situations once it becomes clear that the child is not thriving.
Dr. Sanderson referred to himself as a "mainstreamed failure" or "integrated failure." At the age of eleven, he received a diagnosis of spinal meningitis in seventh grade. He returned to his old class because there was no school for the deaf in Las Vegas, Nevada, at that time. Despite his classmates' and teachers' efforts, he was unable to overcome the obstacles. His teachers and principal recommended that he attend the Utah School for the Deaf in Ogden, Utah. He noted that his time at USD, in a residential setting from 1931 to 1936, motivated him to become a serious and disciplined student. Therefore, Dr. Sanderson believed that a Deaf child could have a positive educational experience if they received an education aligned with their natural abilities and perceptual positioning, along with the support of parents and teachers. He emphasized the importance of avoiding limiting the child by prolonging unsuitable situations once it becomes clear that the child is not thriving.
Robert G. Sanderson, Utah School for the Deaf Senior Class of 1936
Dr. Sanderson's recommendations align closely with those outlined by the 2007 Conference of Educational Administrators of Schools and Programs for the Deaf (CEASD). The CEASD emphasized that a "least restrictive environment" (LRE) should be based on each child's specific communication, language, and educational needs, rather than using a generic, "one-size-fits-all" approach.
The CEASD stressed the importance of offering a full continuum of alternative educational placements required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This includes special schools for Deaf and hard-of-hearing students. At the time, they raised concerns about a trend in the United States to eliminate special schools from the educational continuum, labeling it unacceptable and potentially harmful to a child's development. The CEASD believes this trend contradicts IDEA's intent
When people hear the term 'least restrictive environment,' they often presume it means placing a Deaf or hard-of-hearing student in a classroom with peers who do not have disabilities. However, LRE also encompasses creating a 'language-rich environment' as defined in the 2004 Reauthorization of IDEA, which the CEASD endorsed in its February 2007 position paper. This concept is vital in Deaf education because it ensures that the educational environment effectively supports each student's communication, language, and educational needs, fostering optimal learning and development.
In 1988, Dr. Stephen C. Baldwin, a former Total Communication Division curriculum coordinator for both the Utah School for the Deaf and the Outreach Program, noted that the Commission on Education of the Deaf ruled that the federal government, particularly the U.S. Department of Education, needed to clarify the concept of a 'least restrictive environment.' This call for clarity reflected ongoing policy debates and shaped the evolution of Deaf education. Dr. Baldwin's statement was significant, as it underscored the need for consistent understanding in Deaf education. The LRE concept has been highly debated in this field, with state schools for the Deaf often viewing public schools as the 'most restrictive environment' for their Deaf and hard-of-hearing students (Baldwin, 1990).
The CEASD and other organizations stress that communication should be central to educational decisions for Deaf students, including placement, thereby ensuring that environments are tailored to their linguistic needs and promoting successful outcomes.
The CEASD stressed the importance of offering a full continuum of alternative educational placements required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This includes special schools for Deaf and hard-of-hearing students. At the time, they raised concerns about a trend in the United States to eliminate special schools from the educational continuum, labeling it unacceptable and potentially harmful to a child's development. The CEASD believes this trend contradicts IDEA's intent
When people hear the term 'least restrictive environment,' they often presume it means placing a Deaf or hard-of-hearing student in a classroom with peers who do not have disabilities. However, LRE also encompasses creating a 'language-rich environment' as defined in the 2004 Reauthorization of IDEA, which the CEASD endorsed in its February 2007 position paper. This concept is vital in Deaf education because it ensures that the educational environment effectively supports each student's communication, language, and educational needs, fostering optimal learning and development.
In 1988, Dr. Stephen C. Baldwin, a former Total Communication Division curriculum coordinator for both the Utah School for the Deaf and the Outreach Program, noted that the Commission on Education of the Deaf ruled that the federal government, particularly the U.S. Department of Education, needed to clarify the concept of a 'least restrictive environment.' This call for clarity reflected ongoing policy debates and shaped the evolution of Deaf education. Dr. Baldwin's statement was significant, as it underscored the need for consistent understanding in Deaf education. The LRE concept has been highly debated in this field, with state schools for the Deaf often viewing public schools as the 'most restrictive environment' for their Deaf and hard-of-hearing students (Baldwin, 1990).
The CEASD and other organizations stress that communication should be central to educational decisions for Deaf students, including placement, thereby ensuring that environments are tailored to their linguistic needs and promoting successful outcomes.
The Deaf Schools: A Treasure Resource for the State
Lawrence M. Siegel, a special education lawyer, called state schools for the deaf a "treasure resource" in 2000. He called for recognition and funding for both residential and day schools for the Deaf as equitable placement options. Attorney Siegel emphasized their expertise in communication and language development, which is crucial to the success of Deaf children in a comprehensive, communication-rich academic environment (Siegel, 2000).
"The need and right to communicate
is the most fundamental of human rights.
To deny it is to harm the human spirit.
To foster communication is
to reveal all the possibilities of life."
Lawrence Siegel, J.D
is the most fundamental of human rights.
To deny it is to harm the human spirit.
To foster communication is
to reveal all the possibilities of life."
Lawrence Siegel, J.D
The Human Right to Language: Communication Access for Deaf Children written by Special Education Attorney Lawrence M. Siegel. Source: Gallaudet University Press
The Establishment of the Deaf Mentor Program
at the Utah School for the Deaf
at the Utah School for the Deaf
The Deaf Mentor Program, led by Dr. Thomas C. Clark and co-founded by Dr. Paula Pittman, was established in 1991 to improve early childhood education for Deaf children and support community needs. This initiative emerged during a time when Bilingual-Bicultural (Bi-Bi) education was gaining national attention, focusing primarily on school-aged children. Researchers from the SKI-HI Institute, including Dr. Clark, Dr. Pittman, and Dr. Sue Watkins, adopted Bi-Bi concepts to support families with Deaf or hard-of-hearing children from birth to five. They aimed to foster a bilingual atmosphere that integrates ASL and English to boost communication and cultural understanding.
In 1993, Dr. Clark secured a grant during his role as SKI-HI Institute director, allowing their Deaf Mentor Project to partner with the existing Parent Infant Program (PIP), which had been active at the Utah School for the Deaf since 1973. The program trained Deaf Mentors to assist families with Deaf children by sharing information about hearing loss and sign language, and by conducting public meetings to engage families. With 90% of Deaf children born to hearing parents, there was an urgent need to educate these parents about hearing loss and sign language, enabling them to make informed decisions regarding their children's education. Parent Advisors and teachers at the Utah School for the Deaf also received training related to the Deaf Mentor Project. Families receiving PIP services were invited to public meetings to learn more, resulting in 26 families expressing interest in Deaf Mentor services. These meetings highlighted the program's outreach and educational activities.
During the program's development, Dr. Robert G. Sanderson and a committee of Utah Deaf community members, including W. David Mortensen, Gene D. Stewart, and Darlene Stewart Cochran, collaborated to bring the vision to life. They reviewed applicants for the Deaf Mentor positions and rated each according to specific criteria. Information sessions attracted 77 applicants for these roles. Following a rigorous selection process, nine individuals were trained as the first Deaf Mentors in the country: Darlene Stewart Cochran, Nanette Hix, Denise Ivory, Heather Kendrick, Marlene Malm, Kristi Lee Mortensen, Rosa Maria Rathbun, Ricky Rose, and Paul Ruth.
In 1993, Dr. Clark secured a grant during his role as SKI-HI Institute director, allowing their Deaf Mentor Project to partner with the existing Parent Infant Program (PIP), which had been active at the Utah School for the Deaf since 1973. The program trained Deaf Mentors to assist families with Deaf children by sharing information about hearing loss and sign language, and by conducting public meetings to engage families. With 90% of Deaf children born to hearing parents, there was an urgent need to educate these parents about hearing loss and sign language, enabling them to make informed decisions regarding their children's education. Parent Advisors and teachers at the Utah School for the Deaf also received training related to the Deaf Mentor Project. Families receiving PIP services were invited to public meetings to learn more, resulting in 26 families expressing interest in Deaf Mentor services. These meetings highlighted the program's outreach and educational activities.
During the program's development, Dr. Robert G. Sanderson and a committee of Utah Deaf community members, including W. David Mortensen, Gene D. Stewart, and Darlene Stewart Cochran, collaborated to bring the vision to life. They reviewed applicants for the Deaf Mentor positions and rated each according to specific criteria. Information sessions attracted 77 applicants for these roles. Following a rigorous selection process, nine individuals were trained as the first Deaf Mentors in the country: Darlene Stewart Cochran, Nanette Hix, Denise Ivory, Heather Kendrick, Marlene Malm, Kristi Lee Mortensen, Rosa Maria Rathbun, Ricky Rose, and Paul Ruth.
Dr. Paula Pittman
The program's success motivated families who benefited from Deaf Mentor services to advocate for its continuation even after grant funding ended in 1995. Parents and members of the Utah Deaf community lobbied the legislature for ongoing funding, emphasizing its lasting impact. Nearly 200 parents, children, and Deaf community members gathered at the Utah State Capitol to advocate for continued funding. The Utah School for the Deaf recognized the children's language growth and accepted the Deaf Mentor program as part of their Parent Infant Program in 1996. Subsequently, the 1996 State Legislature approved funding for the Utah School for the Deaf to incorporate the Deaf Mentor program into its infant services. This transition resulted in the establishment of the Utah Deaf Mentor Program, ensuring its ongoing role in early childhood education for Deaf children.
Dr. Pittman believed that a Deaf person with experience in the original Deaf Mentor Project should lead the new program. As a result, they agreed to hire a qualified Deaf individual, and Dr. Petra M. Horn-Marsh became the first Deaf Mentor Specialist. The number of families served grew from 34 to 76 in just four years, reflecting the program's expanding reach. Several benefits became evident as families became more comfortable within the Utah Deaf community and became increasingly aware of educational options for their Deaf and hard-of-hearing children. As a positive outcome of this involvement, many Deaf Mentor families played essential leadership roles in establishing the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf, a bilingual-bicultural charter school for the Deaf in Salt Lake City, demonstrating the program's broader community impact.
The success of the program and the dedication of Deaf Mentors have been the backbone of this initiative for years (Paula Pittman, personal communication, January 8, 2009). Since then, the Deaf Mentor program has remained a fundamental service at the Utah School for the Deaf, ensuring ongoing support for families.
Dr. Pittman believed that a Deaf person with experience in the original Deaf Mentor Project should lead the new program. As a result, they agreed to hire a qualified Deaf individual, and Dr. Petra M. Horn-Marsh became the first Deaf Mentor Specialist. The number of families served grew from 34 to 76 in just four years, reflecting the program's expanding reach. Several benefits became evident as families became more comfortable within the Utah Deaf community and became increasingly aware of educational options for their Deaf and hard-of-hearing children. As a positive outcome of this involvement, many Deaf Mentor families played essential leadership roles in establishing the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf, a bilingual-bicultural charter school for the Deaf in Salt Lake City, demonstrating the program's broader community impact.
The success of the program and the dedication of Deaf Mentors have been the backbone of this initiative for years (Paula Pittman, personal communication, January 8, 2009). Since then, the Deaf Mentor program has remained a fundamental service at the Utah School for the Deaf, ensuring ongoing support for families.
Dr. Petra M. Horn-Marsh
Did You Know?
In 1995, the Deaf Mentor Project was honored with the Presidential Award from the Utah Association for the Deaf, acknowledging its significant contribution to empowering young Deaf children. The award was presented to Dr. Paula Pittman and the SKI-HI Institute.
Deaf and Hard of Hearing Child's Bill of Rights
In 1992, the Council of Organizational Representatives made a significant move by presenting a Deaf Child's Bill of Rights during its testimony to the Federal Congress. This pivotal moment marked the request for the incorporation of the Bill of Rights into the National Education of the Deaf Act (EDA). However, the federal government chose not to include this Bill of Rights in the EDA, leaving it up to each state to develop its own legislation (A Synopsis of the Bill of Rights for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children, 1997).
Dr. Joseph "Jay" Innes, an expert in Deaf Education from the National Association of the Deaf, held a workshop at the California School for the Deaf-Fremont in California. He aimed to assist any group interested in championing a Deaf Child's Bill of Rights in their home state. Dave Mortensen, then president of the Utah Association of the Deaf (UAD), quickly summoned a team: Bronwyn O'Hara, a hearing parent of three Deaf children; Stanley O'Neal, a UAD board member; Kristi Lee Mortensen, a Deaf education advocate; Janice Gillespie, a Deaf representative; and Kenneth L. Kinner, a Deaf parent of two Deaf children. They traveled to Fremont for a weekend training focused on strategies for navigating the state legislature and ensuring the Bill of Rights became law (UAD Bulletin, July 1995). Upon returning to Utah, the group attempted to introduce the Deaf Child's Bill of Rights into the legislature. Kristi Lee Mortensen later expressed that their difficulties and eventual failure stemmed from Utah's reluctance to embrace change (Kristi Lee Mortensen, personal communication, 2005).
Dr. Joseph "Jay" Innes, an expert in Deaf Education from the National Association of the Deaf, held a workshop at the California School for the Deaf-Fremont in California. He aimed to assist any group interested in championing a Deaf Child's Bill of Rights in their home state. Dave Mortensen, then president of the Utah Association of the Deaf (UAD), quickly summoned a team: Bronwyn O'Hara, a hearing parent of three Deaf children; Stanley O'Neal, a UAD board member; Kristi Lee Mortensen, a Deaf education advocate; Janice Gillespie, a Deaf representative; and Kenneth L. Kinner, a Deaf parent of two Deaf children. They traveled to Fremont for a weekend training focused on strategies for navigating the state legislature and ensuring the Bill of Rights became law (UAD Bulletin, July 1995). Upon returning to Utah, the group attempted to introduce the Deaf Child's Bill of Rights into the legislature. Kristi Lee Mortensen later expressed that their difficulties and eventual failure stemmed from Utah's reluctance to embrace change (Kristi Lee Mortensen, personal communication, 2005).
Dr. Joseph "Jay" Innes. Source: The Learning Center for the Deaf
As Chair of the UAD Education Committee, Kristi Lee led collaborative efforts to draft the Utah Deaf Child's Bill of Rights. The teamwork culminated in a comprehensive wish list that outlined desired inclusions for the legislation.
After the development of this Bill of Rights, it was introduced to the Utah legislature in 1996. However, it encountered significant opposition from the Utah School for the Deaf, the Utah State Office of Education, and the Legislative Coalition for People with Disabilities. These entities argued that the specifics of the bill were redundant, as the federal government had already mandated the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Other contributing factors to the bill's failure included Utah's strong tradition of oral education and funding challenges.
- Provide full and equal communication and language access;
- Offer a full range of educational placement options;
- Administer appropriate language assessments for Deaf and hard-of-hearing children;
- Ensure education alongside a sufficient number of peers who share the same language, age, and ability level;
- Provide opportunities for interaction with Deaf and hard-of-hearing adult role models;
- Ensure equal access to all services and programs within their schools;
- Guarantee the availability of qualified and certified personnel capable of communicating directly with Deaf and hard-of-hearing children;
- Affirm the Deaf and hard-of-hearing child's right to equal access to an appropriate education.
After the development of this Bill of Rights, it was introduced to the Utah legislature in 1996. However, it encountered significant opposition from the Utah School for the Deaf, the Utah State Office of Education, and the Legislative Coalition for People with Disabilities. These entities argued that the specifics of the bill were redundant, as the federal government had already mandated the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Other contributing factors to the bill's failure included Utah's strong tradition of oral education and funding challenges.
Kristi Lee Mortensen
In February 1997, several other groups expressed interest in participating in the Deaf Child's Bill of Rights legislation. The UAD Education Committee decided to allow these groups to review the Bill of Rights and engage in discussions (Mortensen, UAD Bulletin, February 1997). To facilitate this, the committee postponed introducing the bill to the Utah Legislature in 1997. Helen W. Post, president of the Utah Parent Center and mother of a Deaf daughter, Anne Post Fife, played a role in halting the Deaf Child's Bill of Rights after UAD had put in extensive work.
During a meeting of the UAD Education Committee, members questioned Helen about her decision to halt the bill. She explained that the UAD could not address all the necessary changes on its own. As a parent, she felt the responsibility was too enormous for one person to bear. Similarly, the Utah State Board of Education and the Utah State Office of Education could not manage the issue by themselves, nor could the legislature enact effective changes without collaboration. Helen stressed the importance of all these entities working together. Kristi Lee concurred, stating that obtaining 'buy-in' from various groups was essential. The legislature was unlikely to have passed the Deaf Child's Bill of Rights into law without a collective effort.
During a meeting of the UAD Education Committee, members questioned Helen about her decision to halt the bill. She explained that the UAD could not address all the necessary changes on its own. As a parent, she felt the responsibility was too enormous for one person to bear. Similarly, the Utah State Board of Education and the Utah State Office of Education could not manage the issue by themselves, nor could the legislature enact effective changes without collaboration. Helen stressed the importance of all these entities working together. Kristi Lee concurred, stating that obtaining 'buy-in' from various groups was essential. The legislature was unlikely to have passed the Deaf Child's Bill of Rights into law without a collective effort.
Helen W. Post, Director of Utah Parent Center. Source: YouTube
The following month, on March 15, 1997, the UAD held a conference on the Deaf Child's Bill of Rights. The presenters were Dr. Innes, Chairman of the NAD Deaf Education Committee, and G. Leon Curtis, the NAD Region IV representative (Nelson, UAD Bulletin, March 1997). Both focused on demonstrating how the Bill of Rights could benefit Deaf and hard-of-hearing children under current state laws. Meanwhile, Kristi Lee and the UAD Deaf Education Committee began working on their version of the bill. However, in the fall of 1997, Dr. Innes requested that the bill be put on hold due to the federal reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which took effect in June 1997 and included amendments that could contradict the UAD's bill proposal. It was necessary to study these amendments and their implications for children who are Deaf or hard-of-hearing. If the UAD had pushed the Deaf Child's Bill of Rights through the 1998 Legislative Session without this understanding, it could have caused complications. Kristi Lee and the UAD agreed to wait until the NAD determined how to interpret the reauthorization's effects on Deaf children, after which Dr. Innes could plan another training session. There was speculation that Gallaudet University would host training in 1998 (Mortensen, UAD Bulletin, October 1997, p. 4).
While these agencies believed that the IDEA addressed the language needs outlined in the Deaf Child's Bill of Rights, the law at that time did not consider language acquisition or preferred communication methods. The Utah State Office of Education and the Utah School for the Deaf argued that they were already providing an appropriate education for Deaf and hard-of-hearing children. Their united opposition ultimately persuaded legislators to take no action on the matter.
Kristi Lee observed that IEP teams had traditionally placed Deaf children in schools based primarily on their ability to hear and speak, a practice she referred to as the "Utah way." Numerous recent studies indicated significant issues arising from the incorrect placement of Deaf children. One consequence of these misguided placements was that many children reached adulthood requiring extensive support from mental health counselors. Often, these children lacked an adequate education, which hindered their ability to secure employment, resulting in their reliance on government assistance, such as Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Additionally, some children fell behind in developing communication skills due to insufficient placement that did not promote their language development (Mortensen, UAD Bulletin, February 2006).
Kristi Lee stated, "We already know that it is very difficult for a full-grown adult to acquire new learning compared with a very young person who is in a language-communication educational environment where they experience no obstacles in communication and learning" (Mortensen, UAD Bulletin, October 1997, p. 4). She felt that the Utah School for the Deaf viewed the Bill of Rights as a threat, not wanting to accept changes to their long-standing methods of teaching the Deaf. Did the Utah School for the Deaf realize the significant impact of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children's Bill of Rights, which would apply to every school system in the state, not just the state school? (Kristi Lee Mortensen, personal communication, 2006).
Following the 2003 legislative session, Dr. Lee Robinson, Superintendent of the Utah School for the Deaf, drafted a document outlining the Deaf Children's Bill of Rights. This document was completed on October 7, 2003. However, Kristi Lee pointed out that children and their families had access to only a limited number of these services. She advocated for the bill to be enacted through legislation rather than remaining merely a part of the school's mission (Kristi Lee Mortensen, personal communication, 2005). Below, the Utah School for the Deaf outlines the policy for the Deaf Children's Bill of Rights.
While these agencies believed that the IDEA addressed the language needs outlined in the Deaf Child's Bill of Rights, the law at that time did not consider language acquisition or preferred communication methods. The Utah State Office of Education and the Utah School for the Deaf argued that they were already providing an appropriate education for Deaf and hard-of-hearing children. Their united opposition ultimately persuaded legislators to take no action on the matter.
Kristi Lee observed that IEP teams had traditionally placed Deaf children in schools based primarily on their ability to hear and speak, a practice she referred to as the "Utah way." Numerous recent studies indicated significant issues arising from the incorrect placement of Deaf children. One consequence of these misguided placements was that many children reached adulthood requiring extensive support from mental health counselors. Often, these children lacked an adequate education, which hindered their ability to secure employment, resulting in their reliance on government assistance, such as Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Additionally, some children fell behind in developing communication skills due to insufficient placement that did not promote their language development (Mortensen, UAD Bulletin, February 2006).
Kristi Lee stated, "We already know that it is very difficult for a full-grown adult to acquire new learning compared with a very young person who is in a language-communication educational environment where they experience no obstacles in communication and learning" (Mortensen, UAD Bulletin, October 1997, p. 4). She felt that the Utah School for the Deaf viewed the Bill of Rights as a threat, not wanting to accept changes to their long-standing methods of teaching the Deaf. Did the Utah School for the Deaf realize the significant impact of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children's Bill of Rights, which would apply to every school system in the state, not just the state school? (Kristi Lee Mortensen, personal communication, 2006).
Following the 2003 legislative session, Dr. Lee Robinson, Superintendent of the Utah School for the Deaf, drafted a document outlining the Deaf Children's Bill of Rights. This document was completed on October 7, 2003. However, Kristi Lee pointed out that children and their families had access to only a limited number of these services. She advocated for the bill to be enacted through legislation rather than remaining merely a part of the school's mission (Kristi Lee Mortensen, personal communication, 2005). Below, the Utah School for the Deaf outlines the policy for the Deaf Children's Bill of Rights.
On January 13, 2006, Dr. Innes, then the Director of the Gallaudet Leadership Institute, returned to Utah to review the UAD's Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children's Bill of Rights. His presentation included an overview of Deaf education in the United States, with a specific focus on Utah. He discussed several critical issues that were being addressed nationwide:
Dr. Innes emphasized the importance of passing a Bill of Rights in Utah, citing that existing federal laws did not provide sufficient legal language to adequately support the needs of Deaf children. The bill needed to highlight the necessity of communication. The current proposal from the UAD only focused on accessibility without clearly defining specific needs. If well-written, the Deaf Child's Bill of Rights could help parents evaluate whether their child's educational placement is appropriate. This clarity would also enable the IEP team to better assist families (Mortensen, UAD Bulletin, February 2006).
Although parents of Deaf and hard-of-hearing children were eager to utilize the proposed bill aimed at expanding their children's learning environments, the Deaf Child's Bill ultimately fell through due to the complexities of the Deaf educational system in Utah (Kristi Lee Mortensen, personal communication, 2007). Nevertheless, this Bill of Rights has the potential to address the unique communication needs of each Deaf child, which will significantly influence their educational placements. Their preferred modes of communication and language will drive their instructional environments. This focus on individualized communication strategies is crucial for fostering an inclusive educational environment. By recognizing the diverse needs of these children, educators can design more effective learning experiences that promote both academic success and personal growth.
- Increasing language and communication access;
- Improving accessibility for Deaf and hard-of-hearing children to encourage free-flowing interactions with both Deaf and hearing peers; and
- Ensuring more certified educators in Deaf Education to create a supportive environment for Deaf and hard-of-hearing children.
Dr. Innes emphasized the importance of passing a Bill of Rights in Utah, citing that existing federal laws did not provide sufficient legal language to adequately support the needs of Deaf children. The bill needed to highlight the necessity of communication. The current proposal from the UAD only focused on accessibility without clearly defining specific needs. If well-written, the Deaf Child's Bill of Rights could help parents evaluate whether their child's educational placement is appropriate. This clarity would also enable the IEP team to better assist families (Mortensen, UAD Bulletin, February 2006).
Although parents of Deaf and hard-of-hearing children were eager to utilize the proposed bill aimed at expanding their children's learning environments, the Deaf Child's Bill ultimately fell through due to the complexities of the Deaf educational system in Utah (Kristi Lee Mortensen, personal communication, 2007). Nevertheless, this Bill of Rights has the potential to address the unique communication needs of each Deaf child, which will significantly influence their educational placements. Their preferred modes of communication and language will drive their instructional environments. This focus on individualized communication strategies is crucial for fostering an inclusive educational environment. By recognizing the diverse needs of these children, educators can design more effective learning experiences that promote both academic success and personal growth.
An Evolution of the ASL/English Bilingual
Teaching Method in Utah
Part IV
Written & Compiled by Jodi Christel Becker
Edited by Bronwyn O’Hara
Contributing Edited by Valerie G. Kinney and
Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz
Published in 2014
Updated in 2025
Teaching Method in Utah
Part IV
Written & Compiled by Jodi Christel Becker
Edited by Bronwyn O’Hara
Contributing Edited by Valerie G. Kinney and
Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz
Published in 2014
Updated in 2025
The Utah School for the Deaf Is Reluctant to Implement
the Bilingual/Bicultural Education
the Bilingual/Bicultural Education
As previously mentioned in Part III, total communication programs gained popularity in the United States during the 1970s because educators of Deaf children believed that this approach addressed their visual needs. However, questions arose about whether these children were truly acquiring language. In response, linguists and educators from the United States, Sweden, France, and Denmark began researching to determine if bilingual education could be effectively applied to the education of Deaf children. Consequently, a consensus emerged among these professionals that the natural sign language of Deaf communities should be utilized in educational settings for Deaf children. Furthermore, they emphasized the importance of hiring more culturally Deaf teachers. These teachers would not only serve as language models but also as positive role models for the Deaf students under their guidance. Their native use of the language could bridge the acquisition gap that hearing parents or teachers could not fill.
In 1981, a major victory was achieved when Sweden passed a law granting Deaf individuals the right to a bilingual education. In this context, schools for Deaf children adopted Swedish Sign Language as their primary language of instruction (Erting et al., 1989). Sweden was the first country to officially recognize Swedish Sign Language as the first language of Deaf individuals. Ten years later, in 1991, the Danish government followed suit, mandating Danish Sign Language as the language of instruction for their Deaf students (Timmermans, 2003).
In the United States, the bilingual-bicultural movement was initiated in 1989 at The Learning Center for the Deaf, a private school located in Framingham, Massachusetts. This marked the beginning of a gradual transformation in Deaf education. In 1990, the Indiana School for the Deaf became the first state school to implement a bilingual program. Other state schools for the Deaf soon followed this trend. This Bi-Bi movement, as it has come to be known, emerged after 30 years of research and documentation underscoring the necessity of using American Sign Language (ASL) in the classroom for Deaf children, serving both as the language of instruction and as a means for Deaf children to learn written English (Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz, personal communication, March 29, 2010).
While these positive changes were taking place in Deaf education in the early 1990s, the Utah School for the Deaf continued to refuse the bilingual approach. Their existing programs were categorized as oral and total communication programs, which had been in place for many decades. However, these methods did not address the concerns of the Utah Deaf community regarding literacy among Deaf students. Local Deaf community members questioned whether these two mutually exclusive programs truly met their language and communication needs. At that time, parents enrolling their Deaf children at the Utah School for the Deaf had to choose between the two options, and many were unhappy with these choices (Butters, Deseret News, July 17, 1995, p. A1). As research on American Sign Language gained prominence, Deaf professionals, Utah Deaf community members, and some parents began asking, "Why couldn't [ASL] be used [in Deaf classrooms]?" (Bronwyn O'Hara, personal communication, December 1, 2007).
Among those families was the O'Hara family. In 1992 and 1995, the O'Hara family requested that the Utah School for the Deaf implement a bilingual-bicultural program for their child (Butters, Deseret News, July 17, 1995, p. A1). This initiative was fueled by Bronwyn O'Hara, the hearing mother, who had read research studies and engaged with local Deaf community leaders from 1987 to 1995. With their assistance, she began to realize that both the oral and total communication approaches had significant linguistic shortcomings. She was determined that her Deaf children should not attend school without access to language. Bronwyn shared the literature she gathered on the Bi-Bi approach, the importance of ASL, Deaf adult language models, Deaf role models, and Deaf peers with the Utah School for the Deaf administrators. She also established the Support Group for Deaf Education to disseminate this information among other parents. Steven W. Noyce, the program director, labeled her as an extremist and a zealot for her efforts. He actively discouraged other parents from getting in touch with her.
In 1981, a major victory was achieved when Sweden passed a law granting Deaf individuals the right to a bilingual education. In this context, schools for Deaf children adopted Swedish Sign Language as their primary language of instruction (Erting et al., 1989). Sweden was the first country to officially recognize Swedish Sign Language as the first language of Deaf individuals. Ten years later, in 1991, the Danish government followed suit, mandating Danish Sign Language as the language of instruction for their Deaf students (Timmermans, 2003).
In the United States, the bilingual-bicultural movement was initiated in 1989 at The Learning Center for the Deaf, a private school located in Framingham, Massachusetts. This marked the beginning of a gradual transformation in Deaf education. In 1990, the Indiana School for the Deaf became the first state school to implement a bilingual program. Other state schools for the Deaf soon followed this trend. This Bi-Bi movement, as it has come to be known, emerged after 30 years of research and documentation underscoring the necessity of using American Sign Language (ASL) in the classroom for Deaf children, serving both as the language of instruction and as a means for Deaf children to learn written English (Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz, personal communication, March 29, 2010).
While these positive changes were taking place in Deaf education in the early 1990s, the Utah School for the Deaf continued to refuse the bilingual approach. Their existing programs were categorized as oral and total communication programs, which had been in place for many decades. However, these methods did not address the concerns of the Utah Deaf community regarding literacy among Deaf students. Local Deaf community members questioned whether these two mutually exclusive programs truly met their language and communication needs. At that time, parents enrolling their Deaf children at the Utah School for the Deaf had to choose between the two options, and many were unhappy with these choices (Butters, Deseret News, July 17, 1995, p. A1). As research on American Sign Language gained prominence, Deaf professionals, Utah Deaf community members, and some parents began asking, "Why couldn't [ASL] be used [in Deaf classrooms]?" (Bronwyn O'Hara, personal communication, December 1, 2007).
Among those families was the O'Hara family. In 1992 and 1995, the O'Hara family requested that the Utah School for the Deaf implement a bilingual-bicultural program for their child (Butters, Deseret News, July 17, 1995, p. A1). This initiative was fueled by Bronwyn O'Hara, the hearing mother, who had read research studies and engaged with local Deaf community leaders from 1987 to 1995. With their assistance, she began to realize that both the oral and total communication approaches had significant linguistic shortcomings. She was determined that her Deaf children should not attend school without access to language. Bronwyn shared the literature she gathered on the Bi-Bi approach, the importance of ASL, Deaf adult language models, Deaf role models, and Deaf peers with the Utah School for the Deaf administrators. She also established the Support Group for Deaf Education to disseminate this information among other parents. Steven W. Noyce, the program director, labeled her as an extremist and a zealot for her efforts. He actively discouraged other parents from getting in touch with her.
Bronwyn O'Hara
Steven W. Noyce served as the program director for the Utah Schools for the Deaf, overseeing all Deaf children outside of Salt Lake City and Ogden. He maintained that the goal of USD's programs was "to teach [Deaf students] English, not ASL." Steven further stated, "Schools need to teach English because that is what will determine a Deaf person's success" (Butters, Deseret News, July 17, 1995, p. A1). He informed Bronwyn that the materials she provided over the eight years they lived in Utah filled three very thick file folders. Nevertheless, despite the research studies she presented, he remained firm in his opposition to using American Sign Language (ASL) in the classroom.
Bronwyn expressed her disappointment, stating, "I am unhappy with the school system and have tried to figure out the right framework to solve this problem." In her view, "the administration has a personal bias against the idea of a visual language. The school is definitely not a 'barrier-free environment" (Butters, Deseret News, July 17, 1995, p. A1). At that time, USD Superintendent David West acknowledged that the new bilingual/bicultural approach would address a gap in the school's program; however, he was not yet ready to implement it (Romboy, Deseret News, April 13, 1992, p. B1). Two of the critical challenges at this time were that 1) few current USD teachers knew ASL, and 2) USD teachers and administrators were not trained in the bilingual-bicultural approach for educating Deaf children (Romboy, Deseret News, April 13, 1992, p. B1).
Bronwyn expressed her disappointment, stating, "I am unhappy with the school system and have tried to figure out the right framework to solve this problem." In her view, "the administration has a personal bias against the idea of a visual language. The school is definitely not a 'barrier-free environment" (Butters, Deseret News, July 17, 1995, p. A1). At that time, USD Superintendent David West acknowledged that the new bilingual/bicultural approach would address a gap in the school's program; however, he was not yet ready to implement it (Romboy, Deseret News, April 13, 1992, p. B1). Two of the critical challenges at this time were that 1) few current USD teachers knew ASL, and 2) USD teachers and administrators were not trained in the bilingual-bicultural approach for educating Deaf children (Romboy, Deseret News, April 13, 1992, p. B1).
Steven W. Noyce
To highlight the benefits of ASL for Deaf students, a local Deaf professional, Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz, shared her insights with the Utah School for the Deaf through reports presented in person to the Institutional Council, the governing body of the Utah School for the Deaf. Among many points, she explained that Deaf children who learn ASL as their first language develop enhanced language skills, which help them learn English more effectively. She stated, "A Deaf child does need exposure to English early in life, but his/her visual needs overwhelm what English can offer" (Butters, Deseret News, July 17, 1995, p. A1). Despite this influx of information, the Utah School for the Deaf administration did not take any steps toward implementing this fundamental program change.
Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz
During the early 1990s, while the O'Hara family was advocating for their child, Ellen, a handful of schools for the deaf in the nation began adopting the bilingual/bicultural educational approach (Romboy, Deseret News, April 13, 1992, p. B1). In 1995, like many other families before them, the O'Hara family moved to Indiana to enroll Ellen in a school that embraced the bilingual/bicultural approach. This "two-language" strategy made more sense to them than the options available in Utah. Below is a summary written by Bronwyn O'Hara about her struggle with the Utah School for the Deaf's educational system during the eight years they lived in Utah from 1987 to 1995.
The O'Hara Family’s Story
It was June 1987 when we, the O’Hara family, moved from Idaho to Utah. We had one deaf pre-teen daughter, one hard of hearing son, two hearing children, and a deaf toddler. Educational access to sign language for the two deaf children was not available through the Utah public school system. Turning to the school for the deaf as the logical place to get appropriate services, it was quite a shock to find inadequate services.
For our 2-year-old daughter, I requested a signing Parent-Infant Program (PIP) advisor and was told there were none. Skip Reese, the PIP director at the time, told me that this program, though inadequate at present, was a lot better than it had been 20 years ago, as if that made the inadequacies okay. I called Thomas Clark, who founded the SKI-HI program that provided the basis for the USD PIP program. I wanted him to help me get the services my daughter needed. He counseled me to watch the movie Persuasion and apply the principles therein to my deaf toddler’s situation. That really was no help.
For my seventh grader, there was no signing classroom nor could I get an interpreter via her Individual Educational Plan (IEP). The answers I received from USD made our family feel that our deaf children would not receive the education they needed.
How could knowing that the current program, bad as it was and better than the supposedly horrible program of twenty years ago, help with our children’s educational needs of today? Our deaf children needed these better services now. They couldn’t stop growing up in order to wait for educational improvements.
As a result of these insufficient answers, our family went in search of the local Deaf community. We became well acquainted with many of the active deaf leaders in both Provo and Salt Lake City. Thus, began our years of being tutored and mentored in Deaf culture and language by the Deaf community. This continued for the next 8 years. In the Provo-Orem area, the most influential person for us was Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz. The second most influential person was Julie Gergely Eldredge. Without them, we could never have understood our deaf children’s needs or the principles of how language is acquired.
In the meantime, as I interfaced with the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind (USDB), I eagerly shared the educational articles and research studies that I’d received from the Deaf community leaders/professionals. I thought the school would welcome this information. I had the belief that the administration would want to improve their school and increase the options they offered to parents. I attended innumerable USDB Institutional Council meetings, copied and mailed on-going information to my children’s program coordinator, Steve Noyce, and used my children’s IEP meetings as a forum to discuss these articles with the educators of the deaf and ask for services. For a brief period I convinced Noyce to allow an ASL story time for the Total Communication classroom in Orem once a week. To fund this, I wrote and got a grant from a local Art organization to pay the storytellers, Nannette Hix and Julie Eldredge. However, when the grant came to an end, the story time was discontinued. Steve told me that USD didn’t want to have to pay the storytellers, even though the storytellers could have legitimately been classified as educational specialists. Nor did USD want to apply for another grant so that the ASL story time could continue. I was very disappointed in Steve’s lack of support. I felt he didn’t see the value in deaf artisans being showcased for their storytelling talent nor see that the children and teachers in the classroom were benefiting from this experience.
In the 8 years we lived in Utah, I wrote innumerable letters to Utah State legislators, members of the Utah State Board of Education, the Utah State Special Education director, Steve Kukic, and USDB’s Institutional Council members. I advocated for sign language classes for parents, which was possible through the IEP but was never organized nor offered by the deaf school. At my insistence but right before our family moved out-of-state, USDB did put in a toll-free phone line so parents could call the school without paying long-distance fees. This WATTS line was discontinued after about a year.
After 5 years of striving to work with those in charge of the USD program and seeing that the deaf educational programs remained inadequate, I decided it was time to network with other parents. The more parents asking for the same thing could create a need that the school administrators would have to address. One person could easily be ignored but not a whole group of parents. I created the Support Group for Deaf Education with the intent to help other parents become as informed about the educational needs of their deaf child (ren) as I had become. I set up organized parent meetings, guest speakers, and a monthly newsletter. After the first year and a half of holding meetings, I discontinued the meetings and only mailed out the monthly newsletter. The meetings and newsletters helped parents learn how to tell stories to their children, teach their children manners, understand the inequality of the deaf academic program in Utah, what the term ‘bilingual’ meant, how a child learns language, how the brain develops, what hearing parents could learn from deaf parents, and some reviews of Utah Special Education law. In order to reach as many parents of deaf children as possible in the state, I wrote an article for publication in the Utah Parent Center newsletter (Utah Parent Center April 1991) explaining the purpose of this parent group. I wanted parents to know of this resource.
The Utah Association of the Deaf (UAD) validated my efforts by sending me to an educational conference in Nebraska and also to a workshop held at the California School for the Deaf-Fremont. The one at CSD-Fremont was put on by Gallaudet University and conducted by Dr. Jay Innes. During the educational overhaul Utah went through in the late 1980’s, I was able to bring information from this conference/workshop to the Utah COED committee during their public forums. This information focused on a deaf child’s need for language, deaf peers, deaf adult role-models, and direct access to teachers without the use of interpreters. This was to highlight a deaf child’s need for American Sign Language (ASL) in the classroom.
I found that USDB Superintendent David West was sympathetic to my requests for change and for language-based access to education. However, he was unable to overhaul the state school system. He couldn’t overcome the entrenched Oral/Aural and Total Communication programs. He didn’t stay long in Utah, leaving for a position at the California School for the Deaf-Fremont where ASL was the language of instruction. I felt it was a sad day when we lost Superintendent West. I believe he could have started the process of change and would have been a valuable advocate.
As I gained more understanding about ASL and the need for the deaf school to have competent instructors, during one of my daughter’s IEP meetings, I asked Steve Noyce for my daughter’s classroom instruction to be via ASL. He told me that there were no teachers to hire. I asked him why didn’t the deaf school tell the local universities what kind of teachers to train so USDB could hire them? He explained that the University of Utah only trained teachers in the Oral method. I don’t remember what he said about Utah State University. Steve didn’t advocate for any changes nor mention how such changes could be brought about.
As the years went by, all of these discussions seemed to fall on ‘deaf’ hearing ears. Our family began to feel desperate. Our children’s prime learning years were being lost in the environment of the Utah State Deaf School where American Sign Language was not the language of instruction. The programs at USD were either Total Communication or Oral/Aural. Those two were not expected to be successful with a deaf child. We felt a sense of urgency that was not shared by our program coordinator, Steve Noyce. Our oldest deaf daughter, Molly, was high school age and the younger one, Ellen, was beginning early elementary school. It was a time of decision for our family.
I made one last attempt to find a solution by consulting with the Legal Center for the Handicapped in Salt Lake City. I wanted to find out how to defend my deaf children’s right to language. Hearing parents don’t think about whether their children have language in school. In comparison the deaf school children were being deprived of language in both the Oral/Aural program and the Total Communication program. I thought this Center could help me pull together a lawsuit to force USDB to provide my children a language of instruction that was a bonafide language rather than Signing Exact English (S.E.E.), Conceptually Accurate Signed English (C.A.S.E.) or Pidgin Signed English (P.S.E.). American Sign Language was a true language that was also compatible with their deafness. I reasoned that if hearing school peers have access to their language of spoken/written English in the classroom, why couldn’t my children have access to their language of sign in their classroom too? My deaf children’s language was American Sign Language, which was not being supplied by the school. In fact, USD was withholding their language from them. In the Total Communication setting, the school was using a variety of non-language signing modalities for instruction. These modalities could not provide educational access and should be judged as inappropriate in achieving any of the educational IEP goals for my deaf children. My reasoning was that it would be through American Sign Language that my children would be able to receive a free and appropriate education (FAPE) that was guaranteed in law.
The lawyer at the Legal Center was sympathetic but he explained they did not and could not get involved with a ‘language’ issue. That had never been brought up before. Their specific work was focused on workplace discrimination, not with civil rights or educational discrimination in the school setting. At the time, I knew of no other legal resource that would take the school to court over this issue of determining what was an appropriate educational language for deaf school children, specifically my deaf children.
My desperation mounted. In my discussions with Steve Noyce, I came to realize that USD was governed by two basic educational principles. The two principles used as criteria for meeting deaf children’s classroom needs were 1) the child had to fail before the school was mandated by law to change that child’s program and 2) the course material offered at USD was remedial-based only. With two very bright deaf children to educate, there was no possibility of failing. They would compensate for the language deprivations they encountered in the program. There was nothing else I could use to create a need for change. In desperation, we decided our daughters had to attend a school outside of Utah. The California School for the Deaf-Fremont had the highest academic rating among the Utah Deaf community and was suggested as a good place to send our daughters. This was arranged.
Molly, a high school junior, was back in Utah in a month. Not wanting to strike up frustrating dealings with USDB again, I approached the Special Education director, Tom Hudson, in our local Nebo school district. He refused to provide a sign language interpreter in Molly‘s classroom. The public school didn’t have to provide any special services, if the student wasn’t failing. This sounded similar to what the deaf school told me. I was surprised at this but countered his refusal by saying I would send Molly to school without her hearing aid. Then she would need a sign-language interpreter. He said he could take the family to court for withholding from Molly what she needed for academic success. It struck me as such a double standard! The school could withhold what Molly needed but I couldn’t! He implied that he could successfully make the charges of willfully withholding something for Molly's educational needs be upheld in court because we, the parents, had already been giving Molly the use of a hearing aid. I wasn’t sure where my legal standing was in the face of that threat. Instead I asked Tom what was the legal age in Utah for taking the GED (General Equivalency Degree) exam. He told me age 17.
Finding that the local community college, Utah Valley Community College, provided sign language interpreters without a fuss, Molly decided to take the GED on her 17th birthday, two months later, and she moved right into the college realm of education.
Ellen remained at the California School for the Deaf-Fremont for her 2nd and 3rd grade years. Looking back, Ellen says this educational opportunity was a ’turning-point’ for her. Her ‘eyes were opened’ to realizing that she was smart and that she had potential. But two years was all we could manage, and Ellen was brought back to USD for 4th grade. One and a half frustrating years later, it was at this juncture that we decided to look for a school that had a Bilingual-Bicultural philosophy already in place. We couldn’t wait for Utah to ‘catch up’ with the advances in Deaf Education. The Bi-Bi philosophy combined the educational instruction in ASL with the teaching of written English, as well as including options for spoken English. We wanted Ellen to have the education, language models, and peer interactions that she deserved. Just as her hearing peers had public-funded education in their ’native’ language, she should too. Based on all the research findings along with the level of success we wanted for our youngest daughter, the school that seemed to meet Ellen’s needs best was the Indiana School for the Deaf in Indianapolis, Indiana. The family moved in February 1995 while Ellen was in 5th grade.
Over the intervening years of 1995-2009, there have been some strides of improvement at USD, notably the addition of the Deaf Mentor program as part of the Parent-Infant Program (PIP) and the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf under USDB
Bronwyn O’Hara
December 1, 2007
Second editing-August 27, 2009
Third editing-January 17, 2013
Fourth Editing-September 27, 2013
Fifth Editing-May 2014
For our 2-year-old daughter, I requested a signing Parent-Infant Program (PIP) advisor and was told there were none. Skip Reese, the PIP director at the time, told me that this program, though inadequate at present, was a lot better than it had been 20 years ago, as if that made the inadequacies okay. I called Thomas Clark, who founded the SKI-HI program that provided the basis for the USD PIP program. I wanted him to help me get the services my daughter needed. He counseled me to watch the movie Persuasion and apply the principles therein to my deaf toddler’s situation. That really was no help.
For my seventh grader, there was no signing classroom nor could I get an interpreter via her Individual Educational Plan (IEP). The answers I received from USD made our family feel that our deaf children would not receive the education they needed.
How could knowing that the current program, bad as it was and better than the supposedly horrible program of twenty years ago, help with our children’s educational needs of today? Our deaf children needed these better services now. They couldn’t stop growing up in order to wait for educational improvements.
As a result of these insufficient answers, our family went in search of the local Deaf community. We became well acquainted with many of the active deaf leaders in both Provo and Salt Lake City. Thus, began our years of being tutored and mentored in Deaf culture and language by the Deaf community. This continued for the next 8 years. In the Provo-Orem area, the most influential person for us was Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz. The second most influential person was Julie Gergely Eldredge. Without them, we could never have understood our deaf children’s needs or the principles of how language is acquired.
In the meantime, as I interfaced with the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind (USDB), I eagerly shared the educational articles and research studies that I’d received from the Deaf community leaders/professionals. I thought the school would welcome this information. I had the belief that the administration would want to improve their school and increase the options they offered to parents. I attended innumerable USDB Institutional Council meetings, copied and mailed on-going information to my children’s program coordinator, Steve Noyce, and used my children’s IEP meetings as a forum to discuss these articles with the educators of the deaf and ask for services. For a brief period I convinced Noyce to allow an ASL story time for the Total Communication classroom in Orem once a week. To fund this, I wrote and got a grant from a local Art organization to pay the storytellers, Nannette Hix and Julie Eldredge. However, when the grant came to an end, the story time was discontinued. Steve told me that USD didn’t want to have to pay the storytellers, even though the storytellers could have legitimately been classified as educational specialists. Nor did USD want to apply for another grant so that the ASL story time could continue. I was very disappointed in Steve’s lack of support. I felt he didn’t see the value in deaf artisans being showcased for their storytelling talent nor see that the children and teachers in the classroom were benefiting from this experience.
In the 8 years we lived in Utah, I wrote innumerable letters to Utah State legislators, members of the Utah State Board of Education, the Utah State Special Education director, Steve Kukic, and USDB’s Institutional Council members. I advocated for sign language classes for parents, which was possible through the IEP but was never organized nor offered by the deaf school. At my insistence but right before our family moved out-of-state, USDB did put in a toll-free phone line so parents could call the school without paying long-distance fees. This WATTS line was discontinued after about a year.
After 5 years of striving to work with those in charge of the USD program and seeing that the deaf educational programs remained inadequate, I decided it was time to network with other parents. The more parents asking for the same thing could create a need that the school administrators would have to address. One person could easily be ignored but not a whole group of parents. I created the Support Group for Deaf Education with the intent to help other parents become as informed about the educational needs of their deaf child (ren) as I had become. I set up organized parent meetings, guest speakers, and a monthly newsletter. After the first year and a half of holding meetings, I discontinued the meetings and only mailed out the monthly newsletter. The meetings and newsletters helped parents learn how to tell stories to their children, teach their children manners, understand the inequality of the deaf academic program in Utah, what the term ‘bilingual’ meant, how a child learns language, how the brain develops, what hearing parents could learn from deaf parents, and some reviews of Utah Special Education law. In order to reach as many parents of deaf children as possible in the state, I wrote an article for publication in the Utah Parent Center newsletter (Utah Parent Center April 1991) explaining the purpose of this parent group. I wanted parents to know of this resource.
The Utah Association of the Deaf (UAD) validated my efforts by sending me to an educational conference in Nebraska and also to a workshop held at the California School for the Deaf-Fremont. The one at CSD-Fremont was put on by Gallaudet University and conducted by Dr. Jay Innes. During the educational overhaul Utah went through in the late 1980’s, I was able to bring information from this conference/workshop to the Utah COED committee during their public forums. This information focused on a deaf child’s need for language, deaf peers, deaf adult role-models, and direct access to teachers without the use of interpreters. This was to highlight a deaf child’s need for American Sign Language (ASL) in the classroom.
I found that USDB Superintendent David West was sympathetic to my requests for change and for language-based access to education. However, he was unable to overhaul the state school system. He couldn’t overcome the entrenched Oral/Aural and Total Communication programs. He didn’t stay long in Utah, leaving for a position at the California School for the Deaf-Fremont where ASL was the language of instruction. I felt it was a sad day when we lost Superintendent West. I believe he could have started the process of change and would have been a valuable advocate.
As I gained more understanding about ASL and the need for the deaf school to have competent instructors, during one of my daughter’s IEP meetings, I asked Steve Noyce for my daughter’s classroom instruction to be via ASL. He told me that there were no teachers to hire. I asked him why didn’t the deaf school tell the local universities what kind of teachers to train so USDB could hire them? He explained that the University of Utah only trained teachers in the Oral method. I don’t remember what he said about Utah State University. Steve didn’t advocate for any changes nor mention how such changes could be brought about.
As the years went by, all of these discussions seemed to fall on ‘deaf’ hearing ears. Our family began to feel desperate. Our children’s prime learning years were being lost in the environment of the Utah State Deaf School where American Sign Language was not the language of instruction. The programs at USD were either Total Communication or Oral/Aural. Those two were not expected to be successful with a deaf child. We felt a sense of urgency that was not shared by our program coordinator, Steve Noyce. Our oldest deaf daughter, Molly, was high school age and the younger one, Ellen, was beginning early elementary school. It was a time of decision for our family.
I made one last attempt to find a solution by consulting with the Legal Center for the Handicapped in Salt Lake City. I wanted to find out how to defend my deaf children’s right to language. Hearing parents don’t think about whether their children have language in school. In comparison the deaf school children were being deprived of language in both the Oral/Aural program and the Total Communication program. I thought this Center could help me pull together a lawsuit to force USDB to provide my children a language of instruction that was a bonafide language rather than Signing Exact English (S.E.E.), Conceptually Accurate Signed English (C.A.S.E.) or Pidgin Signed English (P.S.E.). American Sign Language was a true language that was also compatible with their deafness. I reasoned that if hearing school peers have access to their language of spoken/written English in the classroom, why couldn’t my children have access to their language of sign in their classroom too? My deaf children’s language was American Sign Language, which was not being supplied by the school. In fact, USD was withholding their language from them. In the Total Communication setting, the school was using a variety of non-language signing modalities for instruction. These modalities could not provide educational access and should be judged as inappropriate in achieving any of the educational IEP goals for my deaf children. My reasoning was that it would be through American Sign Language that my children would be able to receive a free and appropriate education (FAPE) that was guaranteed in law.
The lawyer at the Legal Center was sympathetic but he explained they did not and could not get involved with a ‘language’ issue. That had never been brought up before. Their specific work was focused on workplace discrimination, not with civil rights or educational discrimination in the school setting. At the time, I knew of no other legal resource that would take the school to court over this issue of determining what was an appropriate educational language for deaf school children, specifically my deaf children.
My desperation mounted. In my discussions with Steve Noyce, I came to realize that USD was governed by two basic educational principles. The two principles used as criteria for meeting deaf children’s classroom needs were 1) the child had to fail before the school was mandated by law to change that child’s program and 2) the course material offered at USD was remedial-based only. With two very bright deaf children to educate, there was no possibility of failing. They would compensate for the language deprivations they encountered in the program. There was nothing else I could use to create a need for change. In desperation, we decided our daughters had to attend a school outside of Utah. The California School for the Deaf-Fremont had the highest academic rating among the Utah Deaf community and was suggested as a good place to send our daughters. This was arranged.
Molly, a high school junior, was back in Utah in a month. Not wanting to strike up frustrating dealings with USDB again, I approached the Special Education director, Tom Hudson, in our local Nebo school district. He refused to provide a sign language interpreter in Molly‘s classroom. The public school didn’t have to provide any special services, if the student wasn’t failing. This sounded similar to what the deaf school told me. I was surprised at this but countered his refusal by saying I would send Molly to school without her hearing aid. Then she would need a sign-language interpreter. He said he could take the family to court for withholding from Molly what she needed for academic success. It struck me as such a double standard! The school could withhold what Molly needed but I couldn’t! He implied that he could successfully make the charges of willfully withholding something for Molly's educational needs be upheld in court because we, the parents, had already been giving Molly the use of a hearing aid. I wasn’t sure where my legal standing was in the face of that threat. Instead I asked Tom what was the legal age in Utah for taking the GED (General Equivalency Degree) exam. He told me age 17.
Finding that the local community college, Utah Valley Community College, provided sign language interpreters without a fuss, Molly decided to take the GED on her 17th birthday, two months later, and she moved right into the college realm of education.
Ellen remained at the California School for the Deaf-Fremont for her 2nd and 3rd grade years. Looking back, Ellen says this educational opportunity was a ’turning-point’ for her. Her ‘eyes were opened’ to realizing that she was smart and that she had potential. But two years was all we could manage, and Ellen was brought back to USD for 4th grade. One and a half frustrating years later, it was at this juncture that we decided to look for a school that had a Bilingual-Bicultural philosophy already in place. We couldn’t wait for Utah to ‘catch up’ with the advances in Deaf Education. The Bi-Bi philosophy combined the educational instruction in ASL with the teaching of written English, as well as including options for spoken English. We wanted Ellen to have the education, language models, and peer interactions that she deserved. Just as her hearing peers had public-funded education in their ’native’ language, she should too. Based on all the research findings along with the level of success we wanted for our youngest daughter, the school that seemed to meet Ellen’s needs best was the Indiana School for the Deaf in Indianapolis, Indiana. The family moved in February 1995 while Ellen was in 5th grade.
Over the intervening years of 1995-2009, there have been some strides of improvement at USD, notably the addition of the Deaf Mentor program as part of the Parent-Infant Program (PIP) and the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf under USDB
Bronwyn O’Hara
December 1, 2007
Second editing-August 27, 2009
Third editing-January 17, 2013
Fourth Editing-September 27, 2013
Fifth Editing-May 2014
Deaf student Toni Ekenstam gets auditory training from Steven Noyce, a teacher of the deaf. Toni is taught to lip read and communicate with her own voice, one of several methods used to teach deaf children at the Utah School for the Deaf. Source: Deseret News, March 8, 1973. Deseret News Photo by Chief Photographer Don Groyston
Did You Know?
When Bronwyn O'Hara was labeled an extremist and a zealot by Steven W. Noyce, she was not the only one affected by his remarks. One parent remarked, "There has been a concerted effort by many members of the Utah School for the Deaf administrative staff to prevent parents from networking, to keep parents in conflict with one another, and to keep parents uninformed about the current findings in Deaf Education" (UAD Bulletin, February 1996, p. 12).
Section I: The Development of the
ASL/English Bilingual Education in Utah
ASL/English Bilingual Education in Utah
The Creation of the Utah Deaf Bilingual and the
Bicultural Conference Led to the Establishment
of the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf
Bicultural Conference Led to the Establishment
of the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf
The 1997 Utah Deaf Bilingual and Bicultural Conference was a major victory in establishing the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf. This pivotal event was driven by the collaborative efforts of the Utah Deaf community, spearheaded by Shirley Hortie Platt, a committed Deaf Mentor in the Parent Infant Program (PIP) at the Utah School for the Deaf. The PIP plays a crucial role in supporting families with Deaf children, helping them to address the unique challenges involved in raising a Deaf child. Shirley was vital in organizing the conference and assisting families with Deaf children. Their unified determination stemmed from concerns about the inadequacy of Deaf education at the Utah School for the Deaf, where students were not achieving satisfactory academic outcomes in either specialized or mainstream educational contexts.
These sentiments were echoed in 1977 by Gene D. Stewart, a Child of Deaf Adults and a vocational rehabilitation counselor, who described the state of Deaf education to the Utah State Board of Education as being in the "Dark Ages" (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, March 26, 1977). Gene emphasized the critical need for reform, advocating for improved resources and training for educators to effectively support Deaf students. He warned that, without significant changes, these students would continue to face obstacles that impede their academic and social growth.
In response to these challenges, the Utah Association for the Deaf supported Shirley's initiative to create the Utah Deaf Bilingual and Bicultural Conference. The terms "bilingual and bicultural" highlight the importance of recognizing and promoting both American Sign Language (ASL) and English, as well as Deaf culture, in Deaf children's education. Shirley chaired the conference held on April 25–26, 1997, at the Eccles Conference Center in Ogden, Utah, supervised by Dr. Petra M. Horn-Marsh, the director of the Deaf Mentor program (UAD Bulletin, June 1997; Shirley Hortie Platt, personal communication, November 7, 2008).
This conference marked a significant turning point for the Deaf community, enhancing understanding of Deaf children's cultural and educational needs. Participants engaged in invaluable discussions, sharing insights and strategies to shape future educational practices and promote inclusivity within the Deaf community.
These sentiments were echoed in 1977 by Gene D. Stewart, a Child of Deaf Adults and a vocational rehabilitation counselor, who described the state of Deaf education to the Utah State Board of Education as being in the "Dark Ages" (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, March 26, 1977). Gene emphasized the critical need for reform, advocating for improved resources and training for educators to effectively support Deaf students. He warned that, without significant changes, these students would continue to face obstacles that impede their academic and social growth.
In response to these challenges, the Utah Association for the Deaf supported Shirley's initiative to create the Utah Deaf Bilingual and Bicultural Conference. The terms "bilingual and bicultural" highlight the importance of recognizing and promoting both American Sign Language (ASL) and English, as well as Deaf culture, in Deaf children's education. Shirley chaired the conference held on April 25–26, 1997, at the Eccles Conference Center in Ogden, Utah, supervised by Dr. Petra M. Horn-Marsh, the director of the Deaf Mentor program (UAD Bulletin, June 1997; Shirley Hortie Platt, personal communication, November 7, 2008).
This conference marked a significant turning point for the Deaf community, enhancing understanding of Deaf children's cultural and educational needs. Participants engaged in invaluable discussions, sharing insights and strategies to shape future educational practices and promote inclusivity within the Deaf community.
Shirley Hortie Platt
Her strong desire for change drove Shirley to take the lead in organizing the conference. She was deeply troubled by the large number of Deaf children in Utah who struggled to communicate effectively, the lack of progress in the Parent Infant Program, and the undervaluation of Deaf mentors' contributions. Despite facing patronizing attitudes from many hearing teachers and administrators at the Utah School for the Deaf, Shirley remained determined. She recognized that the community needed to act to bring about real change (Shirley Hortie Platt, personal communication, November 7, 2008). To address these issues, she convened meetings with Deaf leaders and advocates to brainstorm effective solutions. Together, they developed strategies to ensure the Deaf Mentors' voices were heard and included in the program, creating a more inclusive environment for all families involved.
'Bi-Bi Conference a Big Hit.' Source: UAD Bulletin, June 1997
The conference was an outstanding success, bringing together approximately 400 participants, many of whom traveled from out of state. The insights of distinguished presenters greatly enriched the discussions. Notable speakers included Dr. Lawrence "Larry" Fleischer, Department Chair of Deaf Studies at California State University-Northridge, who discussed Deaf identity; Dr. Martina J. "MJ" Bienvenu, Director of the Language and Culture Center in Gaithersburg, Maryland, who focused on Deaf culture; Dr. Marlon "Lon" Kuntze from the University of California, Berkeley, who delved into language topics; and Dr. Joseph "Jay" Innes from Gallaudet University, who shared his expertise in Deaf education. Representatives from the Indiana School for the Deaf, including Diane Hazel Jones, David Geeslin, and Rebecca Pardee, shared their experience in establishing a bilingual-bicultural program (UAD Bulletin, June 1997). The discussions emphasized the need to create an inclusive environment that values both linguistic and cultural diversity within the Deaf community. This collaborative effort aimed to enhance educational outcomes and foster a deeper understanding of Deaf identity among students and educators alike.
Overall, the conference provided an unprecedented platform for shifting mindsets about Deaf individuals and fostered a more inclusive perspective that appreciates the value of Deaf people. This paradigm shift was more than just a goal; it represented a hopeful vision for a more inclusive and understanding society.
Overall, the conference provided an unprecedented platform for shifting mindsets about Deaf individuals and fostered a more inclusive perspective that appreciates the value of Deaf people. This paradigm shift was more than just a goal; it represented a hopeful vision for a more inclusive and understanding society.
'Utah Deaf Bi-Bi Conference.' Source: UAD Bulletin, June 1997
Did You Know?
In January 1992, USDB Superintendent David West, along with his five school program coordinators, traveled to visit several institutions: the California School for the Deaf in Fremont, the California School for the Deaf in Riverside, a program in Belmont, California, and the Idaho State School for the Deaf in Gooding, Idaho. The purpose of this visit was to observe their bilingual programs. For the complete article, see the UAD Bulletin from February 1992.
The Creation of a Bilingual
and Bicultural Committee
and Bicultural Committee
During the Utah Association for the Deaf (UAD) conference on June 13–14, 1997, a significant event occurred when Dennis R. Platt, the husband of Shirlie Hortie Platt—who had just been elected as the president of the UAD and was a member of the USDB Institutional Council—established the Bilingual and Bicultural Committee. Additionally, W. David Samuelsen, a UAD member, proposed the appointment of Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz as the chair of this committee. Minnie Mae is a highly respected figure in the Deaf community, a professionally qualified advocate for ASL/English bilingual education, and a Deaf parent of three Deaf children. The UAD approved David Samuelsen's proposal, resulting in a significant change to the Deaf education landscape (David Samuelsen, personal communication, July 26, 2016).
The committee's advocacy for ASL/English bilingual education had a positive impact on the community, providing hope for a brighter future in Deaf education. This initiative promotes cultural identity and enhances communication skills for Deaf students, enabling them to thrive academically and socially. As a result, more families are becoming aware of the benefits of bilingual education, fostering a supportive environment for Deaf children to succeed.
The committee's advocacy for ASL/English bilingual education had a positive impact on the community, providing hope for a brighter future in Deaf education. This initiative promotes cultural identity and enhances communication skills for Deaf students, enabling them to thrive academically and socially. As a result, more families are becoming aware of the benefits of bilingual education, fostering a supportive environment for Deaf children to succeed.
Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz
Minnie Mae was inspired by the 1997 Utah Deaf Bilingual and Bicultural Conference, which motivated her to contribute further when she became chair of the Bi-Bi Committee. In her 1990 paper, "Exciting Developments in Deaf Education," she expressed her admiration for the Indiana School for the Deaf's adoption of a bilingual-bicultural approach. It is no surprise that she later co-founded the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf (JMS), which she helped establish in 1999. Since its inception, JMS has become a model of optimism and innovation in Deaf education, creating an environment where students can thrive in both their linguistic and cultural identities. Minnie Mae's commitment to enhancing educational opportunities for Deaf students has inspired countless others to advocate for similar initiatives across Ogden, Springville, and St. George, Utah.
Throughout their campaign, the UAD committee strategically used the term 'Bi-Bi,' shorthand for 'bilingual-bicultural,' to emphasize their vision of incorporating both ASL and English in Deaf children's education. They aimed to highlight the importance of integrating Deaf culture into their educational experience (Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz, personal communication, March 29, 2010). This approach fosters a deeper understanding of both languages and promotes a sense of identity and belonging among Deaf students. By advocating for Bi-Bi education, the UAD committee aimed to create a more inclusive and empowering environment for future generations.
Throughout their campaign, the UAD committee strategically used the term 'Bi-Bi,' shorthand for 'bilingual-bicultural,' to emphasize their vision of incorporating both ASL and English in Deaf children's education. They aimed to highlight the importance of integrating Deaf culture into their educational experience (Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz, personal communication, March 29, 2010). This approach fosters a deeper understanding of both languages and promotes a sense of identity and belonging among Deaf students. By advocating for Bi-Bi education, the UAD committee aimed to create a more inclusive and empowering environment for future generations.
The Bi-Bi Committee Meets
USDB Superintendent Lee Robinson
USDB Superintendent Lee Robinson
One of the main goals of the committee was to explore introducing bilingual-bicultural education at the Utah School for the Deaf, which previously offered only oral and total communication options (UAD Bulletin, July 1999; Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz, personal communication, April 23, 2011). On March 30, 1998, committee leaders Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz and Jeff Allen, who is the father of a Deaf daughter, met with Superintendent Dr. Lee Robinson and Assistant Superintendent Joseph DiLorenzo of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind. They felt that this approach would greatly benefit Deaf students, especially after the Utah State Legislature passed Senate Bill 42 in 1994, which recognized American Sign Language (ASL) as a language. This recognition, alongside the 1997 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) that included ASL in defining "native language" for Deaf students, created an opportune moment for advocacy. The committee believed that adopting a Bi-Bi educational model would enhance language acquisition and cultural identity among Deaf students, creating a more supportive and effective learning environment.
However, Superintendent Dr. Lee Robinson and Assistant Superintendent Joseph DiLorenzo rejected the proposal to include bilingual-bicultural education in the curriculum, basically responding with, "No thanks and good luck" (Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz, personal communication, 2010). Despite this rejection, the Utah Deaf community and parents of Deaf children remained steadfast in their support of the Bi-Bi committee (UAD Bulletin, May 1988). This strong support reassured the committee of the community's commitment to advocating for educational reforms that benefit Deaf students, instilling hope for the future of Deaf education. The Bi-Bi committee continued to explore alternative methods for integrating ASL into the curriculum, firmly believing in the importance of bilingual education for enhancing language acquisition and cultural awareness.
However, Superintendent Dr. Lee Robinson and Assistant Superintendent Joseph DiLorenzo rejected the proposal to include bilingual-bicultural education in the curriculum, basically responding with, "No thanks and good luck" (Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz, personal communication, 2010). Despite this rejection, the Utah Deaf community and parents of Deaf children remained steadfast in their support of the Bi-Bi committee (UAD Bulletin, May 1988). This strong support reassured the committee of the community's commitment to advocating for educational reforms that benefit Deaf students, instilling hope for the future of Deaf education. The Bi-Bi committee continued to explore alternative methods for integrating ASL into the curriculum, firmly believing in the importance of bilingual education for enhancing language acquisition and cultural awareness.
Dr. Lee Robinson
The Utah Charter Schools Act Leads to the
Formation of the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf
Formation of the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf
The Bi-Bi Committee held regular meetings every two weeks. Over time, more hearing parents began to attend these meetings. Their increasing participation demonstrates a growing awareness of the importance of providing Deaf children with the best possible education. The Deaf community in Utah supported this cause, recognizing that Deaf children would become the future leaders of the Utah Association of the Deaf. The committee's primary objective was to establish or identify a program or school that educates Deaf students using the "Bi-Bi" approach (Mortensen, UAD Bulletin, June 1998; Wilding-Diaz, UAD Bulletin, June 1999). This approach emphasizes bilingualism in both ASL and English, ensuring that Deaf students receive a comprehensive education that respects their language and culture. The committee believed that by fostering this bilingual language environment, they could empower Deaf students to thrive academically and socially.
During its work, the Bi-Bi Committee learned of a charter school bill that the Utah State Legislature was considering. This prompted the committee to focus its efforts on supporting the passage of legislation that would allow for the establishment of charter schools in the state. Ultimately, the Utah Legislature passed the Utah Charter Schools Act at the end of the 1998 legislative session. This act provided the legal framework necessary for the creation of charter schools, including the one proposed by the Bi-Bi Committee (Utah Charter Schools Act, 1998; Wilding-Diaz, UAD Bulletin, June 1999). This new legislation allowed communities greater flexibility in meeting the needs of their students, paving the way for innovative educational options. Because of this, a number of charter schools started to open up all over the state. Each one was meant to meet certain educational needs and serve a wide range of students.
In May 1998, the Bi-Bi Committee took an essential step by contacting Governor Mike Leavitt's Office and the Utah State Office of Education to apply for a charter school for the deaf. As an opportune time came, in June 1998, the committee initiated the development of a charter school proposal, which the Utah State Board of Education later approved. The mission of this new charter school was to promote ASL as the primary language of communication and instruction. The Bi-Bi Committee submitted their application for Utah Charter Schools for the 1998-1999 academic year on July 17, 1998 (Utah Charter Schools Application 1998-1999, July 17, 1998). The application outlined the vision for a bilingual-bicultural education model, aiming to foster both American Sign Language and English proficiency among students. This innovative approach sought to create an inclusive learning environment that celebrated Deaf culture while equipping students with essential communication skills.
On July 29, 1998, the Utah State Board of Education approved the Bi-Bi educational option, establishing a new standard in Deaf education. This official recognition marks significant progress for Deaf children. Tuacahn High School for the Performing Arts was the first school to receive this approval, followed by a proposal from the Bi-Bi Committee. In November of that year, the Utah Board of Education prepared to approve applications from six additional schools (UAD Bulletin, September 1998). These developments highlight a growing commitment to inclusive education, allowing Deaf students to thrive in an environment that respects both ASL and English. As a result, many educators began to explore innovative teaching methods tailored to meet the diverse needs of their students.
Co-founders Minnie Mae Wilding-Díaz and Jeff Allen collaborated to achieve a vital goal: the establishment of the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf. This public charter school began operations in 1999, driven by their shared vision and commitment to Deaf education. Since its founding, the school has focused on creating an inclusive environment that emphasizes both American Sign Language (ASL) and English, ensuring that students become proficient in both languages. This bilingual approach improves communication skills and enhances the cultural identity of Deaf children, empowering them to succeed academically and socially.
During its work, the Bi-Bi Committee learned of a charter school bill that the Utah State Legislature was considering. This prompted the committee to focus its efforts on supporting the passage of legislation that would allow for the establishment of charter schools in the state. Ultimately, the Utah Legislature passed the Utah Charter Schools Act at the end of the 1998 legislative session. This act provided the legal framework necessary for the creation of charter schools, including the one proposed by the Bi-Bi Committee (Utah Charter Schools Act, 1998; Wilding-Diaz, UAD Bulletin, June 1999). This new legislation allowed communities greater flexibility in meeting the needs of their students, paving the way for innovative educational options. Because of this, a number of charter schools started to open up all over the state. Each one was meant to meet certain educational needs and serve a wide range of students.
In May 1998, the Bi-Bi Committee took an essential step by contacting Governor Mike Leavitt's Office and the Utah State Office of Education to apply for a charter school for the deaf. As an opportune time came, in June 1998, the committee initiated the development of a charter school proposal, which the Utah State Board of Education later approved. The mission of this new charter school was to promote ASL as the primary language of communication and instruction. The Bi-Bi Committee submitted their application for Utah Charter Schools for the 1998-1999 academic year on July 17, 1998 (Utah Charter Schools Application 1998-1999, July 17, 1998). The application outlined the vision for a bilingual-bicultural education model, aiming to foster both American Sign Language and English proficiency among students. This innovative approach sought to create an inclusive learning environment that celebrated Deaf culture while equipping students with essential communication skills.
On July 29, 1998, the Utah State Board of Education approved the Bi-Bi educational option, establishing a new standard in Deaf education. This official recognition marks significant progress for Deaf children. Tuacahn High School for the Performing Arts was the first school to receive this approval, followed by a proposal from the Bi-Bi Committee. In November of that year, the Utah Board of Education prepared to approve applications from six additional schools (UAD Bulletin, September 1998). These developments highlight a growing commitment to inclusive education, allowing Deaf students to thrive in an environment that respects both ASL and English. As a result, many educators began to explore innovative teaching methods tailored to meet the diverse needs of their students.
Co-founders Minnie Mae Wilding-Díaz and Jeff Allen collaborated to achieve a vital goal: the establishment of the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf. This public charter school began operations in 1999, driven by their shared vision and commitment to Deaf education. Since its founding, the school has focused on creating an inclusive environment that emphasizes both American Sign Language (ASL) and English, ensuring that students become proficient in both languages. This bilingual approach improves communication skills and enhances the cultural identity of Deaf children, empowering them to succeed academically and socially.
Jeff Allen, JMS Co-founder
In September 1998, the Bi-Bi Committee established plans to open a new school in the fall of 1999 (UAD Bulletin, September 1998). Before the school opened, the committee proposed three names to honor significant figures in the Deaf community: the Alice Cogswell School, the George Veditz School, and the Jean Massieu School. Each name held historical significance within the community. After conducting a vote, the committee announced that the school would be named after Jean Massieu, a highly respected figure in the Deaf community (Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz, personal communication, March 29, 2010). Jean Massieu was known for his advocacy and contributions to Deaf education, inspiring generations of Deaf individuals. The selection of his name honored his legacy and emphasized the school's commitment to fostering a rich understanding of Deaf culture and history.
Jean Massieu was a remarkable figure in Deaf education whose influence extended far beyond France. He attracted many notable visitors, including princes, philosophers, and even the Pope, all of whom were eager to learn from him. One of his students, Laurent Clerc, a Deaf individual who co-founded the first Deaf school in the United States—the American School for the Deaf in Hartford, Connecticut—in 1817, was greatly influenced by Massieu's teachings and mentorship. Loida R. Canlas from Gallaudet University's Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education Center highlights Massieu's linguistic expertise, which led to the creation of an English-French dictionary in 1808. His successful students, many of whom directed schools for Deaf children in other countries, are a testament to his global impact (UAD Bulletin, June 1998). Jean Massieu's legacy of education and advocacy for the Deaf community continues to resonate to this day, inspiring new generations of educators and learners. The principles he and his students, such as Laurent Clerc, established laid the foundation for modern Deaf education, emphasizing bilingualism and direct communication accessibility. These ideals continue to motivate today's educators and students.
The Utah Charter Schools Act requires all charter schools to operate as nonprofit organizations. In 1998, Utah Deaf Education and Literacy, Inc. (UDEAL), was established as a distinct nonprofit entity separate from the Utah Association for the Deaf. UDEAL's main objective was to create, manage, and oversee a new charter school alongside the goal of fundraising (UAD Bulletin, September 1998; Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz, personal communication, March 29, 2010). Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz highlighted the crucial need for an inclusive educational setting that addresses the needs of Deaf and hard-of-hearing students. By emphasizing bilingualism in both ASL and English, UDEAL sought to improve literacy and communication skills, ultimately increasing accessibility and opportunities for all students. This approach aimed not only to empower Deaf and hard-of-hearing students but also to foster cultural awareness and respect among all learners, enriching the overall educational experience. Through innovative teaching strategies and community involvement, UDEAL envisioned a dynamic school environment where diversity was celebrated and every student could flourish.
Jean Massieu was a remarkable figure in Deaf education whose influence extended far beyond France. He attracted many notable visitors, including princes, philosophers, and even the Pope, all of whom were eager to learn from him. One of his students, Laurent Clerc, a Deaf individual who co-founded the first Deaf school in the United States—the American School for the Deaf in Hartford, Connecticut—in 1817, was greatly influenced by Massieu's teachings and mentorship. Loida R. Canlas from Gallaudet University's Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education Center highlights Massieu's linguistic expertise, which led to the creation of an English-French dictionary in 1808. His successful students, many of whom directed schools for Deaf children in other countries, are a testament to his global impact (UAD Bulletin, June 1998). Jean Massieu's legacy of education and advocacy for the Deaf community continues to resonate to this day, inspiring new generations of educators and learners. The principles he and his students, such as Laurent Clerc, established laid the foundation for modern Deaf education, emphasizing bilingualism and direct communication accessibility. These ideals continue to motivate today's educators and students.
The Utah Charter Schools Act requires all charter schools to operate as nonprofit organizations. In 1998, Utah Deaf Education and Literacy, Inc. (UDEAL), was established as a distinct nonprofit entity separate from the Utah Association for the Deaf. UDEAL's main objective was to create, manage, and oversee a new charter school alongside the goal of fundraising (UAD Bulletin, September 1998; Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz, personal communication, March 29, 2010). Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz highlighted the crucial need for an inclusive educational setting that addresses the needs of Deaf and hard-of-hearing students. By emphasizing bilingualism in both ASL and English, UDEAL sought to improve literacy and communication skills, ultimately increasing accessibility and opportunities for all students. This approach aimed not only to empower Deaf and hard-of-hearing students but also to foster cultural awareness and respect among all learners, enriching the overall educational experience. Through innovative teaching strategies and community involvement, UDEAL envisioned a dynamic school environment where diversity was celebrated and every student could flourish.
Utah Deaf Education and Literacy, Inc. (UDEAL), which governed the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf from 1998 to 2005
Did You Know?
On August 19, 1998, the Bi-Bi Committee convened and selected seven individuals to serve on the Board of Utah Deaf Education and Literacy, Inc. (UDEAL). They would operate under the guidance of co-administrators Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz and Jeff Allen. The members chosen for the board were:
* Indicates individuals who are Deaf. (UAD Bulletin, September 1998)
- Marla Broetz*
- Pattie Dawson
- Stephen Ehrlich*
- Brad Houck*
- Billy and Heather* Kendrick
- Sarah Peterson
- Jim and Tracie Wintch
* Indicates individuals who are Deaf. (UAD Bulletin, September 1998)
Kristi Lee Mortensen: "Raising a Child Requires a Village"
During the late 1990s, Deaf individuals in Utah were concerned about the state of Deaf education. In May 1998, Kristi Lee Mortensen published Part 1 of "The Deaf's Desires" in the UAD Bulletin, urging the Deaf community to become actively involved in addressing educational shortcomings. She quoted First Lady Hillary Clinton's adaptation of the well-known African proverb, "It takes a village to raise a child." Here, "village" refers to the Utah Deaf community, underscoring the need for collaboration between the Deaf community and hearing parents of Deaf children. Kristi Lee believed that community involvement was essential to improving the quality of education for Deaf children in Utah. She called on the Deaf community to unite and work with parents who want equitable education for their Deaf children.
In Part 2, Kristi Lee stressed the importance of Deaf adults as role models for Deaf students. She described how community members could volunteer in schools, offering inspiration and support. She encouraged the Deaf community to participate actively in educational settings to enhance learning experiences for Deaf children.
Reflecting on her own educational experiences in the 1970s, Kristi Lee recalled how the Utah Deaf community worked to establish a total communication program at the Utah School for the Deaf. She noted changes in technology and the growing recognition of ASL and Deaf culture. Kristi Lee argued for incorporating these elements into Utah's education program for Deaf children, pointing out the potential benefits of ASL integration for academic and social growth.
In her final segment, Part 3, Kristi Lee emphasized the importance of setting high expectations for Deaf children to nurture future leaders. She asserted that when the Deaf community, parents, and teachers align on inclusive goals, Deaf children gain the confidence to thrive and contribute to society, inspiring future generations. This focus on the leadership potential of Deaf children calls for ongoing community support and advocacy (Mortensen, UAD Bulletin, May 1998).
In Part 2, Kristi Lee stressed the importance of Deaf adults as role models for Deaf students. She described how community members could volunteer in schools, offering inspiration and support. She encouraged the Deaf community to participate actively in educational settings to enhance learning experiences for Deaf children.
Reflecting on her own educational experiences in the 1970s, Kristi Lee recalled how the Utah Deaf community worked to establish a total communication program at the Utah School for the Deaf. She noted changes in technology and the growing recognition of ASL and Deaf culture. Kristi Lee argued for incorporating these elements into Utah's education program for Deaf children, pointing out the potential benefits of ASL integration for academic and social growth.
In her final segment, Part 3, Kristi Lee emphasized the importance of setting high expectations for Deaf children to nurture future leaders. She asserted that when the Deaf community, parents, and teachers align on inclusive goals, Deaf children gain the confidence to thrive and contribute to society, inspiring future generations. This focus on the leadership potential of Deaf children calls for ongoing community support and advocacy (Mortensen, UAD Bulletin, May 1998).
Kristi Lee Mortensen
The Jean Massieu School of the Deaf
Opens Its Doors
Opens Its Doors
After receiving approval from the Utah State Office of Education, the Bi-Bi Committee, comprised of dedicated individuals with expertise in Deaf education, began the process of establishing the charter school. Their efforts included finding a suitable location, securing additional funding, selecting a curriculum, hiring teachers, and purchasing supplies, among other tasks (UAD Bulletin, September 1998). Meanwhile, the UDEAL Board assumed various responsibilities, including fundraising, program development, preparing for Individualized Education Plan meetings, resolving transportation issues, managing building and site concerns, and addressing technology-related matters. The committee and the UDEAL Board closely collaborated to meet the students' needs as the charter school took shape. This partnership strengthened their initiatives and created a sense of community among families, educators, and supporters of Deaf education.
On August 29, 1999, the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf opened its doors to 21 students, ranging from preschool to third grade. Since then, JMS has expanded its program by adding one grade each year, and it now offers education from pre-kindergarten through 12th grade. The school is committed to ensuring complete language accessibility in both American Sign Language and English (Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz, personal communication, March 29, 2010). This emphasis on bilingual education helped students do well in school and make friends, which was a great way for them to learn about themselves and how to communicate. As JMS continued to grow, it remained dedicated to promoting inclusivity and empowering Deaf students to reach their full potential.
Despite operating as an independent Bi-Bi charter school for six years, JMS has demonstrated remarkable resilience by relying on donations and state funding tied to student enrollment. Unfortunately, the state funding has been insufficient, leading JMS to face financial challenges. The school has nevertheless persisted in offering high-quality instruction. However, the Utah School for the Deaf hesitated to introduce the ASL/English bilingual program to parents and students, which replaced the former bilingual-bicultural option. Additionally, the Parent Infant Program at the Utah School for the Deaf and its staff failed to recognize JMS as a viable option for families seeking educational opportunities in Utah. They incorrectly categorized it as a school for students with low academic abilities or those needing to catch up. This misunderstanding limited the choices available to families and undermined the potential benefits of the JMS program. Consequently, the comprehensive support and resources that JMS could provide to improve their children's educational experiences remained unknown to many parents.
On August 29, 1999, the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf opened its doors to 21 students, ranging from preschool to third grade. Since then, JMS has expanded its program by adding one grade each year, and it now offers education from pre-kindergarten through 12th grade. The school is committed to ensuring complete language accessibility in both American Sign Language and English (Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz, personal communication, March 29, 2010). This emphasis on bilingual education helped students do well in school and make friends, which was a great way for them to learn about themselves and how to communicate. As JMS continued to grow, it remained dedicated to promoting inclusivity and empowering Deaf students to reach their full potential.
Despite operating as an independent Bi-Bi charter school for six years, JMS has demonstrated remarkable resilience by relying on donations and state funding tied to student enrollment. Unfortunately, the state funding has been insufficient, leading JMS to face financial challenges. The school has nevertheless persisted in offering high-quality instruction. However, the Utah School for the Deaf hesitated to introduce the ASL/English bilingual program to parents and students, which replaced the former bilingual-bicultural option. Additionally, the Parent Infant Program at the Utah School for the Deaf and its staff failed to recognize JMS as a viable option for families seeking educational opportunities in Utah. They incorrectly categorized it as a school for students with low academic abilities or those needing to catch up. This misunderstanding limited the choices available to families and undermined the potential benefits of the JMS program. Consequently, the comprehensive support and resources that JMS could provide to improve their children's educational experiences remained unknown to many parents.
Did You Know?
The Utah Association for the Deaf (UAD) initially worked closely with its Bi-Bi Committee until Utah Deaf Education and Literacy, Inc. (UDEAL) was formed to manage the new charter school. Because UAD and UDEAL were two separate nonprofit organizations, UDEAL had to separate itself from UAD. UDEAL continued to send representatives to UAD meetings, informing them about JMS. This process provided the way to keep the Utah Deaf community connected to the progress and needs of the new charter Deaf school (Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz, personal communication, March 29, 2010).
Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz and Jeff Allen were co-administrators at JMS. Minnie Mae was the in-house person responsible for working with teachers, curriculum, and personnel issues, while Jeff interfaced with the Utah State Office of Education's charter school committee and other educators and legislators as needed. Minnie Mae and Jeff never received any pay for their hours of work.
To acknowledge Minnie Mae and Jeff's talents and hours of hard work, UAD awarded them both its prestigious Golden Hand Award at the Open House at Jean Massieu School on October 20, 1999. This is UAD's highest honor, which recognizes the substantial contributions of individual(s) or organization(s) to the betterment of Utah's Deaf community (UAD Bulletin, November 1999).
Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz and Jeff Allen were co-administrators at JMS. Minnie Mae was the in-house person responsible for working with teachers, curriculum, and personnel issues, while Jeff interfaced with the Utah State Office of Education's charter school committee and other educators and legislators as needed. Minnie Mae and Jeff never received any pay for their hours of work.
To acknowledge Minnie Mae and Jeff's talents and hours of hard work, UAD awarded them both its prestigious Golden Hand Award at the Open House at Jean Massieu School on October 20, 1999. This is UAD's highest honor, which recognizes the substantial contributions of individual(s) or organization(s) to the betterment of Utah's Deaf community (UAD Bulletin, November 1999).
Support for the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf
The Utah Deaf community came together to support the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf by donating funds to purchase essential school supplies, such as crayons, pencils, scissors, and erasers. The local Deaf community's contributions were vital for JMS's survival during its early years (UDEAL, UAD Bulletin, August 1999). Greg Born, the son of Jeff and Vicky Born and the grandson of Jim and Peggy Harper, collected an entire trailer filled with supplies and equipment for the school as part of his Eagle Scout project (UAD Bulletin, September 1999).
The support from the Utah Deaf community was not only invaluable but also diverse in its nature. Deaf individuals participated actively by moving classroom materials, serving as role models for Deaf students, and assuming various roles, including janitorial work, leaf raking, and tutoring students. These varied contributions were essential for the school's operations (UAD Bulletin, April 2001).
The JMS was managed by the UDEAL Board, which consisted of parents. Nearly half of these parents were Deaf, while the other half were hearing parents who had limited knowledge about Deaf culture, including shared beliefs, traditions, and values among Deaf individuals, as well as American Sign Language. The principal, David G. "Jerry" Wilding, Minnie Mae's Deaf father, appreciated the efforts of the parents but also saw opportunities for improvement. He believed the board would benefit from including a Deaf person familiar with various educational methods for the Deaf. In his view, this addition would bring balance to the board and help those who were new to the issues surrounding Deaf education. While Jerry acknowledged the significant support from the local Deaf community, he expressed a desire to recruit some "new blood" for the board. He also wanted JMS to become more appealing to mainstream Deaf students and serve as a viable educational option for them and their families (Wilding, UAD Bulletin, May 2001).
The support from the Utah Deaf community was not only invaluable but also diverse in its nature. Deaf individuals participated actively by moving classroom materials, serving as role models for Deaf students, and assuming various roles, including janitorial work, leaf raking, and tutoring students. These varied contributions were essential for the school's operations (UAD Bulletin, April 2001).
The JMS was managed by the UDEAL Board, which consisted of parents. Nearly half of these parents were Deaf, while the other half were hearing parents who had limited knowledge about Deaf culture, including shared beliefs, traditions, and values among Deaf individuals, as well as American Sign Language. The principal, David G. "Jerry" Wilding, Minnie Mae's Deaf father, appreciated the efforts of the parents but also saw opportunities for improvement. He believed the board would benefit from including a Deaf person familiar with various educational methods for the Deaf. In his view, this addition would bring balance to the board and help those who were new to the issues surrounding Deaf education. While Jerry acknowledged the significant support from the local Deaf community, he expressed a desire to recruit some "new blood" for the board. He also wanted JMS to become more appealing to mainstream Deaf students and serve as a viable educational option for them and their families (Wilding, UAD Bulletin, May 2001).
David G. "Jerry" Wilding
Did You Know?
On October 22, 2002, JMS held its first PTA meeting. Establishing a PTA was crucial for enhancing the school and its programs (Horn, UAD Bulletin, November 2002).
UAD President's Message on the Positive
Impact of the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf
Impact of the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf
Ronald J. Nelson, the then-president of the Utah Association for the Deaf and a product of oral and mainstream education, expressed his hope that Deaf children entering mainstream educational programs would have more opportunities to engage with the Utah Deaf community. Many Deaf students in Utah face this challenge, often meeting members of the Deaf community for the first time after graduating from high school. Ron believed that this form of 'community education' should have started when the children were very young.
During their post-high school experience, these students, through 'informal education,' learn about Deaf culture, including what behaviors are considered appropriate and inappropriate. They also develop a sense of self-identity and enhance their skills in areas such as sports, leadership, and politics. Many mainstream graduates actively seek Deaf organizations because they yearn for social interaction. Ron emphasized, however, that this was not the case for students at JMS. The narrative of JMS was much more positive. In the short time that JMS had been serving Deaf children, Ron observed a significant and positive impact on those in the school. The success of JMS, demonstrated by the transformative interactions taking place within the school, instills a sense of pride and reassurance in the Utah Deaf community. Ron expressed his desire for the charter school program to continue for many years to come, fostering hope and optimism in the Deaf community in Utah.
USDB Superintendent Lee Robinson expressed interest in seeing JMS test results. He indicated that if JMS outcomes were better than those of the Utah School for the Deaf, he would seriously consider the JMS program and explore which successful features could be incorporated into the USD program to better serve Deaf students (Nelson, UAD Bulletin, October 2003).
By January 2004, JMS had made its scholastic results available. The school met both state and federal performance standards in language arts and math. Key to this success were the unique aspects of the JMS program, such as its emphasis on individualized learning and an inclusive classroom environment. Additionally, JMS achieved its academic goals under the 'No Child Left Behind' legislation (UAD Bulletin, January 2004). But was that sufficient to satisfy Superintendent Robinson?
During their post-high school experience, these students, through 'informal education,' learn about Deaf culture, including what behaviors are considered appropriate and inappropriate. They also develop a sense of self-identity and enhance their skills in areas such as sports, leadership, and politics. Many mainstream graduates actively seek Deaf organizations because they yearn for social interaction. Ron emphasized, however, that this was not the case for students at JMS. The narrative of JMS was much more positive. In the short time that JMS had been serving Deaf children, Ron observed a significant and positive impact on those in the school. The success of JMS, demonstrated by the transformative interactions taking place within the school, instills a sense of pride and reassurance in the Utah Deaf community. Ron expressed his desire for the charter school program to continue for many years to come, fostering hope and optimism in the Deaf community in Utah.
USDB Superintendent Lee Robinson expressed interest in seeing JMS test results. He indicated that if JMS outcomes were better than those of the Utah School for the Deaf, he would seriously consider the JMS program and explore which successful features could be incorporated into the USD program to better serve Deaf students (Nelson, UAD Bulletin, October 2003).
By January 2004, JMS had made its scholastic results available. The school met both state and federal performance standards in language arts and math. Key to this success were the unique aspects of the JMS program, such as its emphasis on individualized learning and an inclusive classroom environment. Additionally, JMS achieved its academic goals under the 'No Child Left Behind' legislation (UAD Bulletin, January 2004). But was that sufficient to satisfy Superintendent Robinson?
Ronald J. Nelson
Did You Know?
In 2003, Doug Stringham, a senior designer and art director at Stephen Hales Creative, Inc. in Provo, Utah, created the Yellow Jacket mascot. Although Doug is a hearing individual, he is deeply involved in the Utah Deaf community and volunteered his time and skills to develop this design. The yellow jacket mascot, with its "J" shape and hands forming the "M" and "S" hand signs, represents JMS and its connection to the Utah Deaf community (Leanna Turnman, personal communication, 2009; Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz, personal communication, March 29, 2010). This design not only symbolizes the school's identity but also emphasizes the inclusivity and collaboration within the Utah Deaf community. Doug's dedication to this project reflects the pride and unity that the Utah Deaf community feels in celebrating their culture and achievements.
Doug Stringham. Source: Utah Valley University
Doug Stringham designed the Yellow Jacket mascot of the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf
Section II: The Merger Between the Utah School for the Deaf and Jean Massieu School of the Deaf
UDEAL Struggles to Operate
the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf
the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf
Despite operating as an independent Bi-Bi charter school for six years, JMS has shown remarkable resilience. Relying on donations and state funding tied to student enrollment, the school has faced significant financial challenges. Under the leadership of Deaf administrators David G. "Jerry" Wilding, Dr. Petra M. Horn-Marsh, and Benjamin Lee, JMS has provided a unique educational approach, demonstrating unwavering determination in the face of adversity.
Unfortunately, voluntary donations were insufficient to sustain the school, which primarily depended on state funds calculated based on student enrollment numbers. Despite this funding, JMS continued to face considerable financial difficulties. Most charter schools typically had at least 20 students per teacher, allowing them to generate enough state-supported revenue to cover teachers' salaries, benefits, and operational expenses. In contrast, JMS classrooms had only 6 to 8 students, resulting in state funding that barely covered teachers' salaries and benefits. Such circumstances led to a hiring dilemma, as many educators were hesitant to apply, fearing the school might close. Additionally, the below-average benefits offered further discouraged qualified teachers from considering positions at JMS.
The administration and board faced more than just financial challenges. The board, already juggling full-time jobs, had to dedicate significant time to keep the school operational, resulting in a mental, physical, and emotional toll.
Nevertheless, JMS has continued to offer high-quality instruction, a testament to its commitment to the education of Deaf children. However, the Utah School for the Deaf hesitated to introduce the ASL/English bilingual program to parents and students, opting instead to replace the former bilingual-bicultural option. Furthermore, the Parent Infant Program at the Utah School for the Deaf and its staff failed to recognize JMS as a viable option for families seeking educational opportunities in Utah. They incorrectly categorized it as a school for students with low academic abilities or those needing to catch up. This misunderstanding limited the choices available to families and undermined the potential benefits of the JMS program. As a result, the comprehensive support and resources that JMS could provide to enhance children's educational experiences remained unknown to many parents.
Enclosed are letters from parents encouraging other parents of Deaf children to consider JMS. One letter was written in 2009, and two years later, another parent discovered the same bias against JMS within the Utah School for the Deaf, despite JMS having been incorporated into the USDB system. This prejudice has had a profoundly negative impact on JMS, necessitating urgent change.
Unfortunately, voluntary donations were insufficient to sustain the school, which primarily depended on state funds calculated based on student enrollment numbers. Despite this funding, JMS continued to face considerable financial difficulties. Most charter schools typically had at least 20 students per teacher, allowing them to generate enough state-supported revenue to cover teachers' salaries, benefits, and operational expenses. In contrast, JMS classrooms had only 6 to 8 students, resulting in state funding that barely covered teachers' salaries and benefits. Such circumstances led to a hiring dilemma, as many educators were hesitant to apply, fearing the school might close. Additionally, the below-average benefits offered further discouraged qualified teachers from considering positions at JMS.
The administration and board faced more than just financial challenges. The board, already juggling full-time jobs, had to dedicate significant time to keep the school operational, resulting in a mental, physical, and emotional toll.
Nevertheless, JMS has continued to offer high-quality instruction, a testament to its commitment to the education of Deaf children. However, the Utah School for the Deaf hesitated to introduce the ASL/English bilingual program to parents and students, opting instead to replace the former bilingual-bicultural option. Furthermore, the Parent Infant Program at the Utah School for the Deaf and its staff failed to recognize JMS as a viable option for families seeking educational opportunities in Utah. They incorrectly categorized it as a school for students with low academic abilities or those needing to catch up. This misunderstanding limited the choices available to families and undermined the potential benefits of the JMS program. As a result, the comprehensive support and resources that JMS could provide to enhance children's educational experiences remained unknown to many parents.
Enclosed are letters from parents encouraging other parents of Deaf children to consider JMS. One letter was written in 2009, and two years later, another parent discovered the same bias against JMS within the Utah School for the Deaf, despite JMS having been incorporated into the USDB system. This prejudice has had a profoundly negative impact on JMS, necessitating urgent change.
Parent Letter One:
Dear Parents, August 20, 2009
We have a daughter who was born with LVA (Large Vestibular Aqueduct); this condition could cause a gradual or sudden loss of hearing. We knew that our daughter may be able to hear with hearing aids now, but there could be the possibility that she could wake up one day with no hearing. We taught her American Sign Language from birth and continued throughout her toddler years. She was had such a wonderful childhood. She was never frustrated when she could not hear us...she was able to communicate through sign-language. As she entered pre-school, we knew that her main language was sign-language. We explored all over looking for a program that could offer her what she needed. There was nothing. The only option was a small school that housed 30+ children in a duplex smaller than our home. We knew that we did not want our daughters’ education in this situation. Our other options were the oral program or the Total Communication program at USDB. The TC program did not appeal to us because it was not a solid communication mode. Both were being delivered in a manner that was impossible to learn each language fluently.
We ended up choosing the oral program because there was a teacher that was deaf and that knew sign. We figured if nothing else it was a good time for our daughter to work on her speech. She continued for 3 years in this program. We asked as she entered kindergarten for her to have an interpreter. They told us that it was against the program rules. Her hearing started to decline, and we knew that the only option would be to move her into JMS. JMS had finally moved to a nicer location in a real school. Part of the process in moving her was to re-evaluate her IEP. There was not one person in favor of this move [to JMS]. They expressed the opinion that the only reason a child should go to JMS is if there are other issues that makes the child unable to hear or if they are low function. My daughter was neither. We merely wanted our child to perfect a fluency in sign-language so that if she did choose to ever be mainstreamed, she would be able to fully utilize an interpreter. Steve Noyce was very strongly opposed to this. He requested that a hearing be held. 12 people from the Granite District & USDB were in attendance; all voted that our daughter should not be placed in JMS. We declined to take their recommendation. Mr. Noyce made us sign a [form] that if her education declined, [USDB] was not responsible. He reminded us over and over again that the only children that belonged in JMS were those who were falling behind.
Our daughter stayed for 2 years. She accomplished exactly what we wanted her to accomplish. She is now mainstreamed with an interpreter. She is on the honor roll. She learns at very high levels and never misses a beat. If we had taken the advice of Steve Noyce, I do not believe that she would be as successful as she is in her academics.
Mr. Noyce is strongly against bi-bi education. Allowing him to be placed in this position [of USDB Supt] will affect the overall success of deaf children in receiving full access to education. You will be doing a disservice to all deaf children throughout the state.
Anonymous,
Salt Lake City, Utah
NOTE: This same letter was submitted to Dr. Martell Menlove, Associate Superintendent of the Utah State Office of Education, on August 20, 2009, soon after Steven W. Noyce was hired as the USDB Superintendent as detailed in Part V.
We have a daughter who was born with LVA (Large Vestibular Aqueduct); this condition could cause a gradual or sudden loss of hearing. We knew that our daughter may be able to hear with hearing aids now, but there could be the possibility that she could wake up one day with no hearing. We taught her American Sign Language from birth and continued throughout her toddler years. She was had such a wonderful childhood. She was never frustrated when she could not hear us...she was able to communicate through sign-language. As she entered pre-school, we knew that her main language was sign-language. We explored all over looking for a program that could offer her what she needed. There was nothing. The only option was a small school that housed 30+ children in a duplex smaller than our home. We knew that we did not want our daughters’ education in this situation. Our other options were the oral program or the Total Communication program at USDB. The TC program did not appeal to us because it was not a solid communication mode. Both were being delivered in a manner that was impossible to learn each language fluently.
We ended up choosing the oral program because there was a teacher that was deaf and that knew sign. We figured if nothing else it was a good time for our daughter to work on her speech. She continued for 3 years in this program. We asked as she entered kindergarten for her to have an interpreter. They told us that it was against the program rules. Her hearing started to decline, and we knew that the only option would be to move her into JMS. JMS had finally moved to a nicer location in a real school. Part of the process in moving her was to re-evaluate her IEP. There was not one person in favor of this move [to JMS]. They expressed the opinion that the only reason a child should go to JMS is if there are other issues that makes the child unable to hear or if they are low function. My daughter was neither. We merely wanted our child to perfect a fluency in sign-language so that if she did choose to ever be mainstreamed, she would be able to fully utilize an interpreter. Steve Noyce was very strongly opposed to this. He requested that a hearing be held. 12 people from the Granite District & USDB were in attendance; all voted that our daughter should not be placed in JMS. We declined to take their recommendation. Mr. Noyce made us sign a [form] that if her education declined, [USDB] was not responsible. He reminded us over and over again that the only children that belonged in JMS were those who were falling behind.
Our daughter stayed for 2 years. She accomplished exactly what we wanted her to accomplish. She is now mainstreamed with an interpreter. She is on the honor roll. She learns at very high levels and never misses a beat. If we had taken the advice of Steve Noyce, I do not believe that she would be as successful as she is in her academics.
Mr. Noyce is strongly against bi-bi education. Allowing him to be placed in this position [of USDB Supt] will affect the overall success of deaf children in receiving full access to education. You will be doing a disservice to all deaf children throughout the state.
Anonymous,
Salt Lake City, Utah
NOTE: This same letter was submitted to Dr. Martell Menlove, Associate Superintendent of the Utah State Office of Education, on August 20, 2009, soon after Steven W. Noyce was hired as the USDB Superintendent as detailed in Part V.
Parent Letter Two:
Dear Parents, February 20, 2011
My name is Melissa Miller, but more importantly, I am a mommy of a 5 years old little boy named Cache. Cache has severe-to-profound bilateral hearing loss and currently uses hearing aids. His hearing loss is due to a rare heart condition called Jervell and Lange-Nielsen syndrome, a form of Long QT syndrome. He is our only deaf child of four and the only deaf person in our family. As you may be aware, there are many options when choosing an education for your deaf child. I would like to share our story with you and how our, once, very unsure future has turned into such a wonderful experience for us.
When Cache was first born, we were told he may be deaf as he never passed his newborn hearing screening. At the time, this seemed circumstantial compared to what we were going through with his heart problems. As time went on, many heart surgeries, and many misdiagnoses later, Cache finally had an official hearing loss diagnosis. Cache was placed with hearing aids at the age of 2.5. After the long journey we had just been through, we thought this would be the easy part.
When Cache turned 3 years old, it was time to choose which language direction he was going to head in. Cache, coming from an all-hearing family, it was a pretty simple choice for us. He was to be in the Total Communication (TC) class. We figured this would be the best placement because we had already started to sign with him but we were told that eventually he would form speech. As time would have it, speech never came to Cache as easy as we would have liked. We had spent many hours and lots of money on speech therapy and it seemed as though language was not simple for him. His American Sign Language (ASL) was even behind. We eventually dreaded going to his Individual Education Plan (IEP) meetings because we knew that we were not going to hear what we wanted to hear. There were many things concerning us but, most importantly, [we wondered] why he was not speaking when it was clear he could hear fine with his hearing aids. Many teachers believed Cache had a processing disorder and that was the reason he was not learning language in any form. By the end of his last year in pre-school, [at] age 4, he was communicating as a 2 year old both in ASL and speech.
When Cache was ready to enter Kindergarten, we had to choose which language path we would take again, as there was no longer a TC program offered. I have to admit, we were a little sober[ed] by the choice we knew we had to make. There was no way he could attend an all-hearing school. Jean Massieu School of the Deaf (JMS) seemed to be the only choice we had. It was as if we were picking the lesser of two evils. We were scared to death for him. We were so unsure of the future and what life would be like for Cache. We wondered how he would ever understand anyone in the school since he was so dependent on both ASL and speech clues. This door we had to open for him seemed so dark and scary and yet, here we were pushing him through it.
We came to find very quickly that the dark and scary door we pushed him through was only dark and scary for us. What we did find was a bright, happy, little boy who was with people just like him. People he could connect with and be himself with. As of today, Cache’s ASL is far surpassing ours and his vocabulary has grown tremendously. His speech, as well, has become clearer and is growing. He is soaring through school and is further along than his older brothers were at his age. He has learned more in the short 5+ months he has attended JMS than he did the first few years of his education. I can tell you Cache is the happiest little boy and loves going to school every day. He is surrounded by wonderful teachers and amazing kids. He is accepted and loved for just what he is, deaf. He has peers with whom he can communicate…. JMS is, by far, one of the greatest schools we have ever encountered. I wish sometimes I knew then what I know now. I wish someone would have told me that my deaf son belongs in a deaf school with deaf children and that this school would be the best placement and education for him.
I would like to wish anyone luck who is on their path to find the best placement for their deaf child. ….. I know my son and our lives have benefited greatly from JMS, as I hope yours will too.
Thank you,
Melissa Miller
My name is Melissa Miller, but more importantly, I am a mommy of a 5 years old little boy named Cache. Cache has severe-to-profound bilateral hearing loss and currently uses hearing aids. His hearing loss is due to a rare heart condition called Jervell and Lange-Nielsen syndrome, a form of Long QT syndrome. He is our only deaf child of four and the only deaf person in our family. As you may be aware, there are many options when choosing an education for your deaf child. I would like to share our story with you and how our, once, very unsure future has turned into such a wonderful experience for us.
When Cache was first born, we were told he may be deaf as he never passed his newborn hearing screening. At the time, this seemed circumstantial compared to what we were going through with his heart problems. As time went on, many heart surgeries, and many misdiagnoses later, Cache finally had an official hearing loss diagnosis. Cache was placed with hearing aids at the age of 2.5. After the long journey we had just been through, we thought this would be the easy part.
When Cache turned 3 years old, it was time to choose which language direction he was going to head in. Cache, coming from an all-hearing family, it was a pretty simple choice for us. He was to be in the Total Communication (TC) class. We figured this would be the best placement because we had already started to sign with him but we were told that eventually he would form speech. As time would have it, speech never came to Cache as easy as we would have liked. We had spent many hours and lots of money on speech therapy and it seemed as though language was not simple for him. His American Sign Language (ASL) was even behind. We eventually dreaded going to his Individual Education Plan (IEP) meetings because we knew that we were not going to hear what we wanted to hear. There were many things concerning us but, most importantly, [we wondered] why he was not speaking when it was clear he could hear fine with his hearing aids. Many teachers believed Cache had a processing disorder and that was the reason he was not learning language in any form. By the end of his last year in pre-school, [at] age 4, he was communicating as a 2 year old both in ASL and speech.
When Cache was ready to enter Kindergarten, we had to choose which language path we would take again, as there was no longer a TC program offered. I have to admit, we were a little sober[ed] by the choice we knew we had to make. There was no way he could attend an all-hearing school. Jean Massieu School of the Deaf (JMS) seemed to be the only choice we had. It was as if we were picking the lesser of two evils. We were scared to death for him. We were so unsure of the future and what life would be like for Cache. We wondered how he would ever understand anyone in the school since he was so dependent on both ASL and speech clues. This door we had to open for him seemed so dark and scary and yet, here we were pushing him through it.
We came to find very quickly that the dark and scary door we pushed him through was only dark and scary for us. What we did find was a bright, happy, little boy who was with people just like him. People he could connect with and be himself with. As of today, Cache’s ASL is far surpassing ours and his vocabulary has grown tremendously. His speech, as well, has become clearer and is growing. He is soaring through school and is further along than his older brothers were at his age. He has learned more in the short 5+ months he has attended JMS than he did the first few years of his education. I can tell you Cache is the happiest little boy and loves going to school every day. He is surrounded by wonderful teachers and amazing kids. He is accepted and loved for just what he is, deaf. He has peers with whom he can communicate…. JMS is, by far, one of the greatest schools we have ever encountered. I wish sometimes I knew then what I know now. I wish someone would have told me that my deaf son belongs in a deaf school with deaf children and that this school would be the best placement and education for him.
I would like to wish anyone luck who is on their path to find the best placement for their deaf child. ….. I know my son and our lives have benefited greatly from JMS, as I hope yours will too.
Thank you,
Melissa Miller
Did You Know?
The Jean Massieu School of the Deaf has relocated several times before settling into its permanent location at 1655 E. 3300 South, Salt Lake City, Utah, where it has been operating since 2010. Despite these relocations, the school has become a vital resource for Deaf and hard-of-hearing students, providing high-quality education and support services tailored to their unique needs. With a strong commitment to fostering communication and social skills, the Jean Massieu School has established itself as a leader in ASL/English bilingual inclusive education in the region.
- Bella Vista Elementary School 2131 East 7000 South, Salt Lake City – August – November 1999
- Riverton at 1530 West 12600 South, Unit 3 and 4 – November 1999 – 2002
- Riverton City Library 12750 South Redwood Road, Riverton – 2002 – 2004
- Salt Lake Arts Academy 209 E. 500 South, Salt Lake City – 2004 – 2005
- USDB/JMS 1350 West 10400 South, South Jordan – 2005 – 2008
- USDB Extension Conner Street 2870 Connor Street Salt Lake City, UT 84109 – 2008 – 2010
- Libby Edwards Elementary 1655 E. 3300 South Salt Lake City, Utah 84106 - 2010- present
JMS-Past, Present, & Future Sites, 1999 to Present, created by Mike Holland, JMS principal and teacher
The Merger Agreement Between
the Utah School for the Deaf
and Jean Massieu School of the Deaf
the Utah School for the Deaf
and Jean Massieu School of the Deaf
Faced with significant financial constraints, the UDEAL board recognized the need to reevaluate its strategic direction. Adding the ASL/English bilingual option to the state school would make the Utah School for the Deaf a more supportive and inclusive environment. Thus, the merger emerged not only as a strategic decision but also as a vital step toward making JMS and its educational philosophy more accessible to Deaf children and their families throughout Utah. This sense of urgency underscored the importance of the proposal.
Laurel Stimpson noted that the merger aimed to not only preserve JMS's quality services but also to ensure financial stability and improve employee salaries and benefits (Stimpson, UAD Bulletin, March 2005). This initiative aimed to provide students with improved resources while fostering a sense of belonging among families. By emphasizing collaboration and inclusivity, the merger aimed to create an environment where Deaf children could thrive both academically and socially. Under financial limitation pressures, the UDEAL board had to reassess its direction. Incorporating the ASL/English bilingual option into the state school would make the Utah School for the Deaf more supportive and inclusive. Therefore, the merger was not only a strategic move but also a necessary step to make JMS and its philosophy more accessible to Deaf children and their families across the state. This urgency highlighted the importance of the proposal. Furthermore, according to Laurel Stimpson, the merger aimed to secure JMS's quality services, ensure financial stability, and enhance employee salaries and benefits (Stimpson, UAD Bulletin, March 2005). This project aimed not only to provide students with better resources but also to make families feel like they were part of a community. By prioritizing collaboration and inclusivity, the merger aimed to create an environment where Deaf children could thrive academically and socially.
In 2004, the Jean Massieu Charter School faced severe financial challenges and sought to merge with the Utah Schools for the Deaf to offer parents ASL/English bilingual education options. Initially, the Utah School for the Deaf was hesitant to integrate the ASL/English bilingual program into its offerings. In response, the UDEAL Board reached out to state legislators for support to facilitate the merger. Joe Zeidner, a board member of UDEAL and an attorney with a Deaf child, passionately advocated for the incorporation of the JMS program into the Utah School for the Deaf during the 2005 legislative session. Ultimately, USDB Superintendent Linda Rutledge felt compelled to endorse the merger, recognizing that failure to do so would result in a cut to USDB's funding. The successful integration of the JMS program marked a significant milestone for the Deaf community in Utah, underscoring the importance of language accessibility and cultural identity in education. This decision not only provided Deaf children with crucial access to bilingual education but also established the JMS program as a vital resource for fostering an inclusive environment that supports both Deaf students and their families. During this pivotal moment, Linda Rutledge demonstrated strong support for the merger, recognizing its importance for the educational landscape.
Laurel Stimpson noted that the merger aimed to not only preserve JMS's quality services but also to ensure financial stability and improve employee salaries and benefits (Stimpson, UAD Bulletin, March 2005). This initiative aimed to provide students with improved resources while fostering a sense of belonging among families. By emphasizing collaboration and inclusivity, the merger aimed to create an environment where Deaf children could thrive both academically and socially. Under financial limitation pressures, the UDEAL board had to reassess its direction. Incorporating the ASL/English bilingual option into the state school would make the Utah School for the Deaf more supportive and inclusive. Therefore, the merger was not only a strategic move but also a necessary step to make JMS and its philosophy more accessible to Deaf children and their families across the state. This urgency highlighted the importance of the proposal. Furthermore, according to Laurel Stimpson, the merger aimed to secure JMS's quality services, ensure financial stability, and enhance employee salaries and benefits (Stimpson, UAD Bulletin, March 2005). This project aimed not only to provide students with better resources but also to make families feel like they were part of a community. By prioritizing collaboration and inclusivity, the merger aimed to create an environment where Deaf children could thrive academically and socially.
In 2004, the Jean Massieu Charter School faced severe financial challenges and sought to merge with the Utah Schools for the Deaf to offer parents ASL/English bilingual education options. Initially, the Utah School for the Deaf was hesitant to integrate the ASL/English bilingual program into its offerings. In response, the UDEAL Board reached out to state legislators for support to facilitate the merger. Joe Zeidner, a board member of UDEAL and an attorney with a Deaf child, passionately advocated for the incorporation of the JMS program into the Utah School for the Deaf during the 2005 legislative session. Ultimately, USDB Superintendent Linda Rutledge felt compelled to endorse the merger, recognizing that failure to do so would result in a cut to USDB's funding. The successful integration of the JMS program marked a significant milestone for the Deaf community in Utah, underscoring the importance of language accessibility and cultural identity in education. This decision not only provided Deaf children with crucial access to bilingual education but also established the JMS program as a vital resource for fostering an inclusive environment that supports both Deaf students and their families. During this pivotal moment, Linda Rutledge demonstrated strong support for the merger, recognizing its importance for the educational landscape.
Joe Zeidner
Joe Zeidner's unwavering commitment to Utah Deaf Education and Literacy, Inc., was instrumental in the Utah State Legislature's approval of "intent language" during the 2005 legislative session. His work as an advocate led to the addition of "intent language," which indicates that the Utah State Board of Education is considering merging Jean Massieu School of the Deaf with the Utah School for the Deaf (Harrington, Memorandum, 2005). After a year of negotiations, a steering committee developed a set of rules, including a Letter of Intent and Terms of Agreement, to govern the merger of the two groups (Intent of the Legislature, 2007). The Terms of Agreement outlined the guiding principles and commitments necessary for a successful merger. This agreement primarily addressed philosophy, instruction, programs, assets, finances, the Jean Massieu School Advisory Council, policies and procedures, human resources, transportation, facilities, and the organization's structure. As agreed, JMS would remain a separate school within the Utah School for the Deaf and would answer directly to the USDB superintendent (General Exhibit No. 9634, Intent of the Legislature, April 5, 2007; Jean Massieu and Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind: Terms of Agreements, 2005).
See the section on intent language, as follows:
*****
04/05/2004
'It is the intent of the Legislature that a substantial effort be made by the State Superintendent and the State School Board to combine the services of USDB and the Jean Massieu Charter School of the Deaf. This will include instruction in American Sign Language, as well as bilingual and bicultural education, which will receive administrative support. Representatives from the Jean Massieu School shall be integrated into the USDB Institutional Council, a body responsible for overseeing the educational programs and policies of the USDB, in a meaningful and effective manner. The State Superintendent shall report to the Education Interim Committee in September 2004 regarding the progress of this intent. If necessary, the Education Interim Committee may make recommendations regarding continued funding of the Jean Massieu school until integration is complete (General Exhibit No. 9634, "Intent of the Legislature," April 5, 2007; Jean Massieu and Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind: Terms of Agreements, 2005).'
See the section on intent language, as follows:
*****
04/05/2004
'It is the intent of the Legislature that a substantial effort be made by the State Superintendent and the State School Board to combine the services of USDB and the Jean Massieu Charter School of the Deaf. This will include instruction in American Sign Language, as well as bilingual and bicultural education, which will receive administrative support. Representatives from the Jean Massieu School shall be integrated into the USDB Institutional Council, a body responsible for overseeing the educational programs and policies of the USDB, in a meaningful and effective manner. The State Superintendent shall report to the Education Interim Committee in September 2004 regarding the progress of this intent. If necessary, the Education Interim Committee may make recommendations regarding continued funding of the Jean Massieu school until integration is complete (General Exhibit No. 9634, "Intent of the Legislature," April 5, 2007; Jean Massieu and Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind: Terms of Agreements, 2005).'
Letter of Intent between Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind and Jean Massieu School of the Deaf on June 3, 2005
The Letter of Intent and Terms of Agreement received approval from the USDB Institutional Council, UDEAL, and the Utah State Board of Education, marking the start of the formal endorsement process and outlining the key stakeholders involved.
However, the intent language and agreement forms were only submitted to the USDB Advisory Council for review on the day of the meeting due to challenging negotiations. The last-minute submission, made just before the June 3 signing deadline, played a crucial role in preventing closure and funding losses for the JMS charter school. The Advisory Council had to approve the agreement immediately, even though they requested more time for review, as delaying the signature could potentially jeopardize the school's future. This hasty decision reflected the rapid pace of legislative processes.
After a year of legislative challenges, the historic signing on June 3, 2005, at the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf, was a pivotal moment for Deaf education in Utah. Kim Burningham, Chair of the Utah State Board of Education; Linda Rutledge, Superintendent of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind; and Craig Radford, Chair of the Utah Deaf Education Advocacy League, signed the documents approved by the Utah State Board of Education, represented by Dr. Patti Harrington, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction (Stimpson, UAD Bulletin, July 2005). This event went a long way toward improving educational opportunities for Deaf and hard-of-hearing students, demonstrating the commitment of community leaders and stakeholders to inclusivity and educational equity.
However, the intent language and agreement forms were only submitted to the USDB Advisory Council for review on the day of the meeting due to challenging negotiations. The last-minute submission, made just before the June 3 signing deadline, played a crucial role in preventing closure and funding losses for the JMS charter school. The Advisory Council had to approve the agreement immediately, even though they requested more time for review, as delaying the signature could potentially jeopardize the school's future. This hasty decision reflected the rapid pace of legislative processes.
After a year of legislative challenges, the historic signing on June 3, 2005, at the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf, was a pivotal moment for Deaf education in Utah. Kim Burningham, Chair of the Utah State Board of Education; Linda Rutledge, Superintendent of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind; and Craig Radford, Chair of the Utah Deaf Education Advocacy League, signed the documents approved by the Utah State Board of Education, represented by Dr. Patti Harrington, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction (Stimpson, UAD Bulletin, July 2005). This event went a long way toward improving educational opportunities for Deaf and hard-of-hearing students, demonstrating the commitment of community leaders and stakeholders to inclusivity and educational equity.
Linda Rutledge
The UDEAL board members who witnessed the merger signing, including Chris Palaia (Deaf), Laurel Stimpson (Deaf), Sean Williford, Joe Ziedner, LaDawn Rinlinsbaker, Jeff Allen, Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz (Deaf), and Jodi Christel Becker (Deaf), played a vital role in this milestone. The merger introduced a bilingual option in ASL and English at the Utah School for the Deaf, fostering a more inclusive environment and emphasizing the importance of bilingual education for equity and access in Utah's educational system. Their involvement underscores stakeholder commitment to advancing Deaf education and promoting community engagement.
Craig Radford, UDEAL Chair; Kim Burningham, Utah Board of Education Chair; and Linda Rutledge, USDB Superintendent, signed the Letter of Intent and Terms of Agreement between Jean Massieu School of the Deaf and Utah School for the Deaf. Karl Wilson, the USDB supervisor, was instrumental in conducting the merger. June 3, 2005
The merger took place during the JMS principalship of Mike Holland, a veteran Deaf teacher from the Colorado School for the Deaf and Blind. This merger offered a viable option for parents seeking an ASL/English bilingual education for their Deaf or hard-of-hearing children. Following the merger, three educational programs were available at the Utah School for the Deaf: the Oral Program, the Total Communication Program, and the ASL/English bilingual Program.
The Terms of Agreement between Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind and Jean Massieu School of the Deaf on June 3, 2005
Shortly after the merger, conflicts emerged between the UDEAL board members and the newly formed JMS Advisory Council, primarily due to boundary disagreements and power struggles. To address these tensions, a meeting was held in May 2006, involving representatives from both groups, USDB administrators, and attorney Carol Barlow Lear from the Utah State Office of Education. During the meeting, Carol clarified that all aspects of the Terms of Agreement were legally non-binding, meaning USDB was not required to follow them. This news was a significant blow for the JMS Advisory Council, which had actively sought to preserve JMS's approach following the merger. Consequently, the JMS Advisory Council was disbanded, putting the continuation of their Bi-Bi philosophy—a crucial element of the school's mission and vision—at risk.
The Utah Deaf community, a strong supporter of the JMS Charter School, felt deeply disheartened by the ongoing challenges with the Utah School for the Deaf. At that time, the state school did not promote or respect the ASL/English bilingual philosophy, and parents across the state were not informed about this third educational option. The Utah Deaf community contemplated the possibility of returning to a charter school due to these difficulties. However, they recognized that such a return was not realistic. The idea of "going back" was not a viable option.
The Utah Deaf community, a strong supporter of the JMS Charter School, felt deeply disheartened by the ongoing challenges with the Utah School for the Deaf. At that time, the state school did not promote or respect the ASL/English bilingual philosophy, and parents across the state were not informed about this third educational option. The Utah Deaf community contemplated the possibility of returning to a charter school due to these difficulties. However, they recognized that such a return was not realistic. The idea of "going back" was not a viable option.
Carol Barlow Lear. Source: Utah State Board of Education
Did You Know?
Joe Ziedner was a former member of the Institutional Council for the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind. His position in 1997 not only helped him better understand his daughter, Jessica, but also provided insight into the broader Deaf educational system. He noted that two Deaf members of the Institutional Council, Dr. Robert G. Sanderson and Dennis R. Platt, significantly influenced him and helped him comprehend the Deaf community as well as the differences between hearing and Deaf perspectives in the education of Deaf children (Mortensen, UAD Bulletin, July 1997).
Section III: The Bias at the Utah School for the Deaf
Becomes Clear After the Merger
Becomes Clear After the Merger
The Bias at the Utah School for the Deaf
Becomes Apparent After the Merger
Becomes Apparent After the Merger
The Utah School for the Deaf is highlighted in Part III: "Controversies Surrounding Communication/Educational Methods and Educational Placement Regarding the Interpretation of 'Least Restrictive Environment" as having exhibited a clear bias toward an oral, one-sided approach for years. Transitioning to the 2000s, similar sentiments of bias resurfaced among the Utah Deaf community and the staff at JMS Charter School concerning USD's treatment of this newly acquired institution. This uncertainty escalated into confirmed grievances when Melissa Jensen, a hearing parent, shared her concerning experience.
In 2006, Melissa attended a meeting with the Utah School for the Deaf staff to explore educational placement options for her three-year-old daughter. Although she had a vague awareness of JMS, during this placement meeting, she was presented with only two options: the oral program or the total communication program. Notably, around this time, the oral program was rebranded as the listening and spoken language (LSL) program, a new name for the same non-signing philosophy.
At such initial meetings, the expectation is that all educational placement options will be presented transparently to parents and the IEP team for consideration. However, Melissa recalled that no information was provided about the ASL/English Bilingual program, which was USD's third offering. Alarmingly, when Melissa brought up JMS, she was firmly discouraged from pursuing that option. She was told, "No, you don't want [your daughter] to go there! Don't you want her sent to TC? It has everything you could want."
The misinformation was deeply troubling. The USD staff misled Melissa, who was earnestly seeking knowledge to make an informed decision for her daughter. They falsely claimed it was against JMS policy to provide speech services to students and erroneously stated that children with cochlear implants were prohibited from attending. These allegations were completely unfounded.
Consequently, USD staff attempted to steer Melissa away from any signing program altogether, suggesting that her daughter would thrive in the oral classroom and encouraging her to start there. Their dismissive attitude towards Melissa's concerns is evident when she inquired whether the LSL classroom teacher would understand the signs her daughter was already using. She received the dismissive response that while staff at USD might recognize a few signs, they would never sign back. Their reassurances included an unsettling prediction that her daughter would cease signing altogether in a short period, which was hardly comforting.
Furthermore, the USD IEP staff made the alarming claim that if her daughter did not learn to speak by the age of 3 or 4, she would never be able to do so. This assertion was yet another falsehood (Melissa Jensen, 2007, personal communication, name used with permission).
This incident occurred in 2006, shortly after JMS was incorporated into USD's options for educational placement. From an outsider's perspective, USD had assimilated JMS with the intention of phasing the school out by failing to provide accurate information about the educational opportunities available there. Please see Melissa Jensen's letter below for a reference to her experience.
In 2006, Melissa attended a meeting with the Utah School for the Deaf staff to explore educational placement options for her three-year-old daughter. Although she had a vague awareness of JMS, during this placement meeting, she was presented with only two options: the oral program or the total communication program. Notably, around this time, the oral program was rebranded as the listening and spoken language (LSL) program, a new name for the same non-signing philosophy.
At such initial meetings, the expectation is that all educational placement options will be presented transparently to parents and the IEP team for consideration. However, Melissa recalled that no information was provided about the ASL/English Bilingual program, which was USD's third offering. Alarmingly, when Melissa brought up JMS, she was firmly discouraged from pursuing that option. She was told, "No, you don't want [your daughter] to go there! Don't you want her sent to TC? It has everything you could want."
The misinformation was deeply troubling. The USD staff misled Melissa, who was earnestly seeking knowledge to make an informed decision for her daughter. They falsely claimed it was against JMS policy to provide speech services to students and erroneously stated that children with cochlear implants were prohibited from attending. These allegations were completely unfounded.
Consequently, USD staff attempted to steer Melissa away from any signing program altogether, suggesting that her daughter would thrive in the oral classroom and encouraging her to start there. Their dismissive attitude towards Melissa's concerns is evident when she inquired whether the LSL classroom teacher would understand the signs her daughter was already using. She received the dismissive response that while staff at USD might recognize a few signs, they would never sign back. Their reassurances included an unsettling prediction that her daughter would cease signing altogether in a short period, which was hardly comforting.
Furthermore, the USD IEP staff made the alarming claim that if her daughter did not learn to speak by the age of 3 or 4, she would never be able to do so. This assertion was yet another falsehood (Melissa Jensen, 2007, personal communication, name used with permission).
This incident occurred in 2006, shortly after JMS was incorporated into USD's options for educational placement. From an outsider's perspective, USD had assimilated JMS with the intention of phasing the school out by failing to provide accurate information about the educational opportunities available there. Please see Melissa Jensen's letter below for a reference to her experience.
Melissa Jensen & her daughter, Katrina
To whom it may concern, October 29, 2009
My name is Melissa Jensen. I am the mother of a 6-year-old, deaf daughter who is in first grade. My daughter, Katrina, was identified as having a progressive hearing loss when she was 18 months old. Our family was served by PIP and the Deaf Mentor program from her identification until she aged out at 3 years old.
At the time of her transition, Katrina had a bilateral moderately-severe hearing loss. ASL was her primary language, but as hearing parents, we also wanted Katrina to become a spoken-language user. In preparation for choosing her preschool, we had our “pre-transition” meeting with our PIP advisor and a USD staff member. When we told the staff member that we were signing with our daughter, she told us that we would want to place our daughter in the TC program at USD. She never mentioned JMS nor told us that there was another option. Luckily, our PIP advisor had a deaf daughter who attended JMS. She told us that there was another option for our daughter. When we brought JMS up to the USD staff member, she was EXTREMELY negative. She told us several untruths about JMS. She told us that Katrina may not be allowed at JMS because she wore hearing aids. She told us that Katrina was not “deaf enough” to go to JMS because she was “only” moderately severe hard of hearing. She also told us that JMS did not provide speech therapy. None of these things were true.
After visiting all the preschool options, we decided that JMS was the least restrictive environment for Katrina, and we held the placement meeting. The same USD staff member was in attendance at that meeting. She took all of Katrina’s paperwork, and crossed out the word “Deaf” which we had written and changed it to “hard of hearing”. I found that slightly offensive, because we embrace the Deaf community as part of our daughter’s life, and I saw that…implying that Katrina should be labeled as “hard-of- hearing” [was] somehow “better” than being “deaf”.
At the same meeting, the staff member saw Katrina’s audiogram for the first time. She was very surprised at how well aided she was. She burst out saying “She can HEAR! She could SUCCEED!” It was very clear that what the staff member meant was “She can hear. She can become oral and THAT is what success is.”
In my family’s experience, USD is extremely biased and biased toward oralism. We were never told about JMS as an option; we were actually told lies about the program. We were lucky enough to have a PIP advisor who gave us all the information and who was a fluent ASL user. But if we hadn’t [received this information], I don’t know where my daughter would be today. Our decisions were not respected by USD staff and, more than once, it was clear that USD believed that success was measured by the ability to speak.
I hope that changes are in store for USD so that parents can get ALL the information [about their programs]. I believe in parental choice but I believe it should be a fully informed choice. I believe that parents should be given fair and accurate information about language choices, methodology, and outcomes for those choices.
Sincerely,
Melissa Jensen
NOTE: This same letter was submitted to Dr. Martell Menlove, Associate Superintendent of the Utah State Office of Education, on August 20, 2009, soon after Steven W. Noyce was hired as the USDB Superintendent as detailed in Part V.
My name is Melissa Jensen. I am the mother of a 6-year-old, deaf daughter who is in first grade. My daughter, Katrina, was identified as having a progressive hearing loss when she was 18 months old. Our family was served by PIP and the Deaf Mentor program from her identification until she aged out at 3 years old.
At the time of her transition, Katrina had a bilateral moderately-severe hearing loss. ASL was her primary language, but as hearing parents, we also wanted Katrina to become a spoken-language user. In preparation for choosing her preschool, we had our “pre-transition” meeting with our PIP advisor and a USD staff member. When we told the staff member that we were signing with our daughter, she told us that we would want to place our daughter in the TC program at USD. She never mentioned JMS nor told us that there was another option. Luckily, our PIP advisor had a deaf daughter who attended JMS. She told us that there was another option for our daughter. When we brought JMS up to the USD staff member, she was EXTREMELY negative. She told us several untruths about JMS. She told us that Katrina may not be allowed at JMS because she wore hearing aids. She told us that Katrina was not “deaf enough” to go to JMS because she was “only” moderately severe hard of hearing. She also told us that JMS did not provide speech therapy. None of these things were true.
After visiting all the preschool options, we decided that JMS was the least restrictive environment for Katrina, and we held the placement meeting. The same USD staff member was in attendance at that meeting. She took all of Katrina’s paperwork, and crossed out the word “Deaf” which we had written and changed it to “hard of hearing”. I found that slightly offensive, because we embrace the Deaf community as part of our daughter’s life, and I saw that…implying that Katrina should be labeled as “hard-of- hearing” [was] somehow “better” than being “deaf”.
At the same meeting, the staff member saw Katrina’s audiogram for the first time. She was very surprised at how well aided she was. She burst out saying “She can HEAR! She could SUCCEED!” It was very clear that what the staff member meant was “She can hear. She can become oral and THAT is what success is.”
In my family’s experience, USD is extremely biased and biased toward oralism. We were never told about JMS as an option; we were actually told lies about the program. We were lucky enough to have a PIP advisor who gave us all the information and who was a fluent ASL user. But if we hadn’t [received this information], I don’t know where my daughter would be today. Our decisions were not respected by USD staff and, more than once, it was clear that USD believed that success was measured by the ability to speak.
I hope that changes are in store for USD so that parents can get ALL the information [about their programs]. I believe in parental choice but I believe it should be a fully informed choice. I believe that parents should be given fair and accurate information about language choices, methodology, and outcomes for those choices.
Sincerely,
Melissa Jensen
NOTE: This same letter was submitted to Dr. Martell Menlove, Associate Superintendent of the Utah State Office of Education, on August 20, 2009, soon after Steven W. Noyce was hired as the USDB Superintendent as detailed in Part V.
The Prevalent Bias of the Utah School for the Deaf
Melissa Jensen's experience points out a pressing problem: many parents are unaware of the full range of educational methods available to their children, particularly regarding recent policies advocating the use of sign language. Her case reveals a bias among USD personnel in favor of listening and spoken language approaches, which neglect the advantages of a visual language like ASL for Deaf or hard-of-hearing children. This bias stems from longstanding practices and a societal attitude toward the capabilities of Deaf children.
In 1970 and 1977, the Utah State Board of Education mandated that the Utah School for the Deaf provide various educational methodologies. On March 18, 1998, the USDB Institutional Council introduced new Communication Guidelines, which stipulated:
Although these updates seemed promising, JMS was outside the USD system at that time. This raises concerns about whether USD professionals, who showed no support for sign language, might have excluded JMS following its merger in 2005. This exclusion is notably ironic, as JMS was integrated to provide sign language options. Despite these hurdles, there is potential for future policy modifications that could better meet the needs of Deaf children and their families. Many parents discovered JMS through channels other than USD professionals, hoping that the merger would offer true choices. However, the bias against sign language continued, leaving many parents with limited options at USD due to the new Communication Policy and the JMS/USD merger.
In light of this bias and insufficient information from USD regarding educational options, the Utah chapter of Hands and Voices was founded in 2007, under the leadership of Mindi Allen, wife of JMS co-founder Jeff Allen. This organization supports families with Deaf or hard-of-hearing children while fostering collaboration between parents and professionals. Their slogan, "What works for your child is what makes the choice right," emphasizes their dedication to empowering families and affirming their communication choices.
In 1970 and 1977, the Utah State Board of Education mandated that the Utah School for the Deaf provide various educational methodologies. On March 18, 1998, the USDB Institutional Council introduced new Communication Guidelines, which stipulated:
- a) Families with Deaf and hard-of-hearing children from birth to age six have access to the Deaf Mentor program.
- b) Each child's Individual Education Plan (IEP) must consider:
- 1) The child's communication needs,
- 2) Opportunities for direct communication with peers and professionals in their preferred mode,
- 3) Academic level, and
- 4) A comprehensive assessment of communication needs.
- c) An assessment of a Deaf or hard-of-hearing student's sign language skills must be conducted by a qualified evaluator proficient in sign language, who has passed a standard proficiency test. Additionally, specific USD employees are required to pass this proficiency test, with ongoing training available to ensure they meet the necessary standards. This process aims to provide reliable evaluations and appropriate communication support for each child.
- d) Specific USD employees are also required to pass this proficiency test, with training available to reach the necessary proficiency.
Although these updates seemed promising, JMS was outside the USD system at that time. This raises concerns about whether USD professionals, who showed no support for sign language, might have excluded JMS following its merger in 2005. This exclusion is notably ironic, as JMS was integrated to provide sign language options. Despite these hurdles, there is potential for future policy modifications that could better meet the needs of Deaf children and their families. Many parents discovered JMS through channels other than USD professionals, hoping that the merger would offer true choices. However, the bias against sign language continued, leaving many parents with limited options at USD due to the new Communication Policy and the JMS/USD merger.
In light of this bias and insufficient information from USD regarding educational options, the Utah chapter of Hands and Voices was founded in 2007, under the leadership of Mindi Allen, wife of JMS co-founder Jeff Allen. This organization supports families with Deaf or hard-of-hearing children while fostering collaboration between parents and professionals. Their slogan, "What works for your child is what makes the choice right," emphasizes their dedication to empowering families and affirming their communication choices.
The Merger of the Total Communication
Program and the ASL/English Bilingual Program
Program and the ASL/English Bilingual Program
In the spring of 2008, the ASL/English Bilingual Program at JMS merged with the Total Communication Program at the Utah School for the Deaf, but this merger only occurred at the elementary school level. The decision to merge was drivenby the recognition of the limitations of the existing teaching methods and the desire to provide a more effective educational experience for Deaf students. The determination of the total communication teachers played a crucial role in bringing about this change.
Historically, the Utah School for the Deaf's total communication program utilized several teaching methods: a) SimCom, b) Signed English, and c) C.A.S.E. (Conceptually Accurate Signed English) / P.S.E. (Pidgin Signed English).
None of these modalities is considered an actual language, and the brain cannot process them as such. This situation posed challenges, as Deaf children struggled to understand what their teachers were signing.
Over several years, teachers in the total communication program recognized the inadequacies of SimCom and Signed English in the classroom. To better support their students, they adopted a bilingual approach, emphasizing both ASL and English, driven by the need for more effective communication and learning outcomes without requiring directives from the USD administration. Utah State University, which emphasizes a bilingual/bicultural educational approach, trained many of these teachers, facilitating a smooth transition to this format.
The total communication teachers saw the merger with JMS as a solution to several challenges. It enabled them to officially implement the ASL/English bilingual approach, thereby improving language development. The combined student population ensured that there was at least one class for each grade, fostering peer interactions that facilitated language acquisition. Both students and teachers benefited from this change, experiencing more effective communication and improved learning environments.
The merger provided a reliable location for both Deaf students and their teachers. Keeping the signing students separated across programs placed undue strain on educators. To maintain class sizes, many grade levels had to be combined. The total communication teachers strongly advocated for the merger as JMS was being relocated. Jill Radford, a highly qualified Deaf individual and a Utah State University's Bilingual-Bicultural Deaf Education graduate, was hired as the new principal, whose support for the merger offers stability and confidence in the transition.
Historically, the Utah School for the Deaf's total communication program utilized several teaching methods: a) SimCom, b) Signed English, and c) C.A.S.E. (Conceptually Accurate Signed English) / P.S.E. (Pidgin Signed English).
- SimCom stands for "Simultaneous Communication." It is sometimes referred to as "Sign Supported Speech" (SSS). This method involves the teacher speaking and signing simultaneously, allowing Deaf children to hear spoken English while using signs for support in understanding
- Signed English, also known as S.E.E. (Signing Exact English) or "Manually Coded English," represents an exact depiction of the English language in sign form. Many hand shapes were created for English morphemes that do not exist in American Sign Language.
- C.A.S.E. and P.S.E. are essentially the same, utilizing ASL signs and hand shapes arranged in English grammatical structure and word order.
None of these modalities is considered an actual language, and the brain cannot process them as such. This situation posed challenges, as Deaf children struggled to understand what their teachers were signing.
Over several years, teachers in the total communication program recognized the inadequacies of SimCom and Signed English in the classroom. To better support their students, they adopted a bilingual approach, emphasizing both ASL and English, driven by the need for more effective communication and learning outcomes without requiring directives from the USD administration. Utah State University, which emphasizes a bilingual/bicultural educational approach, trained many of these teachers, facilitating a smooth transition to this format.
The total communication teachers saw the merger with JMS as a solution to several challenges. It enabled them to officially implement the ASL/English bilingual approach, thereby improving language development. The combined student population ensured that there was at least one class for each grade, fostering peer interactions that facilitated language acquisition. Both students and teachers benefited from this change, experiencing more effective communication and improved learning environments.
The merger provided a reliable location for both Deaf students and their teachers. Keeping the signing students separated across programs placed undue strain on educators. To maintain class sizes, many grade levels had to be combined. The total communication teachers strongly advocated for the merger as JMS was being relocated. Jill Radford, a highly qualified Deaf individual and a Utah State University's Bilingual-Bicultural Deaf Education graduate, was hired as the new principal, whose support for the merger offers stability and confidence in the transition.
Jill Radford. Source: Facebook
Following the merger, teachers observed that students appeared happier. Michelle Tanner, also a Utah State University's Bilingual-Bicultural Deaf Education, former total communication teacher, and representative of the USDB Legislative Work Group, later taught at JMS and played a crucial role in integrating both programs with Jill's support. She enjoyed witnessing the larger group of students playing together at recess. The teachers recognized that larger peer groups foster essential social interactions, which are vital for the educational success of students who are deaf or hard of hearing. Michelle noted that many former total communication students were becoming more confident in their Deaf identities. Additionally, JMS was able to offer after-school activities due to the increased number of students.
Michelle valued having more colleagues to collaborate with. Brainstorming sessions for lesson ideas became more productive, and the teachers in the total communication program gained confidence as they developed greater skills in the bilingual setting. They felt a sense of community, which made teacher advocacy more effective and meaningful. This success was particularly important to Michelle, as she represented the USDB teachers on the USDB Institutional Council (Michelle Tanner, personal communication, July 8, 2011).
The merger of the total communication program and JMS has been a significant success for both teachers and students. In a language-rich environment that prioritizes Deaf culture and language, students have thrived. This successful merger represents a major breakthrough that has significantly advanced Deaf education in the state of Utah (Jill Radford, personal communication, June 22, 2009).
Michelle valued having more colleagues to collaborate with. Brainstorming sessions for lesson ideas became more productive, and the teachers in the total communication program gained confidence as they developed greater skills in the bilingual setting. They felt a sense of community, which made teacher advocacy more effective and meaningful. This success was particularly important to Michelle, as she represented the USDB teachers on the USDB Institutional Council (Michelle Tanner, personal communication, July 8, 2011).
The merger of the total communication program and JMS has been a significant success for both teachers and students. In a language-rich environment that prioritizes Deaf culture and language, students have thrived. This successful merger represents a major breakthrough that has significantly advanced Deaf education in the state of Utah (Jill Radford, personal communication, June 22, 2009).
Dr. Michelle Tanner. Source: Linkedin.com
Utah Deaf Leaders Meet with
Administrators from the Utah School for the Deaf
Administrators from the Utah School for the Deaf
While the Utah Association for the Deaf recognized that the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf needed financial support from the Utah School for the Deaf, significant concerns surrounded the potential merger. Both the Deaf community and the JMS staff were concerned that USD would hinder the school's bilingual teaching approach. Parents had historically presented the signing program as a "program of last resort." This situation sparked concerns about whether the bilingual program would receive the respect and promotion it deserved as a viable, Deaf-appropriate option. A fear lingered that JMS would suffer the same negative reputation that had affected the Total Communication program during parent-teacher conferences and Individualized Education Program (IEP) meetings. USD administrators had a reputation for relegating a Deaf child who was not succeeding in oral education to the signing program.
These fears were justified. In 2002, before the merger, UAD President Ronald J. Nelson, along with members Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, Dennis R. Platt, and Kristi Lee Mortensen, courageously confronted their concerns with USD Superintendent Lee Robinson and Steve W. Noyce, program coordinator for Utah's central division. They raised important issues about how the signing program, then referred to as Total Communication, was being managed, especially highlighting the oral bias perceived within USD. The UAD representatives sought to bring attention to the USD administration's general lack of respect for the signing classroom environment.
Superintendent Robinson expressed a desire for balance between the oral and total communication programs. He also stated that Parent Advisors of the Parent Infant Program should provide parents with comprehensive information about all educational options at USD, ensuring that this information was free from bias (Mortensen, UAD Bulletin, October 2002). This sentiment echoed Dr. Jay J. Campbell's earlier wishes. Special Education Attorney Lawrence M. Siegel emphasized the necessity of full disclosure to parents regarding hearing loss and the available options for auditory and visual communication. This included clarifying the difference between merely receiving language and effectively using or becoming proficient in it. With full disclosure, parents could better understand the language-learning challenges their Deaf children faced, allowing them to make more informed decisions about the educational programs that would provide the necessary language tools for their children. It would be a significant achievement if every parent had access to this level of transparency (Siegel, 2000).
Superintendent Robinson's 2002 assurances yielded little progress in achieving program equality by 2009. Oral classroom placements continued to be favored and promoted to parents as the preferred starting point for their Deaf children, while the signing program remained overlooked, often listed at the bottom of the options as undesirable. As a result, many parents became frustrated with the inappropriate placement decisions made during their child's IEP meetings. Questions arose about whether these decisions stemmed from a deep-rooted bias among some USD administrators in favor of mainstream or oral educational settings.
Three years after the merger in 2005, a notable shift occurred in the attitude of the USDB Superintendent. Superintendent Linda Rutledge took a significant step by clarifying that JMS's ASL/English bilingual education was a vital component of the overall educational programs offered by the Utah School for the Deaf (Jeff W. Pollock, personal communication, May 3, 2006). By making this statement, she aimed to counteract the state's historical preference for oral programs and foster ongoing administrative support for the signing programs. This progress offers hope for a more balanced and inclusive future for Deaf education in Utah.
These fears were justified. In 2002, before the merger, UAD President Ronald J. Nelson, along with members Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, Dennis R. Platt, and Kristi Lee Mortensen, courageously confronted their concerns with USD Superintendent Lee Robinson and Steve W. Noyce, program coordinator for Utah's central division. They raised important issues about how the signing program, then referred to as Total Communication, was being managed, especially highlighting the oral bias perceived within USD. The UAD representatives sought to bring attention to the USD administration's general lack of respect for the signing classroom environment.
Superintendent Robinson expressed a desire for balance between the oral and total communication programs. He also stated that Parent Advisors of the Parent Infant Program should provide parents with comprehensive information about all educational options at USD, ensuring that this information was free from bias (Mortensen, UAD Bulletin, October 2002). This sentiment echoed Dr. Jay J. Campbell's earlier wishes. Special Education Attorney Lawrence M. Siegel emphasized the necessity of full disclosure to parents regarding hearing loss and the available options for auditory and visual communication. This included clarifying the difference between merely receiving language and effectively using or becoming proficient in it. With full disclosure, parents could better understand the language-learning challenges their Deaf children faced, allowing them to make more informed decisions about the educational programs that would provide the necessary language tools for their children. It would be a significant achievement if every parent had access to this level of transparency (Siegel, 2000).
Superintendent Robinson's 2002 assurances yielded little progress in achieving program equality by 2009. Oral classroom placements continued to be favored and promoted to parents as the preferred starting point for their Deaf children, while the signing program remained overlooked, often listed at the bottom of the options as undesirable. As a result, many parents became frustrated with the inappropriate placement decisions made during their child's IEP meetings. Questions arose about whether these decisions stemmed from a deep-rooted bias among some USD administrators in favor of mainstream or oral educational settings.
Three years after the merger in 2005, a notable shift occurred in the attitude of the USDB Superintendent. Superintendent Linda Rutledge took a significant step by clarifying that JMS's ASL/English bilingual education was a vital component of the overall educational programs offered by the Utah School for the Deaf (Jeff W. Pollock, personal communication, May 3, 2006). By making this statement, she aimed to counteract the state's historical preference for oral programs and foster ongoing administrative support for the signing programs. This progress offers hope for a more balanced and inclusive future for Deaf education in Utah.
Dr. Robert Sanderson. Source: On the Green, July 12, 1981
The Challenges of the Merger Between
the Utah School for the Deaf
and the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf
the Utah School for the Deaf
and the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf
The Utah School for the Deaf, in collaboration with the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf, has successfully tackled various challenges and implemented significant changes, demonstrating a strong commitment to ASL/English bilingual education. Dr. Michelle Tanner, who later became the Associate Superintendent, played a crucial role in launching the hybrid program in August 2016, which marked a pivotal moment in our progress. This initiative facilitated effective collaboration between the ASL/English bilingual program and the listening and spoken language program, providing personalized placement options within Deaf education. As a result, parents are no longer faced with an 'either/or' decision between the two programs, representing a significant advancement in offering impartial and equitable information, as detailed in PART V.
JMS's vision for Deaf education underscores the significance of ASL/English bilingual education. This approach is essential, serving as a powerful tool for fostering a supportive environment where Deaf and hard-of-hearing students can thrive academically and socially. By integrating ASL with English, JMS empowers these learners, ensuring they receive a well-rounded education that honors and celebrates their unique cultural identity. This commitment not only enhances their linguistic skills but also promotes a sense of belonging in the broader Deaf community. Furthermore, JMS's focus on inclusivity encourages collaboration among students, teachers, and families, creating a dynamic learning environment that benefits everyone involved.
JMS's vision for Deaf education underscores the significance of ASL/English bilingual education. This approach is essential, serving as a powerful tool for fostering a supportive environment where Deaf and hard-of-hearing students can thrive academically and socially. By integrating ASL with English, JMS empowers these learners, ensuring they receive a well-rounded education that honors and celebrates their unique cultural identity. This commitment not only enhances their linguistic skills but also promotes a sense of belonging in the broader Deaf community. Furthermore, JMS's focus on inclusivity encourages collaboration among students, teachers, and families, creating a dynamic learning environment that benefits everyone involved.
SECTION IV: The Impact of Implementing
Listening and Spoken Language Programs
at Utah State University on the
Deaf Community in Utah
Listening and Spoken Language Programs
at Utah State University on the
Deaf Community in Utah
Battling with Dr. Karl R. White, a Global Oral Leader
Dr. Karl R. White, a psychology professor at Utah State University and the founding director of the National Center for Hearing Assessment and Management (NCHAM) on the university campus, demonstrated a visionary approach. He foresaw the potential of Early Hearing Detection and Intervention (EHDI) Programs in the United States and globally, envisioning an international database to study the causes of hearing loss and expand genetic resources. Under his leadership at NCHAM, advances in listening and spoken language, as well as cochlear implants, significantly improved the availability and accessibility of learning American Sign Language (ASL) at state schools for the deaf nationwide and globally.
Early Detection
of Hearing Loss in Newborns
of Hearing Loss in Newborns
Dr. Karl R. White, a pioneer in the field of early hearing loss detection, conducted groundbreaking clinical trials for newborn hearing tests from 1988 to 1993. His work was instrumental in establishing the National Center for Hearing Assessment and Management (NCHAM) in 1990. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) recognized the significance of his studies and, in 1993, announced the implementation of hearing loss screenings for all newborns. This initiative significantly improved the early detection of hearing loss in children across the United States, leading to the annual Conference on Early Hearing Detection and Intervention (EHDI) hosted by NCHAM at Utah State University in 2000. This conference eventually expanded to other states as well. Dr. White's contributions have made him a sought-after consultant for hospitals and health agencies nationwide that wish to make newborn hearing screenings widely available.
Dr. Karl R. White. Source: Utah State University website
Dr. White's influence extended beyond the United States. As he traveled the world as a consultant, he noticed that Deaf and hard-of-hearing babies and toddlers who received cochlear implants early in life and participated in early intervention and preschool programs focused on listening and speaking skills were able to function in a classroom without hearing aids by the age of seven. This observation led him to conclude that all babies with hearing loss could benefit from surgical cochlear implantation. By engaging them in a listening and spoken language program during infancy or toddlerhood, he believed the need to learn sign language or attend state schools for the deaf could be eliminated. His global impact is also reflected in the establishment of Sound Beginnings on May 3, 2007, at Utah State University, which serves Deaf newborns and toddlers with cochlear implants, despite facing opposition from the Deaf community in Logan, Utah.
The Establishment
of the Sound Beginnings Program
of the Sound Beginnings Program
On May 3, 2007, Utah State University held a meeting to launch Sound Beginnings, a Deaf Education program focused on listening and spoken language. Dr. Todd Houston, the program director, introduced the audience to the "Sound Beginnings of Cache Valley" grant, a $3 million initiative designed to promote listening and spoken language development. Superintendent Linda Rutledge of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind, along with other representatives from USDB, attended the event. During the meeting, Dr. Houston and Dr. Beth Foley presented an introductory DVD featuring the USU Dean of the College of Education. The video showcased parents, teachers, administrative staff, and specialists working collaboratively as "partners in a supportive system" to provide effective oral education to children in a "normal, ordinary, independent, happy environment." Through this program, children gained significant independence and were able to integrate into mainstream school settings.
One of the notable speakers was Jean Sachar Moog, the director of the Moog Center for Deaf Education in St. Louis, Missouri. She is the creator of the Moog Curriculum, a comprehensive educational framework that Sound Beginnings implemented. This curriculum, designed to nurture listening and spoken language development, has received widespread acclaim for its effectiveness. Ms. Moog, who was my principal when I attended the Central Institute for the Deaf in St. Louis from 1978 to 1987, expressed her pride in having established Moog Training Centers to assist parents who could not afford to relocate to St. Louis. She also shared her enthusiasm for expanding the Moog curriculum both nationally and internationally.
One of the notable speakers was Jean Sachar Moog, the director of the Moog Center for Deaf Education in St. Louis, Missouri. She is the creator of the Moog Curriculum, a comprehensive educational framework that Sound Beginnings implemented. This curriculum, designed to nurture listening and spoken language development, has received widespread acclaim for its effectiveness. Ms. Moog, who was my principal when I attended the Central Institute for the Deaf in St. Louis from 1978 to 1987, expressed her pride in having established Moog Training Centers to assist parents who could not afford to relocate to St. Louis. She also shared her enthusiasm for expanding the Moog curriculum both nationally and internationally.
Jean Sachar Moog. Source: The Moog Center for Deaf Education website
Dr. Cynthia Plue, a respected member of the Utah Deaf community, attended the meeting. She offered valuable insights regarding the current status of USU's initiatives (Dr. Cynthia Plue, personal communication, May 1, 2009).
A couple showcased their young Deaf daughter's oral skills by having her sing "Itsy Bitsy Spider." The young girl had a cochlear implant.
Following that, a panel discussion was part of the meeting's agenda. The panel consisted of parents of children with cochlear implants and professionals in the field of hearing loss. A moderator led the discussion, relaying audience questions on 4x6 cards.
Sound Beginnings is a program for children who are Deaf and hard-of-hearing, aged from birth to five years, beginning in September 2007. It offers weekly family visits for children up to two years old, a playgroup for those aged two to three years, and full-day enrollment for kids aged three to five. The first three years of the program are free; however, funding for the last two years has not yet been determined. The goal is to transition these children into local public schools for kindergarten. The program emphasizes family involvement and collaboration, utilizing a team of specialists that includes USU students in relevant fields.
A couple showcased their young Deaf daughter's oral skills by having her sing "Itsy Bitsy Spider." The young girl had a cochlear implant.
Following that, a panel discussion was part of the meeting's agenda. The panel consisted of parents of children with cochlear implants and professionals in the field of hearing loss. A moderator led the discussion, relaying audience questions on 4x6 cards.
Sound Beginnings is a program for children who are Deaf and hard-of-hearing, aged from birth to five years, beginning in September 2007. It offers weekly family visits for children up to two years old, a playgroup for those aged two to three years, and full-day enrollment for kids aged three to five. The first three years of the program are free; however, funding for the last two years has not yet been determined. The goal is to transition these children into local public schools for kindergarten. The program emphasizes family involvement and collaboration, utilizing a team of specialists that includes USU students in relevant fields.
Dr. Cynthia Plue
Dr. Houston indicated that the program would respect and acknowledge the family's choice of communication methods; however, classroom staff would only respond to the children orally. Although Dr. Houston did not explicitly state it, he implied that the staff would ignore the children's signing. The program aimed to adopt a "diagnostic-based" educational approach, enabling the demonstrative use of measured assessment tools to facilitate successful oral education for children daily.
The meeting featured a panel discussion involving professionals and parents of children with cochlear implants. The audience submitted a range of questions on 4x6 cards that the panel addressed. Topics included the effectiveness of the program, challenges faced by children with cochlear implants, and the role of parents in the educational process.
A Deaf parent of a Deaf child in the target age range asked how he could use Sound Beginnings to educate his child, given that he communicated using sign language. A professional on the panel responded that "if needed, they will provide interpreters" to meet the child's communication needs. Many parents were surprised by this response, particularly in light of the recently outlined non-signing philosophy.
A hearing parent on the panel expressed regret that her daughter had not received a cochlear implant sooner. Her daughter was 3½ years old, and in this parent's view, she should have been implanted at age 2½. Her advice to other parents was to have their children implanted as early as possible to facilitate better verbal and auditory language skills for Deaf children.
Another hearing parent emphasized the importance of building a strong parental community for "non-deaf" families, similar to the "Moog System in St. Louis." Dr. Cynthia Plue, representing the Utah Deaf community, was puzzled by this parent's comment and sought clarification. However, the Q&A moderator did not allow any impromptu questions. The remarks showed a potentially biased or discriminatory attitude against Deaf people, which was offensive to many in attendance and might have legal implications.
Dr. Plue submitted significant questions on 4x6 cards:
Unfortunately, the moderator did not consider Dr. Plue's questions during the panel discussion. Dr. Plue expressed frustration at her questions being ignored, noting it was clever of the Sound Beginnings presenters to exert control over the meeting to support their oral-based education approach (Dr. Cynthia Plue, personal communication, May 1, 2009).
The meeting featured a panel discussion involving professionals and parents of children with cochlear implants. The audience submitted a range of questions on 4x6 cards that the panel addressed. Topics included the effectiveness of the program, challenges faced by children with cochlear implants, and the role of parents in the educational process.
A Deaf parent of a Deaf child in the target age range asked how he could use Sound Beginnings to educate his child, given that he communicated using sign language. A professional on the panel responded that "if needed, they will provide interpreters" to meet the child's communication needs. Many parents were surprised by this response, particularly in light of the recently outlined non-signing philosophy.
A hearing parent on the panel expressed regret that her daughter had not received a cochlear implant sooner. Her daughter was 3½ years old, and in this parent's view, she should have been implanted at age 2½. Her advice to other parents was to have their children implanted as early as possible to facilitate better verbal and auditory language skills for Deaf children.
Another hearing parent emphasized the importance of building a strong parental community for "non-deaf" families, similar to the "Moog System in St. Louis." Dr. Cynthia Plue, representing the Utah Deaf community, was puzzled by this parent's comment and sought clarification. However, the Q&A moderator did not allow any impromptu questions. The remarks showed a potentially biased or discriminatory attitude against Deaf people, which was offensive to many in attendance and might have legal implications.
Dr. Plue submitted significant questions on 4x6 cards:
- "Where are the successful Deaf adults with cochlear implants, and how are they contributing to this program?" These individuals should be visible as successful role models for parents and Deaf children, demonstrating that the program is effective.
- "What professions are these Deaf [cochlear implant] adults engaged in?"
- "Will this program provide ample opportunities for Deaf babies and toddlers to be educated bilingually in American Sign Language (ASL) and English?"
Unfortunately, the moderator did not consider Dr. Plue's questions during the panel discussion. Dr. Plue expressed frustration at her questions being ignored, noting it was clever of the Sound Beginnings presenters to exert control over the meeting to support their oral-based education approach (Dr. Cynthia Plue, personal communication, May 1, 2009).
The Impact of Sound Beginnings
on Deaf Education in Utah
on Deaf Education in Utah
LeeThe Oberkotter Foundation granted Dr. White's request for a $3 million grant to fund his listening and spoken language interventions. This was the largest private foundation in America that focused on the LSL approach for children who are Deaf or hard-of-hearing. Due to this significant support, the early childhood educational program was tuition-free for Deaf children aged from newborn to five years old (Lambert, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, 2007, 1A; Kristi Lee Mortensen, personal communication, June 26, 2009). The children in the program have access to specialists in early childhood Deaf education, audiology, and speech-language pathology. The purpose of the program was to enable these Deaf children to succeed alongside their hearing peers without the use of sign language. The Sound Beginnings relies on cochlear implants in these profoundly Deaf or severely hard-of-hearing babies and toddlers (Lambert, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, 2007, 1A).
While Dr. White acknowledged that cochlear implants do not allow children to hear in the biological sense, he decided that his program would not encourage children to sign, fearing it would become a crutch and reduce children's chances of mastering spoken English. Dr. White's approach lacked support from linguistics research, validation from language acquisition experts, consultation with professors from Utah State University's Department of Deaf Education, and research in the burgeoning field of bilingual linguistics. Dr. White responded to the criticism by stating that the program would not order children already using sign language to stop (Lambert, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, 2007, 1A).
Dr. White continued with his early intervention approach. It would have been beneficial if he had conducted a thorough check beforehand. According to a bilingual study, which examined the language development of Deaf and hard-of-hearing children, a child who has mastered his first language will use it to learn a second language. When it comes to Deaf and hard-of-hearing children, their first language is American Sign Language, and English is their second language. The study also found evidence that sign language supports and improves speech development (Graney, 1997). Despite having no expertise or qualifications in this field, Dr. White had a profound impact on Utah's Deaf educational system. Did he consider how his actions would affect others? Unfortunately, he made a fortune for himself and USU through ongoing funding from the Oberkotter Foundation. The message was clear: money had a significant influence.
The university requested that he initiate a training program for audiologists and speech-language therapists, emphasizing cochlear implant technology and methods for integrating sound and language in therapy. According to Kristen Lee Mortensen's personal communication on June 26, 2009, USU provided financial support for the full-time teaching positions created for the new training program. However, their oral curriculum deprived non-signing preschool children of the opportunity to learn ASL. He used all of this money to encourage parents to enroll their children in his Sound Beginnings program, promising to teach them listening and spoken language.
While Dr. White acknowledged that cochlear implants do not allow children to hear in the biological sense, he decided that his program would not encourage children to sign, fearing it would become a crutch and reduce children's chances of mastering spoken English. Dr. White's approach lacked support from linguistics research, validation from language acquisition experts, consultation with professors from Utah State University's Department of Deaf Education, and research in the burgeoning field of bilingual linguistics. Dr. White responded to the criticism by stating that the program would not order children already using sign language to stop (Lambert, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, 2007, 1A).
Dr. White continued with his early intervention approach. It would have been beneficial if he had conducted a thorough check beforehand. According to a bilingual study, which examined the language development of Deaf and hard-of-hearing children, a child who has mastered his first language will use it to learn a second language. When it comes to Deaf and hard-of-hearing children, their first language is American Sign Language, and English is their second language. The study also found evidence that sign language supports and improves speech development (Graney, 1997). Despite having no expertise or qualifications in this field, Dr. White had a profound impact on Utah's Deaf educational system. Did he consider how his actions would affect others? Unfortunately, he made a fortune for himself and USU through ongoing funding from the Oberkotter Foundation. The message was clear: money had a significant influence.
The university requested that he initiate a training program for audiologists and speech-language therapists, emphasizing cochlear implant technology and methods for integrating sound and language in therapy. According to Kristen Lee Mortensen's personal communication on June 26, 2009, USU provided financial support for the full-time teaching positions created for the new training program. However, their oral curriculum deprived non-signing preschool children of the opportunity to learn ASL. He used all of this money to encourage parents to enroll their children in his Sound Beginnings program, promising to teach them listening and spoken language.
Dr. Karl R. White
The Utah Deaf community was deeply disappointed by Dr. Karl White's shortcomings. His view of sign language as a crutch was an insult, and his belief that deafness needed fixing was a rejection of Deaf identity and culture. The Deaf community encompasses cultural, societal, and linguistic aspects, and Dr. White's ideology diminished them as a people with a language. Despite holding a psychology degree, Dr. White appeared uninformed about the psychology of being Deaf. He abruptly excluded the Utah Deaf community, leaving them voiceless and without the ability to express their concerns or viewpoints. The community questioned whether Dr. White had considered the impact of his Sound Beginnings program on the families of Deaf or hard-of-hearing children who participated in it. They wondered if he was encouraging parents to support audism, a form of discrimination against the Deaf community, disregarding the diversity of the program's children, or intending to establish a world without exception. They also questioned whether the program's creation prioritized the child's overall development. Ultimately, the Utah Deaf community found the program's objectives unsatisfactory, a profound disappointment given the high expectations.
The Impact of the Deaf Mentor
Program at the SKI-HI Institute
Program at the SKI-HI Institute
Dr. White's activities had an impact on the SKI-HI Institute and Deaf Mentor Outreach on the Utah State University campus, which provides American Sign Language services. Dr. Paula Pittman, Director of Outreach for the Deaf Mentor Program at the SKI-HI Institute at Utah State University, has expressed her extreme dissatisfaction with the recent changes, particularly in relation to the new movement's impact on the institute and the outreach program.
The SKI-HI Institute, founded in 1972 in Logan, Utah, was a visionary initiative directed by Dr. Thomas C. Clark, son of John H. Clark, a Deaf engineer, and second cousin of Elizabeth DeLong, our first Deaf female president of the Utah Association of the Deaf in 1909. The institute's Deaf Mentor Program, which helps families communicate with their Deaf babies and toddlers through ASL, was a key part of its mission. At the time, the SKI-HI Institute and its Deaf Mentor Outreach needed full-time personnel. When Dr. Pittman observed that the Sound Beginnings program received at least three full-time positions from the university, she questioned whether USU's actions were in response to the influx of money from the Oberkotter Foundation or the needs of its programs (Kristi Lee Mortensen, personal communication, June 26, 2009).
The Deaf community in Utah held Dr. Paula Pittman and Dr. J. Freeman King in high regard for their significant contributions to the field. However, they were deeply disappointed by the misconceptions that professionals like Dr. Karl White and Dr. Todd Houston spread. These professionals made claims about listening and spoken language for Deaf babies that lacked research support and were misleading to hearing parents. The Utah Association for the Deaf criticized and refuted these misconceptions. It's important to note that Deaf adults are not always opposed to cochlear implants. However, the false claims that cochlear implants can fix or cure deafness, as propagated by Sound Beginning professionals and others like them, disturbed leaders and members of the Utah Deaf community (Lambert, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, 2007, 4A). Unfortunately, many hearing parents may believe these myths due to their lack of knowledge, only to be surprised when they find out that their Deaf or hard-of-hearing baby is still Deaf.
"Speech should not be the end product of a Deaf child's education," Dr. King emphasized. It can be a valuable tool, but language access is most important. "He stated that we can achieve these goals by using American Sign Language, which plays to the child's strength of vision rather than their weakness of inability to hear" (Lambert, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, 2007, 1A). This is not just a matter of preference but a fundamental right that every Deaf child should have access to.
The SKI-HI Institute, founded in 1972 in Logan, Utah, was a visionary initiative directed by Dr. Thomas C. Clark, son of John H. Clark, a Deaf engineer, and second cousin of Elizabeth DeLong, our first Deaf female president of the Utah Association of the Deaf in 1909. The institute's Deaf Mentor Program, which helps families communicate with their Deaf babies and toddlers through ASL, was a key part of its mission. At the time, the SKI-HI Institute and its Deaf Mentor Outreach needed full-time personnel. When Dr. Pittman observed that the Sound Beginnings program received at least three full-time positions from the university, she questioned whether USU's actions were in response to the influx of money from the Oberkotter Foundation or the needs of its programs (Kristi Lee Mortensen, personal communication, June 26, 2009).
The Deaf community in Utah held Dr. Paula Pittman and Dr. J. Freeman King in high regard for their significant contributions to the field. However, they were deeply disappointed by the misconceptions that professionals like Dr. Karl White and Dr. Todd Houston spread. These professionals made claims about listening and spoken language for Deaf babies that lacked research support and were misleading to hearing parents. The Utah Association for the Deaf criticized and refuted these misconceptions. It's important to note that Deaf adults are not always opposed to cochlear implants. However, the false claims that cochlear implants can fix or cure deafness, as propagated by Sound Beginning professionals and others like them, disturbed leaders and members of the Utah Deaf community (Lambert, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, 2007, 4A). Unfortunately, many hearing parents may believe these myths due to their lack of knowledge, only to be surprised when they find out that their Deaf or hard-of-hearing baby is still Deaf.
"Speech should not be the end product of a Deaf child's education," Dr. King emphasized. It can be a valuable tool, but language access is most important. "He stated that we can achieve these goals by using American Sign Language, which plays to the child's strength of vision rather than their weakness of inability to hear" (Lambert, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, 2007, 1A). This is not just a matter of preference but a fundamental right that every Deaf child should have access to.
Dr. J. Freeman King
Dr. Todd Houston, a former director of the Alexander Graham Bell Association, has been appointed as Sound Beginnings' new director. "Our goal is to transition [Deaf children] into their public school as soon as possible, but to make sure that they can be successful in a public school environment," he said. "I believe that most [Deaf] children today could benefit from a spoken language approach," Lambert states in The Ogden Standard-Examiner (2007, 1A). "I think?" No time is available for guesswork. There is no 'learning curve' to getting it right. In the early stages of language learning, avoiding the wrong path is crucial.
Dr. Beth Foley, Dean of the College of Education at USU, approved the Sound Beginnings Program. She did not see it as a replacement for the Deaf Education Department's teacher-training signing program at Utah State University. She defended the inclusion, saying, "We already have a strong sign language program. We are now broadening the options available to parents" (KSL.com, April 28, 2007). "Parents can and should be able to choose how they want to communicate with their children," Dr. Houston added. Many parents are increasingly opting for cochlear implants for their children, and these children require intensive follow-up training and services to fully benefit from this technology" (KSL.com, April 28, 2007). What Dr. Foley and Dr. Houston fail to recognize or comprehend is the undeniable fact that Deaf and hard-of-hearing newborns and toddlers need a fully accessible language in ASL. Nobody knows what is being heard through a hearing aid. A cochlear implant is a type of hearing aid that is surgically implanted in the cochlea of the inner ear. Hearing parents understandably want to converse verbally with their Deaf or hard-of-hearing children since 96% of Deaf babies are born to hearing parents. Yet it is not as simple as these parents making a decision. Because a cochlear implant does not cure deafness, sign language is the most appropriate accommodation for Deaf children. These children's eyes are ready for visual communication. We must inform parents about these realities and guide them through the acceptance process.
Dr. Beth Foley, Dean of the College of Education at USU, approved the Sound Beginnings Program. She did not see it as a replacement for the Deaf Education Department's teacher-training signing program at Utah State University. She defended the inclusion, saying, "We already have a strong sign language program. We are now broadening the options available to parents" (KSL.com, April 28, 2007). "Parents can and should be able to choose how they want to communicate with their children," Dr. Houston added. Many parents are increasingly opting for cochlear implants for their children, and these children require intensive follow-up training and services to fully benefit from this technology" (KSL.com, April 28, 2007). What Dr. Foley and Dr. Houston fail to recognize or comprehend is the undeniable fact that Deaf and hard-of-hearing newborns and toddlers need a fully accessible language in ASL. Nobody knows what is being heard through a hearing aid. A cochlear implant is a type of hearing aid that is surgically implanted in the cochlea of the inner ear. Hearing parents understandably want to converse verbally with their Deaf or hard-of-hearing children since 96% of Deaf babies are born to hearing parents. Yet it is not as simple as these parents making a decision. Because a cochlear implant does not cure deafness, sign language is the most appropriate accommodation for Deaf children. These children's eyes are ready for visual communication. We must inform parents about these realities and guide them through the acceptance process.
Did You Know?
Millicent "Millie" Simmonds, a Deaf actress from Utah, lost her hearing as a baby. Her mother, Emilie, enlisted the services of a Deaf Mentor Program through the SKI-HI Institute to learn and communicate in American Sign Language. Millie's first ASL sign while learning the language was "Mama." She designed a necklace named "Millie ASL Mama" and partnered with the Cut + Clarity company to market it. One hundred percent of the profit goes to the SKI-HI Deaf Mentor Program to continue offering services for families with Deaf children to learn ASL, as most parents with Deaf children never learn the language (Parker, Katie Couric Media, May 5, 2022).
Millicent Simmonds and her mom, Emily. Photo: Juan Carlos Silva Photography. Source: Katie Couric Media, May 5, 2022
Millie ASL Mama Charm @ Cut + Clarity
Public Comments Are Heard
During the establishment of Sound Beginnings of Cache Valley at Utah State University, various articles surfaced in the local Logan newspaper, reflecting community concerns and perspectives about the preschool program.
In May 2007, several Letters to the Editor were published in the Editorial section of the Herald Journal Newspaper in Logan, Utah. These letters provide valuable insights and can be traced through specific dates on the Herald Journal website via their archival search: www.hjnews.com/archives/.
In May 2007, several Letters to the Editor were published in the Editorial section of the Herald Journal Newspaper in Logan, Utah. These letters provide valuable insights and can be traced through specific dates on the Herald Journal website via their archival search: www.hjnews.com/archives/.
----Deaf Ed Article Needs Clarification----
To the editor:
This letter is in response to the article that appeared in the Saturday, April 28, 2007, edition of The Herald Journal titled, BUSU starting new Deaf ed program for kids under 5.C It is evident from statements made in the article, that certain misunderstandings need to be addressed. The Deaf Education Program at Utah State University is not a signing program, or a sign language training program; rather it is a nationally known teacher training program that places a primary emphasis on the use of American Sign Language as the language most accessible for the Deaf child with which English as a second language is paralleled. Also, the statement made in the article that the teacher of the Deaf should know some sign language is akin to saying that the teacher of English should know some English.
The Deaf Education Program at Utah State University has a national reputation in the field of Deaf education. The program is well known not only for training teachers who are skilled in the use of American Sign Language (ASL), but who are also skilled in teaching methodology and good teaching practices, and, is one of the few programs in the nation that has been granted three areas of certification by the Council on Education of the Deaf: Early Childhood, Elementary Education, and Secondary Education.
The Deaf Education Program embraces the bilingual/bicultural approach in educating the Deaf child, an educational approach that embodies the use of two languages, American Sign Language (ASL) and English, and an understanding of and respect for two cultures, the hearing culture and the Deaf culture. Goals of the bilingual/bicultural approach include: 1) using ASL to increase the knowledge of content information; 2) developing transfer strategies from ASL to English in order to gain information; and, 3) developing a strong metalinguistic awareness of English and how it is used in different settings and situations. The idea is that literacy in English can be achieved by first providing the Deaf child opportunities to acquire a visual language (ASL), and then bridging from this language to the written form of English. The bilingual/bicultural approach does not exclude the learning of speech and listening skills as valuable tools. It is not exclusionary; rather it is inclusive by nature.
J. Freeman King
Director, Deaf Education
Utah State University
(Herald Journal Logan, Utah May 15, 2007)
This letter is in response to the article that appeared in the Saturday, April 28, 2007, edition of The Herald Journal titled, BUSU starting new Deaf ed program for kids under 5.C It is evident from statements made in the article, that certain misunderstandings need to be addressed. The Deaf Education Program at Utah State University is not a signing program, or a sign language training program; rather it is a nationally known teacher training program that places a primary emphasis on the use of American Sign Language as the language most accessible for the Deaf child with which English as a second language is paralleled. Also, the statement made in the article that the teacher of the Deaf should know some sign language is akin to saying that the teacher of English should know some English.
The Deaf Education Program at Utah State University has a national reputation in the field of Deaf education. The program is well known not only for training teachers who are skilled in the use of American Sign Language (ASL), but who are also skilled in teaching methodology and good teaching practices, and, is one of the few programs in the nation that has been granted three areas of certification by the Council on Education of the Deaf: Early Childhood, Elementary Education, and Secondary Education.
The Deaf Education Program embraces the bilingual/bicultural approach in educating the Deaf child, an educational approach that embodies the use of two languages, American Sign Language (ASL) and English, and an understanding of and respect for two cultures, the hearing culture and the Deaf culture. Goals of the bilingual/bicultural approach include: 1) using ASL to increase the knowledge of content information; 2) developing transfer strategies from ASL to English in order to gain information; and, 3) developing a strong metalinguistic awareness of English and how it is used in different settings and situations. The idea is that literacy in English can be achieved by first providing the Deaf child opportunities to acquire a visual language (ASL), and then bridging from this language to the written form of English. The bilingual/bicultural approach does not exclude the learning of speech and listening skills as valuable tools. It is not exclusionary; rather it is inclusive by nature.
J. Freeman King
Director, Deaf Education
Utah State University
(Herald Journal Logan, Utah May 15, 2007)
----Sign language wrongly ignored----
To the Editor:
I am one of those “Deaf parents” who stood up and commented concerning sign language not being used in the Sound Beginnings of Cache Valley. I understand that they are offering alternative services for those children with hearing loss such as my son, but as you look around, there is no other choice in Cache Valley except the Sound Beginnings, which is not right.
I am one of those two million Deaf Americans who look at deafness without shame. We look at ourselves as an ethic group rather than a group with disability or a group that needs their hearing to be fixed, which is how Sound Beginnings looks at us. We are rich in culture, folklore, history, heritage, and language.
We are similar to African-Americans and other ethnic groups in the United States that, unfortunately, have gone through persecution and discrimination, except that ours have not been as violent as others. Such persecution and discrimination is easily seen at the meeting with Sound Beginnings of Cache Valley as they underestimate sign language and in fact ban them from using it in their classroom. That is an action of genocide. By focusing on speech only they rob us of our culture, heritage and easily accessible language, ASL. American Sign Language (ASL) was proven by William Stokoe to be a true and natural language in 1979. It is not inferior to any spoken language but is made to look so by programs such as Sound Beginnings.
I wonder if I should walk in a classroom with hearing children who wanted to learn sign language as is found among parents of infants and/or toddlers. If I follow Sound Beginning of Cache Valley, I would simply ban them from using their native language, English, and begin to teach them sign language with the assistance of technology such as robotic parts installed in their hands in order to get them to make the right sign. How would you feel? That’s exactly what we feel; we do not need technology to fix our ears.
I have never spoken one word in my lifetime but am able to maintain above a 3.5 GPA at USU. What is wrong with sign language? What is wrong being Deaf? Nothing; as for someone seeking for “normal” status such as parents with Deaf children, may I ask, what is normal? Is a left-handed person normal in contrast to a right-handed? Are person’s skin colors normal such as olive, peach, brown, etc.? Is a person normal with or without eyeglasses or eye contacts? What is normal anyway?
James Smith
Logan
(Herald Journal Logan, Utah May 2, 2007)
I am one of those “Deaf parents” who stood up and commented concerning sign language not being used in the Sound Beginnings of Cache Valley. I understand that they are offering alternative services for those children with hearing loss such as my son, but as you look around, there is no other choice in Cache Valley except the Sound Beginnings, which is not right.
I am one of those two million Deaf Americans who look at deafness without shame. We look at ourselves as an ethic group rather than a group with disability or a group that needs their hearing to be fixed, which is how Sound Beginnings looks at us. We are rich in culture, folklore, history, heritage, and language.
We are similar to African-Americans and other ethnic groups in the United States that, unfortunately, have gone through persecution and discrimination, except that ours have not been as violent as others. Such persecution and discrimination is easily seen at the meeting with Sound Beginnings of Cache Valley as they underestimate sign language and in fact ban them from using it in their classroom. That is an action of genocide. By focusing on speech only they rob us of our culture, heritage and easily accessible language, ASL. American Sign Language (ASL) was proven by William Stokoe to be a true and natural language in 1979. It is not inferior to any spoken language but is made to look so by programs such as Sound Beginnings.
I wonder if I should walk in a classroom with hearing children who wanted to learn sign language as is found among parents of infants and/or toddlers. If I follow Sound Beginning of Cache Valley, I would simply ban them from using their native language, English, and begin to teach them sign language with the assistance of technology such as robotic parts installed in their hands in order to get them to make the right sign. How would you feel? That’s exactly what we feel; we do not need technology to fix our ears.
I have never spoken one word in my lifetime but am able to maintain above a 3.5 GPA at USU. What is wrong with sign language? What is wrong being Deaf? Nothing; as for someone seeking for “normal” status such as parents with Deaf children, may I ask, what is normal? Is a left-handed person normal in contrast to a right-handed? Are person’s skin colors normal such as olive, peach, brown, etc.? Is a person normal with or without eyeglasses or eye contacts? What is normal anyway?
James Smith
Logan
(Herald Journal Logan, Utah May 2, 2007)
----Expand Options for Deaf Children----
To the Editor:
A cochlear implant is not simply a “magnetic pad and thin cables” connected to the auditory nerve. It is an electronic device implanted beneath the skin during an invasive surgery. The magnetic pad and thin cable are the visible part. Cochlear implants do not restore normal hearing. They simulate sounds. Children with cochlear implants will never have normal hearing.
This information is clearly explained by cochlear implant companies. A child born Deaf will always be Deaf even if they use hearing aids or have a cochlear implant. The fact is, if they do hear some sound (through assistive technology) it is not what we, as hearing people, are used to hearing.
This, however, does not impede the Deaf child. I am a mother of a Deaf child. He is 9 months old and can say the words, “more,” “please,” and “milk.” He uses his hands to say these words. I understand him and give him what he needs. When my child is ready for preschool, he will have over 300 signs. However, there is no preschool classroom in Cache Valley where my child will be able to go and have someone understand him and be able to respond in his own language (American Sign Language) to teach him the same things other children are learning. We can choose to send him to a special education classroom taught by someone with limited sign skills or send him to the new program, Sound Beginnings, that USU is starting fall 2007. Although many of the staff of this new program may know “some sign,” it will not be used in the program to enhance my son’s learning. When he signs, his teachers would not understand him, would not be able to respond back and build on the language he is giving them.
The Communicative Disorders and Deaf Education department has said that with this program they are expanding the existing program they have and offering more options for parents of Deaf children. I see no option for my son. There is no classroom where he can go and learn to speak as well as learn emergent literacy skills, social skills, and basic knowledge of the world around him through a language that is easily accessible to him. Why not provide a Bilingual/Bicultural approach where deafness is accepted, not shunned?
Where a child is allowed an accessible language (ASL) as well as taught to read, write and speak English. If allowed, Deaf children will excel in both ASL and English, growing up to be fully active adults contributing to society in a truly unique and wonderful way. Deaf children in Cache Valley need this opportunity.
Lynell Smith
Logan
(Herald Journal Logan, Utah May 6, 2007)
A cochlear implant is not simply a “magnetic pad and thin cables” connected to the auditory nerve. It is an electronic device implanted beneath the skin during an invasive surgery. The magnetic pad and thin cable are the visible part. Cochlear implants do not restore normal hearing. They simulate sounds. Children with cochlear implants will never have normal hearing.
This information is clearly explained by cochlear implant companies. A child born Deaf will always be Deaf even if they use hearing aids or have a cochlear implant. The fact is, if they do hear some sound (through assistive technology) it is not what we, as hearing people, are used to hearing.
This, however, does not impede the Deaf child. I am a mother of a Deaf child. He is 9 months old and can say the words, “more,” “please,” and “milk.” He uses his hands to say these words. I understand him and give him what he needs. When my child is ready for preschool, he will have over 300 signs. However, there is no preschool classroom in Cache Valley where my child will be able to go and have someone understand him and be able to respond in his own language (American Sign Language) to teach him the same things other children are learning. We can choose to send him to a special education classroom taught by someone with limited sign skills or send him to the new program, Sound Beginnings, that USU is starting fall 2007. Although many of the staff of this new program may know “some sign,” it will not be used in the program to enhance my son’s learning. When he signs, his teachers would not understand him, would not be able to respond back and build on the language he is giving them.
The Communicative Disorders and Deaf Education department has said that with this program they are expanding the existing program they have and offering more options for parents of Deaf children. I see no option for my son. There is no classroom where he can go and learn to speak as well as learn emergent literacy skills, social skills, and basic knowledge of the world around him through a language that is easily accessible to him. Why not provide a Bilingual/Bicultural approach where deafness is accepted, not shunned?
Where a child is allowed an accessible language (ASL) as well as taught to read, write and speak English. If allowed, Deaf children will excel in both ASL and English, growing up to be fully active adults contributing to society in a truly unique and wonderful way. Deaf children in Cache Valley need this opportunity.
Lynell Smith
Logan
(Herald Journal Logan, Utah May 6, 2007)
----Lies Spoken About Deafness----
To the Editor:
Outright lies were spoken at the meeting about an oral education program for Deaf kids less than five years old, called Sound Beginnings of Cache Valley, which was held last Friday, April 27th at USU.
The first lie is all Deaf children all over the United States speak well. My speech was awful until adulthood despite my speech training I got from infancy through 8th grade. Many more Deaf have far worse speech than I do.
The second lie is all Deaf children are happily mainstreamed at public schools and have normal relationships with hearing pupils. I notice the movie, shown at the Sound Beginnings of Cache Valley meeting, omits Deaf children in middle and high school years. I had fun playing with neighborhood children daily until I was eleven, when they switched from playing kid games to mostly chatting. They excluded me from chats due to my poor lip-reading skills. One day we walked around our block, smelling flowers. While I was bending down and smelling them, they all ran off. I just walked home and became best friends with books from then on.
The third lie is once children learn to speak; they stop signing. I attended an intensive oral school from three years old to fourteen years old. At reunions every five years, all 250 or so of us but three alumni students use ASL despite their good speech!
The fourth lie is that Cochlear Implants are helpful. If that is the case then why there are so many Deaf people get rid of theirs when they reach adulthood?
The fifth lie is that Savannah and the other two children shown on the video and in person who show up at the meeting all started with American Sign Language (ASL) and then progressed to good speech. What about those who didn’t started with ASL? It took me SIX months to learn how to pronounce my first word, “ball.” What a waste of time! In contrast Deaf children exposed to ASL usually have a vocabulary in ASL equal to a hearing children’s spoken vocabulary. Those who know ASL learned to speak faster because receptive language skills precede expressive skills, and ASL is visual and easier to understand than oral speech that is largely invisible to the Deaf.
The sixth lie is oral children are successful in the hearing world. Then why did Utah School for the Deaf and Blind, who supports oral/auditory approach more than other approaches, often fails to produce college-bound students for so long? Oral education still limits students’ access to communication in the classrooms. I was the only Deaf in my school from 9th grade through college and got generally 2.7 GPA in high school but mostly 2.0 GPA at college. After I learned ASL at age of 20 years old and attended graduate school with interpreter services, I got 4.0 GPA, thanks to my enhanced access to communication.
Susan Stokes
Logan
(Herald Journal Logan, Utah May 12, 2007)
Outright lies were spoken at the meeting about an oral education program for Deaf kids less than five years old, called Sound Beginnings of Cache Valley, which was held last Friday, April 27th at USU.
The first lie is all Deaf children all over the United States speak well. My speech was awful until adulthood despite my speech training I got from infancy through 8th grade. Many more Deaf have far worse speech than I do.
The second lie is all Deaf children are happily mainstreamed at public schools and have normal relationships with hearing pupils. I notice the movie, shown at the Sound Beginnings of Cache Valley meeting, omits Deaf children in middle and high school years. I had fun playing with neighborhood children daily until I was eleven, when they switched from playing kid games to mostly chatting. They excluded me from chats due to my poor lip-reading skills. One day we walked around our block, smelling flowers. While I was bending down and smelling them, they all ran off. I just walked home and became best friends with books from then on.
The third lie is once children learn to speak; they stop signing. I attended an intensive oral school from three years old to fourteen years old. At reunions every five years, all 250 or so of us but three alumni students use ASL despite their good speech!
The fourth lie is that Cochlear Implants are helpful. If that is the case then why there are so many Deaf people get rid of theirs when they reach adulthood?
The fifth lie is that Savannah and the other two children shown on the video and in person who show up at the meeting all started with American Sign Language (ASL) and then progressed to good speech. What about those who didn’t started with ASL? It took me SIX months to learn how to pronounce my first word, “ball.” What a waste of time! In contrast Deaf children exposed to ASL usually have a vocabulary in ASL equal to a hearing children’s spoken vocabulary. Those who know ASL learned to speak faster because receptive language skills precede expressive skills, and ASL is visual and easier to understand than oral speech that is largely invisible to the Deaf.
The sixth lie is oral children are successful in the hearing world. Then why did Utah School for the Deaf and Blind, who supports oral/auditory approach more than other approaches, often fails to produce college-bound students for so long? Oral education still limits students’ access to communication in the classrooms. I was the only Deaf in my school from 9th grade through college and got generally 2.7 GPA in high school but mostly 2.0 GPA at college. After I learned ASL at age of 20 years old and attended graduate school with interpreter services, I got 4.0 GPA, thanks to my enhanced access to communication.
Susan Stokes
Logan
(Herald Journal Logan, Utah May 12, 2007)
----Sound or Unsound Beginnings:
An Option is Not an Option Without Options----
Dr. J. Freeman King sent this letter to representatives of the
Jean Massieu School of the Deaf. Henry C. White Educational Council,
and many others at the Utah School for the Deaf.
An Option is Not an Option Without Options----
Dr. J. Freeman King sent this letter to representatives of the
Jean Massieu School of the Deaf. Henry C. White Educational Council,
and many others at the Utah School for the Deaf.
Dr. J. Freeman King sent this letter to representatives of
JMS (Jean Massieu School),
HCWEC (Henry C. White Educational Council), and many others at USDB (Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind)
The recently established oral-aural preschool program for Deaf children at Utah State University (Sound Beginnings) came into being due to an extremely generous donation of over 3 million dollars from the Oberkotter Foundation, a national foundation that is exclusionary in its focus—only supporting programs whose emphases are the development of speech and listening skills. The use of American Sign Language is not permitted by faculty or students involved in such a program. Even though much rhetoric has been spent on attempting to convince all involved that the evolution of this program is for the sake of “options for parents of Deaf children,” the question begs to be asked, What are the other options? There are none.
The Deaf Education Program at Utah State University has many obvious concerns regarding the oral-aural preschool (Sound Beginnings) and the manner in which it has been conceived, the contrived gestation period, and finally its birth. Discrete meetings, discussions, and conversations occurred the past year as a means of garnering support for the Oberkotter Proposal. The Deaf Education faculty at USU was not privy to any of these meetings, discussions, or conversations. Originally, the proposal was only for an oral-aural preschool but has metamorphosed to include an oral-aural teacher endorsement program, and will more than likely morph even further to become an oral-aural teacher preparation track.
The current Deaf Education Program at Utah State University not only considers the views of the victims of exclusively oral-aural programs, but also embraces those views and works to prepare teachers who will not continue the tradition of mediocrity that plagues programs for Deaf children. The Deaf Education Program at Utah State University prides itself in preparing teachers who provide Deaf children with the very best in terms of linguistic development in American Sign Language and English, and can provide those children with skills and opportunities that will allow them to have choices as they grow up, choices to communicate in American Sign Language or English.
Too often, Deaf children grow up regretting the education they suffered during their childhood. Often professionals in the field and pseudo-Deaf educators (psychologists, audiologists, and speech-language pathologists) do not consider the experiences of these Deaf children after they are grown (Why is it that the vast majority of oral-aural educated Deaf adults choose American Sign Language as their preferred language of communication and linguistic access when they are allowed to make the choice for themselves?) We cannot ignore the fact that many Deaf children, even those who do not have severe-to-profound hearing losses, eventually align themselves with the Deaf community, and experience regrets that they did not have the choice or opportunity to have access to a visual language and a different, more positive view of deafness. Why can we not give them the skills to have the best of both worlds right from the beginning?
In succumbing to the “gift” of millions of dollars from the Oberkotter Foundation, the decision has been made to run roughshod over a nationally-acclaimed program for training teachers of Deaf children; to provide a myopic preschool program in the name of parent options; and to initiate a well-funded propaganda campaign in support of the oral-aural preschool and the oral-aural only endorsement/certification track in the Department of Communicative Disorders and Deaf Education. It is dismaying how easily money can be the moving force that causes one to capitulate principles, distort statistical findings, limit parental choice as to educational options, and trample cultural and linguistic respect for a community of American citizens.
J. Freeman King, Director
Deaf Education
Utah State University
Logan, Utah 84322-1000
JMS (Jean Massieu School),
HCWEC (Henry C. White Educational Council), and many others at USDB (Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind)
The recently established oral-aural preschool program for Deaf children at Utah State University (Sound Beginnings) came into being due to an extremely generous donation of over 3 million dollars from the Oberkotter Foundation, a national foundation that is exclusionary in its focus—only supporting programs whose emphases are the development of speech and listening skills. The use of American Sign Language is not permitted by faculty or students involved in such a program. Even though much rhetoric has been spent on attempting to convince all involved that the evolution of this program is for the sake of “options for parents of Deaf children,” the question begs to be asked, What are the other options? There are none.
The Deaf Education Program at Utah State University has many obvious concerns regarding the oral-aural preschool (Sound Beginnings) and the manner in which it has been conceived, the contrived gestation period, and finally its birth. Discrete meetings, discussions, and conversations occurred the past year as a means of garnering support for the Oberkotter Proposal. The Deaf Education faculty at USU was not privy to any of these meetings, discussions, or conversations. Originally, the proposal was only for an oral-aural preschool but has metamorphosed to include an oral-aural teacher endorsement program, and will more than likely morph even further to become an oral-aural teacher preparation track.
The current Deaf Education Program at Utah State University not only considers the views of the victims of exclusively oral-aural programs, but also embraces those views and works to prepare teachers who will not continue the tradition of mediocrity that plagues programs for Deaf children. The Deaf Education Program at Utah State University prides itself in preparing teachers who provide Deaf children with the very best in terms of linguistic development in American Sign Language and English, and can provide those children with skills and opportunities that will allow them to have choices as they grow up, choices to communicate in American Sign Language or English.
Too often, Deaf children grow up regretting the education they suffered during their childhood. Often professionals in the field and pseudo-Deaf educators (psychologists, audiologists, and speech-language pathologists) do not consider the experiences of these Deaf children after they are grown (Why is it that the vast majority of oral-aural educated Deaf adults choose American Sign Language as their preferred language of communication and linguistic access when they are allowed to make the choice for themselves?) We cannot ignore the fact that many Deaf children, even those who do not have severe-to-profound hearing losses, eventually align themselves with the Deaf community, and experience regrets that they did not have the choice or opportunity to have access to a visual language and a different, more positive view of deafness. Why can we not give them the skills to have the best of both worlds right from the beginning?
In succumbing to the “gift” of millions of dollars from the Oberkotter Foundation, the decision has been made to run roughshod over a nationally-acclaimed program for training teachers of Deaf children; to provide a myopic preschool program in the name of parent options; and to initiate a well-funded propaganda campaign in support of the oral-aural preschool and the oral-aural only endorsement/certification track in the Department of Communicative Disorders and Deaf Education. It is dismaying how easily money can be the moving force that causes one to capitulate principles, distort statistical findings, limit parental choice as to educational options, and trample cultural and linguistic respect for a community of American citizens.
J. Freeman King, Director
Deaf Education
Utah State University
Logan, Utah 84322-1000
----Sound Beginnings Just an Option----
To the editor:
In Fall 2007, Utah State University will begin operating an early childhood educational program for deaf children that will be called Sound Beginning of Cache Valley. This tuition-free program for children up to six years of age will take advantage of recent developments in technology and educational techniques to help children with hearing loss maximize their cognitive, social, developmental, and daily living skills, including listening and talking. Recent letters to the editor from James B. Smith and Lynell Smith have emphasized the importance of providing educational and communication options to families in Cache Valley who have children with hearing loss. We agree with them completely. In fact, this is why we will be starting the Sound Beginnings program in the fall. Of course, this is just one option and we hope to work with people like the Smiths to further expand the options available here in Cache Valley. We recognize, respect, and appreciate that many deaf people consider themselves to be part of a cultural group that is rich in culture, history, and language, and do not think of themselves as a group of people with a disability that needs their hearing to be fixed.
It is not the intent of the Sound Beginnings program to dismiss the value of Deaf culture or the rich history of the deaf. The goal of Sound Beginnings is to assist families who want a spoken language option to help their child take advantage of his or her hearing ability to develop listening, speech, and language skills. Most hearing parents who have deaf children want to maximize their child’s ability to use and understand spoken language. The Sound Beginnings program will help families to achieve this goal. While sign language will not be used by the teacher or therapists in the Sound Beginnings program, we are not opposed to sign language or Deaf culture and will not ban the use of sign language in our classrooms. If children use signs, those signs will be responded to and honored, but the teacher or therapist will respond back with speech to encourage listening and speech development. We look forward to continuing to work with people in Cache Valley to provide a broader range of educational options for children with hearing loss.
Karl R. White
Logan
(Herald Journal Logan, Utah May 16, 2007)
In Fall 2007, Utah State University will begin operating an early childhood educational program for deaf children that will be called Sound Beginning of Cache Valley. This tuition-free program for children up to six years of age will take advantage of recent developments in technology and educational techniques to help children with hearing loss maximize their cognitive, social, developmental, and daily living skills, including listening and talking. Recent letters to the editor from James B. Smith and Lynell Smith have emphasized the importance of providing educational and communication options to families in Cache Valley who have children with hearing loss. We agree with them completely. In fact, this is why we will be starting the Sound Beginnings program in the fall. Of course, this is just one option and we hope to work with people like the Smiths to further expand the options available here in Cache Valley. We recognize, respect, and appreciate that many deaf people consider themselves to be part of a cultural group that is rich in culture, history, and language, and do not think of themselves as a group of people with a disability that needs their hearing to be fixed.
It is not the intent of the Sound Beginnings program to dismiss the value of Deaf culture or the rich history of the deaf. The goal of Sound Beginnings is to assist families who want a spoken language option to help their child take advantage of his or her hearing ability to develop listening, speech, and language skills. Most hearing parents who have deaf children want to maximize their child’s ability to use and understand spoken language. The Sound Beginnings program will help families to achieve this goal. While sign language will not be used by the teacher or therapists in the Sound Beginnings program, we are not opposed to sign language or Deaf culture and will not ban the use of sign language in our classrooms. If children use signs, those signs will be responded to and honored, but the teacher or therapist will respond back with speech to encourage listening and speech development. We look forward to continuing to work with people in Cache Valley to provide a broader range of educational options for children with hearing loss.
Karl R. White
Logan
(Herald Journal Logan, Utah May 16, 2007)
----What is an option?----
This article was sent to the editor of Herald Journal Logan on
May 21, 2007, with a response from the editor on the 22nd stating
they couldn’t publish James Smith’s letter due to the policy of one
letter per month per person and containing 450 words or less.
Thus, James’ article was given to the author for publishing.
This article was sent to the editor of Herald Journal Logan on
May 21, 2007, with a response from the editor on the 22nd stating
they couldn’t publish James Smith’s letter due to the policy of one
letter per month per person and containing 450 words or less.
Thus, James’ article was given to the author for publishing.
To the Editor:
In spite of the recent letter by Karl White stating that Sound Beginnings of Cache Valley is just an option and that their goal is “to assist families who want a spoken language rather than dismiss the value of Deaf culture or the rich history of the Deaf,” the Deaf community is not satisfied.
Despite Karl White commented: “We recognize, respect, and appreciate” Deaf individual’s culture, language and values. Yet if something is respected and recognized, wouldn’t it be taught in the classroom? Will Deaf children, our next generation, be taught about us? Will they be exposed to Deaf adults who could be role models to them? Who will help them to see they can be successful, even if they choose a different language from the hearing majority? Will they learn their accessible language, ASL? Apparently, the answer to these questions is ‘no.’ Quite often, these Deaf children would feel their deafness is something they need to be ashamed of and have to work their butt off to hide from everyone, while we have alternative ways to succeed without being ashamed. We have people in our community involved with engineering, computer science, medical services, transportation services and so many other occupations. We strongly believe that we can do anything except hear. Sound Beginnings focuses too much on our weaknesses: listening and speaking, while ignoring so many abilities we have to contribute to society.
At this time, Sound Beginnings is the only [preschool] option available to Deaf children in Cache Valley. How can parents truly choose to use a spoken language option when there is no other option with which to compare it? Parents can’t go to a classroom here in the valley that uses American Sign Language and see what instruction in this kind of class would provide.
The Deaf community is working on finding ways to provide another option for Deaf children. We truly hope that Karl White and the other staff of Sound Beginnings will be true to their word; that they will work with us to get another option. Then once that option is available, they will work with parents who want both sign language and auditory training for their children and allow that to happen. Parents need to be given an unbiased choice; to be able to see all approaches in action, and then make an educated decision. Most parents are choosing to give their child both ASL and auditory, truly allowing the child to choose for themselves what works for them. Why shouldn’t they?
James B. Smith, Logan
In spite of the recent letter by Karl White stating that Sound Beginnings of Cache Valley is just an option and that their goal is “to assist families who want a spoken language rather than dismiss the value of Deaf culture or the rich history of the Deaf,” the Deaf community is not satisfied.
Despite Karl White commented: “We recognize, respect, and appreciate” Deaf individual’s culture, language and values. Yet if something is respected and recognized, wouldn’t it be taught in the classroom? Will Deaf children, our next generation, be taught about us? Will they be exposed to Deaf adults who could be role models to them? Who will help them to see they can be successful, even if they choose a different language from the hearing majority? Will they learn their accessible language, ASL? Apparently, the answer to these questions is ‘no.’ Quite often, these Deaf children would feel their deafness is something they need to be ashamed of and have to work their butt off to hide from everyone, while we have alternative ways to succeed without being ashamed. We have people in our community involved with engineering, computer science, medical services, transportation services and so many other occupations. We strongly believe that we can do anything except hear. Sound Beginnings focuses too much on our weaknesses: listening and speaking, while ignoring so many abilities we have to contribute to society.
At this time, Sound Beginnings is the only [preschool] option available to Deaf children in Cache Valley. How can parents truly choose to use a spoken language option when there is no other option with which to compare it? Parents can’t go to a classroom here in the valley that uses American Sign Language and see what instruction in this kind of class would provide.
The Deaf community is working on finding ways to provide another option for Deaf children. We truly hope that Karl White and the other staff of Sound Beginnings will be true to their word; that they will work with us to get another option. Then once that option is available, they will work with parents who want both sign language and auditory training for their children and allow that to happen. Parents need to be given an unbiased choice; to be able to see all approaches in action, and then make an educated decision. Most parents are choosing to give their child both ASL and auditory, truly allowing the child to choose for themselves what works for them. Why shouldn’t they?
James B. Smith, Logan
James Smith of the Logan Deaf Community Seeks
Help from the Henry C. White Educational Council
Help from the Henry C. White Educational Council
As Utah State University was establishing Sound Beginnings of Cache Valley in May 2007, several articles in the local Logan newspaper, penned by supporters of ASL/English bilingual education, raised concerns and perspectives regarding the program. The university chose to overlook these concerns. Sound Beginnings significantly disrupted the progress of the ASL/English bilingual education programs in Utah, impeding efforts to provide an accessible language for Utah's Deaf babies. This time-sensitive situation demanded immediate attention and action.
On May 11, 2007, James Smith, a Deaf father of Deaf children and a student at Utah State University, and Susan Stokes, a member of the Utah Deaf community who resided in Logan, Utah, took a significant step. They visited the newly formed Henry C. White Educational Council, a crucial moment in their advocacy journey. Despite initial resistance, they persisted, warning the council that the issue in Logan was not isolated but rather a statewide and eventually nationwide concern. Their determination and foresight were commendable, as they argued that the problem, beginning at USU, would become a statewide and eventually nationwide issue. Thus, Deaf education was at stake. Their petition to the HCWEC was unsuccessful, and they left the meeting disappointed. This disappointment, however, did not deter them. They continued their campaign in Logan through a small Utah Deaf community but were unsuccessful (James Smith, personal communication, August 19, 2014).
On May 11, 2007, James Smith, a Deaf father of Deaf children and a student at Utah State University, and Susan Stokes, a member of the Utah Deaf community who resided in Logan, Utah, took a significant step. They visited the newly formed Henry C. White Educational Council, a crucial moment in their advocacy journey. Despite initial resistance, they persisted, warning the council that the issue in Logan was not isolated but rather a statewide and eventually nationwide concern. Their determination and foresight were commendable, as they argued that the problem, beginning at USU, would become a statewide and eventually nationwide issue. Thus, Deaf education was at stake. Their petition to the HCWEC was unsuccessful, and they left the meeting disappointed. This disappointment, however, did not deter them. They continued their campaign in Logan through a small Utah Deaf community but were unsuccessful (James Smith, personal communication, August 19, 2014).
James Smith
After all, James was correct in his concerns about Dr. White's widespread influence on Deaf newborns and the impact on state schools for the deaf across the country. Members of the HCWEC were slow to recognize Dr. White's power until it was too late. Deaf individuals Jeff W. Pollock, Dan V. Mathis, Stephanie Lowder Mathis, Cynthia Plue, Trenton Marsh, Julio Diaz, Jr., and Jodi Christel Becker formed the Henry C. White Educational Council in 2006. The Henry C. White Educational Council dissolved in 2007 and merged with the following organizations:
Building the organization from the ground up was a monumental task that required significant effort, which stretched the members thin. At the time, HCWEC members were either working with other organizations or had joined them to implement changes and improvements within the system. For example, the Utah Code, which was created in the late 1970s to promote mainstreaming, had an impact on the 2005 merger of the Utah School for the Deaf and the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf, in which some also served on the work group to amend the law so that students could receive education on the school campus. Furthermore, the lack of a permanent school facility intensified the search for a suitable school building to serve as a home, a goal that some efforts helped achieve. They also had family and jobs. Time constraints and other obligations led to the closure of the HCWEC, highlighting the challenges faced in advocating for Deaf education.
While working within the Utah system, the national Deaf community engaged in external battles with Dr. White. These included attending legislative events to defend state schools for the deaf, organizing rallies outside Early Hearing Detection and Intervention (EHDI) conferences, registering for EHDI conferences to advocate for the inclusion of ASL/English bilingual education in the agenda to counterbalance the LSL approach, and engaging in various other activities.
- The Utah Association for the Deaf Board supports its mission.
- The UAD Education Committee supports the educational causes of their choices.
- The USDB Institutional Council is responsible for overseeing the Utah School for the Deaf.
- The USDB Legislative Work Group will update the Utah Code that regulates the school, and
- The Utah Deaf Education Core Group attempted to end the two-year contract of then-USDB Superintendent Steven W. Noyce.
Building the organization from the ground up was a monumental task that required significant effort, which stretched the members thin. At the time, HCWEC members were either working with other organizations or had joined them to implement changes and improvements within the system. For example, the Utah Code, which was created in the late 1970s to promote mainstreaming, had an impact on the 2005 merger of the Utah School for the Deaf and the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf, in which some also served on the work group to amend the law so that students could receive education on the school campus. Furthermore, the lack of a permanent school facility intensified the search for a suitable school building to serve as a home, a goal that some efforts helped achieve. They also had family and jobs. Time constraints and other obligations led to the closure of the HCWEC, highlighting the challenges faced in advocating for Deaf education.
While working within the Utah system, the national Deaf community engaged in external battles with Dr. White. These included attending legislative events to defend state schools for the deaf, organizing rallies outside Early Hearing Detection and Intervention (EHDI) conferences, registering for EHDI conferences to advocate for the inclusion of ASL/English bilingual education in the agenda to counterbalance the LSL approach, and engaging in various other activities.
Susan Stokes
To this day, concerned leaders and advocates of the Utah Deaf community, as well as parents of Deaf children, see Dr. Karl White as a modern Dr. Grant B. Bitter, a Utahn like him, whose professional and ecclesiastical influence contributed to the oralism education controversy for Deaf children in Utah between the 1960s and 1980s. Even though only a small portion of the national Deaf community was aware of Dr. Bitter's efforts at the time, they are now paying close attention to Dr. White's work, which has had a scholarly, financial, political, and legislative impact on early intervention strategies for Deaf infants nationally and globally, primarily through the National Center for Hearing Assessment and Management that he founded. According to the national Deaf community, he is the most dangerous man on earth.
As James predicted, Dr. White is continually under watch and receiving criticism from the Deaf community for his engagement with Early Hearing Detection and Intervention Programs. Although he is not anti-sign language, as he claimed, his long-term focus is on auditory and speech training. He was the chair of Early Childhood Education at Utah State University and a staff member of the Sound Beginnings program at the same university (Sound Beginnings: Utah State University website). In addition to his credentials, he also served on clinical councils and committees. As a result, Dr. White did not work with the Deaf community or fully consider their input; his teaching method for Deaf children is exclusive, as they are the only ones who understand what it is like to grow up Deaf in terms of language and culture.
The National Association of the Deaf, the American Society for Deaf Children, the Deafhood Foundation, and the Deaf Bilingual Coalition closely monitor Dr. White to ensure that ASL/English bilingual education and state schools for the deaf are protected and preserved. See our attached letter to those groups providing Utah Deaf community services through collaboration with the National Association of the Deaf on a national level for more information about how Utah impacts other states.
As James predicted, Dr. White is continually under watch and receiving criticism from the Deaf community for his engagement with Early Hearing Detection and Intervention Programs. Although he is not anti-sign language, as he claimed, his long-term focus is on auditory and speech training. He was the chair of Early Childhood Education at Utah State University and a staff member of the Sound Beginnings program at the same university (Sound Beginnings: Utah State University website). In addition to his credentials, he also served on clinical councils and committees. As a result, Dr. White did not work with the Deaf community or fully consider their input; his teaching method for Deaf children is exclusive, as they are the only ones who understand what it is like to grow up Deaf in terms of language and culture.
The National Association of the Deaf, the American Society for Deaf Children, the Deafhood Foundation, and the Deaf Bilingual Coalition closely monitor Dr. White to ensure that ASL/English bilingual education and state schools for the deaf are protected and preserved. See our attached letter to those groups providing Utah Deaf community services through collaboration with the National Association of the Deaf on a national level for more information about how Utah impacts other states.
Deaf Bilingual Coalition
Did You Know?
The Henry C. White Educational Council was formed in 2006, comprising Deaf individuals, including Jeff W. Pollock, Dan V. Mathis, Stephanie Lowder Mathis, Cynthia Plue, Trenton Marsh, Julio Diaz, and Jodi Christel Becker. Within a year, it was closed due to a lack of time and other commitments. However, the members' resilience was evident as they didn't let this setback deter them. Some of the members joined the Utah Association of the Deaf board to support the association's mission and purpose. Other members joined the UAD Education Committee to support the educational causes of their choice. Some of them joined the USDB Institutional Council and Utah Deaf Education Core Group.
Utah State University and
Utah School for the Deaf Form a Partnership
Utah School for the Deaf Form a Partnership
After Dr. Karl White founded the Sound Beginnings Program in 2007, which focused on listening and spoken language, the Utah legislature granted Utah State University permission to collaborate with the Utah School for the Deaf and other educational organizations in 2008. Their mission was to enhance services for young children with hearing loss throughout the state by establishing a model demonstration program. In July 2010, Utah State University and the Utah School for the Deaf established a formal partnership. The partnership aimed to provide services to all children from birth to five years old. The children who were Deaf or hard of hearing in Northern Utah were to be the primary beneficiaries. The Sound Beginnings program received $440,000 in funding from USDB Superintendent Steven W. Noyce. Out of concern for the inequitable distribution of funds by the USDB, Jeff W. Pollock, a member of the USDB Advisory Council representing the Utah Deaf community and a former member of the Utah Deaf Education Core Group, expressed his concerns in 2011 about the USDB's limited budget, particularly the allocation of $440,000 to Sound Beginnings. According to him, the USDB needed the money for other essential services (Jeff W. Pollock, personal communication, April 1, 2011).
Three years later, in 2014, Dan V. Mathis, a member of the USDB Advisory Council representing the Utah Deaf community and a former member of the Utah Deaf Education Core Group, like Jeff W. Pollock, raised concerns about the continued funding for Sound Beginnings at the Advisory Council. Dan Mathis's bold and fearless commentary during the Advisory Council in 2014 helped steer USDB to stop funding for Sound Beginnings. His actions and advocacy had a significant impact on the policy decision. Dan asserted that the financing for Sound Beginnings significantly exceeded the state's student spending (Dan V. Mathis, personal communication, June 20, 2016).
On July 25, 2015, USDB Superintendent Joel Coleman replaced Steven Noyce, and USD Associate Superintendent Michelle Tanner announced the discontinuation of the $440,000 funding for the Sound Beginnings program. Superintendent Coleman confirmed that the high cost of Sound Beginnings was the reason for this decision. He stated, “We pay significantly more to Sound Beginnings than we spend on students throughout the rest of the state” (Cannon, The Herald Journal, August 2, 2015). This shift in funding priorities sparked a heated debate among educators and parents about the value and effectiveness of early childhood programs. Critics argued that discontinuing such initiatives could hinder the developmental progress of young learners, while supporters believed the funds could be better allocated to enhance overall educational resources.
Three years later, in 2014, Dan V. Mathis, a member of the USDB Advisory Council representing the Utah Deaf community and a former member of the Utah Deaf Education Core Group, like Jeff W. Pollock, raised concerns about the continued funding for Sound Beginnings at the Advisory Council. Dan Mathis's bold and fearless commentary during the Advisory Council in 2014 helped steer USDB to stop funding for Sound Beginnings. His actions and advocacy had a significant impact on the policy decision. Dan asserted that the financing for Sound Beginnings significantly exceeded the state's student spending (Dan V. Mathis, personal communication, June 20, 2016).
On July 25, 2015, USDB Superintendent Joel Coleman replaced Steven Noyce, and USD Associate Superintendent Michelle Tanner announced the discontinuation of the $440,000 funding for the Sound Beginnings program. Superintendent Coleman confirmed that the high cost of Sound Beginnings was the reason for this decision. He stated, “We pay significantly more to Sound Beginnings than we spend on students throughout the rest of the state” (Cannon, The Herald Journal, August 2, 2015). This shift in funding priorities sparked a heated debate among educators and parents about the value and effectiveness of early childhood programs. Critics argued that discontinuing such initiatives could hinder the developmental progress of young learners, while supporters believed the funds could be better allocated to enhance overall educational resources.
Dan V. Mathis. Source: University of Washington
USD's decision to cut funding to Sound Beginnings, a program that helps Deaf children learn to listen and speak, raised concerns among parents, including Sara Menlove Doutre, a parent of a Deaf daughter. Sara is the daughter of Dr. Martell Menlove, retired Utah's Deputy State Superintendent of Public Instruction (with whom the Utah Deaf Education Core Group sought support to no avail while battling USDB Superintendent Steven W. Noyce), and retired Rep. Ronda Menlove, R-Garland. Despite efforts to reverse the decision, the Utah State Board of Education did not change its stance.
Sara Menlove Doutre. Source: Linkedin.com
A significant change came when Superintendent Coleman and Associate Superintendent Tanner allocated additional funding to enhance services at the Utah School for the Deaf. They initiated an LSL preschool program within the Cache School District and Logan City School District (Cannon, The Herald Journal, August 2, 2015). Dr. Sara Menlove Doutre, who served as president of the Utah Hands and Voices Chapter from 2012 to 2015, was the only parent involved in establishing the preschool in Logan. Her advocacy played a crucial role in improving education for her daughter, who was the only child with hearing loss at the preschool during its first year. Facing limited options within a 90-minute drive from home, Sara's persistence has paid off. As of 2024, her daughter has made great strides thanks to the Utah School for the Deaf's services, including both ASL and LSL instruction. She is now dual-enrolled, receiving valuable sign language education. Through her efforts, which included filing complaints about the school, Sara ensured her daughter had access to a Deaf Mentor, ASL, and LSL support (Sara Menlove Doutre: LinkedIn; Sara Menlove Doutre, personal communication, September 10, 2021).
'Deaf School Cuts Ties with Sound Beginnings, to Ire of Parents.' Source: Kelly Cannon, August 2, 2015
During Superintendent Noyce's administration from 2009 to 2013, the Utah Deaf Education Core Group played a significant role in disputing a $440,000 matter. Their collective advocacy efforts, including Dan's bold and fearless commentary during the USDB Advisory Council in 2014, were instrumental in steering USDB to the decision to stop funding for Sound Beginnings. The Core Group's role in advocating for Deaf education is significant and should be acknowledged, as it has had a profound impact on the educational landscape for Deaf children in Utah.
Joel Coleman
Gallaudet University to establish the “National Beacon Center” for the Advancement of Early Language Acquisition for Deaf Children
After years of battling with Dr. Karl R. White and fast-forwarding to April 4, 2024, Gallaudet University and Tawny Holmes Hlibok, a Deaf lawyer and advocate for Deaf education, announced a major victory for the Early Hearing Detection and Intervention (EHDI) system on their respective websites. It was under Tawny's inspiring leadership and unwavering dedication that this victory was achieved. After receiving an EHDI grant, Gallaudet University established the National Beacon Center for Early Language System Accountability and Data. This grant, valued at $3.75 million, was previously awarded to Dr. White's EHDI program in the 2000s and is set to last for five years.
The Center has partnered with the Maternal and Child Health Bureau (MCHB) of the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) to create the Implementation and Change Center as part of the Early Hearing Detection and Intervention National Network (Weinstock, Gallaudet University, March 4, 2024). This achievement is a remarkable milestone for Tawny, Gallaudet University, and the EHDI system, reflecting Tawny's dedication and leadership in this field.
The National Beacon Center strives to be a beacon of hope, catalyzing the advancement of EHDI systems nationwide. Its mission is to ensure that infants and young children, up to the age of three, who are deaf or hard-of-hearing, receive the necessary support and timely services to enhance their language acquisition outcomes. The Center's efforts support EHDI programs nationwide and strengthen the national system of services for Deaf and hard-of-hearing children (Weinstock, Gallaudet University, March 4, 2024). This achievement marks a significant step toward improving the lives of Deaf and hard-of-hearing children, highlighting the profound impact of progress made within the EHDI system.
The Center has partnered with the Maternal and Child Health Bureau (MCHB) of the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) to create the Implementation and Change Center as part of the Early Hearing Detection and Intervention National Network (Weinstock, Gallaudet University, March 4, 2024). This achievement is a remarkable milestone for Tawny, Gallaudet University, and the EHDI system, reflecting Tawny's dedication and leadership in this field.
The National Beacon Center strives to be a beacon of hope, catalyzing the advancement of EHDI systems nationwide. Its mission is to ensure that infants and young children, up to the age of three, who are deaf or hard-of-hearing, receive the necessary support and timely services to enhance their language acquisition outcomes. The Center's efforts support EHDI programs nationwide and strengthen the national system of services for Deaf and hard-of-hearing children (Weinstock, Gallaudet University, March 4, 2024). This achievement marks a significant step toward improving the lives of Deaf and hard-of-hearing children, highlighting the profound impact of progress made within the EHDI system.
Tawny Holmes Hlibok. Source: Gallaudet University
The Center's primary focus is on families, ensuring they have access to accurate, comprehensive, up-to-date, and evidence-based information. This information empowers families to make crucial decisions for their children promptly, including decisions related to the full range of assistive hearing technologies and communication modalities. The Center's mission also includes providing families with reassurance and support, a crucial aspect of their services. Additionally, the Center will serve state EHDI programs, EHDI professionals, medical and allied health professionals, early intervention providers, and diverse families of Deaf and hard-of-hearing children through consultation, webinars, regional summits, and ongoing training, education, and technical assistance (Weinstock, Gallaudet University, March 4, 2024).
Amy Cochen Efton, Deaf Education Advocate of Georgia, posted the announcement on her Facebook wall about the establishment of Gallaudet University's National Beacon Center for Early Language System Accountability and Data
This is a remarkable change in the EHDI system, thanks to the collaborative efforts of Tawny Holmes Hilbok from Gallaudet University and all EHDI stakeholders. The time has come for EHDI to be in the right direction, and for Gallaudet and Tawny Holmes Hlibok to take the lead, a movement that empowers all of us to make a difference for Deaf children. Moreover, the EHDI system now prioritizes early language opportunities and ensures equal access to language for Deaf infants and their families. Tawny's leadership is paving the way and lighting a beacon of hope for the success of Deaf children in education and their future careers; it is also a promise of a brighter, more inclusive future. Suffice it to say that Dr. Jay J. Campbell and Dr. Robert G. Sanderson attempted to implement similar strategies for the Utah School for the Deaf in 1977, but Dr. Bitter opposed and blocked the effort. We've come a long way and are moving in the right direction.
As a representative and delegate of the Utah Association of the Deaf and a former Deaf education advocate, I had the pleasure of working with Tawny during the first-ever Education Advocacy Training that she organized at the 2012 National Association of the Deaf. Although I really like the name of the Beacon National Center, I found it interesting that the Center is named "Beacon." I wonder if Tawny, familiar with my work on a history website highlighting how the LSL community regards the Utah School for the Deaf as a "beacon" for offering two LSL and ASL options, drew inspiration for the Center's name. Perhaps Tawny referred to the Center as a "Beacon," as in the National Beacon Center, to steer away from the LSL's "beacon" spotlight. Who knows?! Regardless of their reason for choosing the name "Beacon," I wish them the best in serving Deaf children and their families, and I am confident they will do well.
As a representative and delegate of the Utah Association of the Deaf and a former Deaf education advocate, I had the pleasure of working with Tawny during the first-ever Education Advocacy Training that she organized at the 2012 National Association of the Deaf. Although I really like the name of the Beacon National Center, I found it interesting that the Center is named "Beacon." I wonder if Tawny, familiar with my work on a history website highlighting how the LSL community regards the Utah School for the Deaf as a "beacon" for offering two LSL and ASL options, drew inspiration for the Center's name. Perhaps Tawny referred to the Center as a "Beacon," as in the National Beacon Center, to steer away from the LSL's "beacon" spotlight. Who knows?! Regardless of their reason for choosing the name "Beacon," I wish them the best in serving Deaf children and their families, and I am confident they will do well.
SECTION V: Unveiling the Hidden Agenda
in the Utah Code for the Utah School for the Deaf: Advocating for the Mainstreaming of All Deaf
and Hard of Hearing Children
in the Utah Code for the Utah School for the Deaf: Advocating for the Mainstreaming of All Deaf
and Hard of Hearing Children
The Number One Culprit: Utah Code 53A-25-104:
Since the enactment of Public Law 94-142 in 1975, the Deaf community has viewed the public school system as the "most restrictive environment" for many Deaf students. The increased integration of Deaf children into mainstream schools has often led to their isolation from peers and a lack of role models who are Deaf adults. This situation has resulted in linguistic and social deprivation, as these students struggle to learn American Sign Language during their years in public school (Erting et al., 1989). The Utah Association for the Deaf has noted that the philosophy of mainstreaming and the widespread use of oral teaching methods at the Utah School for the Deaf have significantly impacted decisions regarding student placements in mainstream settings. The true state of Deaf education in Utah came to light during an Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) meeting that included Bronwyn O'Hara, a hearing parent; her nine-year-old daughter, Ellen; Steven Noyce, an advocate for oral and mainstream education; and the Outreach Program Director of the Utah School for the Deaf.
This context precedes the establishment of the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf. We will discuss Bronwyn O'Hara's experience and how the Utah Code regulating the Utah School for the Deaf ultimately impacted JMS after the merger.
In the fall of 1994, Bronwyn befriended Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz, a well-known Deaf leader and future co-founder of the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf. Together, they advocated for the establishment of a day school for Deaf students, where these students could gather and share a common language and culture. In this environment, hearing parents could learn from Deaf adults, and Deaf adults would feel appreciated and valued. Bronwyn envisioned such an institution for all Deaf children and families.
To achieve this goal, she formed the Support Group for Deaf Education, aiming to educate other parents of Deaf children about Deaf issues and Deaf education. As a mother of three Deaf children, Bronwyn understood the importance of having accurate information to make informed decisions.
At an IEP meeting, Steven Noyce stated that the Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind, under the Special Education Department, could not establish a Deaf day school. He also mentioned that changing the Utah Code, which regulates the USDB, would be necessary to create a day school (O'Hara, UAD Bulletin, January 1995). Steven's insights aligned with information Bronwyn had received during a phone conversation a few years earlier with Steve Kukic, the State Director of Special Education at the time. He informed her that all Deaf students began their education under the Department of Special Education rather than in regular schools. Consequently, Utah law established specific regulations to follow.
This context precedes the establishment of the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf. We will discuss Bronwyn O'Hara's experience and how the Utah Code regulating the Utah School for the Deaf ultimately impacted JMS after the merger.
In the fall of 1994, Bronwyn befriended Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz, a well-known Deaf leader and future co-founder of the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf. Together, they advocated for the establishment of a day school for Deaf students, where these students could gather and share a common language and culture. In this environment, hearing parents could learn from Deaf adults, and Deaf adults would feel appreciated and valued. Bronwyn envisioned such an institution for all Deaf children and families.
To achieve this goal, she formed the Support Group for Deaf Education, aiming to educate other parents of Deaf children about Deaf issues and Deaf education. As a mother of three Deaf children, Bronwyn understood the importance of having accurate information to make informed decisions.
At an IEP meeting, Steven Noyce stated that the Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind, under the Special Education Department, could not establish a Deaf day school. He also mentioned that changing the Utah Code, which regulates the USDB, would be necessary to create a day school (O'Hara, UAD Bulletin, January 1995). Steven's insights aligned with information Bronwyn had received during a phone conversation a few years earlier with Steve Kukic, the State Director of Special Education at the time. He informed her that all Deaf students began their education under the Department of Special Education rather than in regular schools. Consequently, Utah law established specific regulations to follow.
Bronwyn O'Hara
Bronwyn's plea during the 1994 IEP meeting sparked a dialogue with Steven Noyce. She requested that Ellen communicate directly with teachers and peers in ASL, without using an interpreter, and also needed peers with communication and linguistic abilities comparable to her own. Steven Noyce noted at the time that the law prohibited grade-level or above-grade-level Deaf students from attending the Utah School for the Deaf and its self-contained classes. He continued, "The classification of all Deaf children as special education students limited Ellen's educational options." Bronwyn was stunned. She asked where the intelligent Deaf students went. He replied with a single word: 'Mainstreamed' (Bronwyn O'Hara, personal communication, August 27, 2009).
Steven W. Noyce. Source: Twitter
Refusing to give up, Bronwyn implored him to draft an IEP for Ellen, including goals for gifted students, to enable her to receive an education at or above the grade level at the Utah School for the Deaf. Bronwyn was resolute in her determination to overcome obstacles by finding ways around existing laws to achieve her goal for Ellen, much like some states fund their gifted programs more efficiently by placing gifted students in special education without a waiver. However, Steven dismissed her efforts, stating that it would not happen in Utah. He further noted that changing the law would be necessary for the situation to change (Bronwyn O'Hara, personal communication, August 27, 2009).
Realizing that her only option was to enroll Ellen in a public school, Bronwyn was determined to seek support from the Utah Deaf community. Having lived in Utah for eight years, she suspected that the parents had never discussed or clarified many USD educational regulations. She also believed she had obtained enough information through reading, phone calls, and questioning at her children's IEP meetings. However, when Bronwyn requested answers, the USDB officers responded vaguely. Following the eye-opening IEP meeting, Bronwyn felt it was her duty to warn the Utah Association for the Deaf and its Deaf Community about the law that governs the USD. She believed they deserved to know what prevented the state from improving Deaf education (Bronwyn O'Hara, personal communication, April 27, 2009). The UAD Bulletin published her letter on the third page, requesting their assistance in changing the law in the January 1995 issue, as shown in the section below.
Realizing that her only option was to enroll Ellen in a public school, Bronwyn was determined to seek support from the Utah Deaf community. Having lived in Utah for eight years, she suspected that the parents had never discussed or clarified many USD educational regulations. She also believed she had obtained enough information through reading, phone calls, and questioning at her children's IEP meetings. However, when Bronwyn requested answers, the USDB officers responded vaguely. Following the eye-opening IEP meeting, Bronwyn felt it was her duty to warn the Utah Association for the Deaf and its Deaf Community about the law that governs the USD. She believed they deserved to know what prevented the state from improving Deaf education (Bronwyn O'Hara, personal communication, April 27, 2009). The UAD Bulletin published her letter on the third page, requesting their assistance in changing the law in the January 1995 issue, as shown in the section 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)
Bronwyn O’Hara. Source: UAD Bulletin, January 1995, p. 3
Bronwyn refused to postpone Ellen's education until the law underwent a change. Therefore, when it became clear that the current statute was a roadblock, the O'Hara family decided to leave Utah. Bronwyn had reservations about mainstreaming her Deaf children, as it would deprive them of Deaf adults and peers in terms of education and socialization. Ellen had an ineffective interpreter in fourth grade at Scera Park Elementary School, where she spent some of her time mainstreaming. In the Utah School for the Deaf system, no alternative was available. These circumstances consistently hindered her child's academic advancement. In reality, squandering these years of education was irreversible. The family decided it was time to locate a school that aligned with their values. In 1995, Ellen enrolled at the Indiana School for the Deaf, which was the first state school to incorporate the bilingual-bicultural program and its philosophy into its curriculum in 1990.
Bronwyn & her daughter, Ellen who became the future Jean Massieu School of the Deaf teacher
Another Parent's
Turn to Learn About the Law
Turn to Learn About the Law
Twelve years later, in 2007, it was another parent's turn to learn about Utah's law regulating the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind. When I moved to Utah from Washington, D.C., in 2000, I was unaware of the issues Bronwyn's family had experienced with the Utah School for the Deaf. As a Deaf parent with two Deaf children, Joshua and Danielle, I was elected in 2004 to serve on the USDB Institutional Council, which later became the Advisory Council. I was assigned to represent the Utah Deaf community, rather than to advocate as a parent.
When I applied for a vacant position to replace Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, whose term had expired, I suspected that my background in oral education and mainstreaming contributed to my selection. This role as an advocate for the Utah Deaf community has given me a distinct perspective and a platform to drive change. My journey, much like that of many others, has involved learning, advocacy, and striving for transparency in Utah's Deaf education laws.
Enrolling my Deaf children, Joshua and Danielle, at the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf was a markedly different experience. Before the merger of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind with the Jean Massieu School in 2005, enrolling Joshua at JMS was a straightforward process. Since JMS was an independent charter school, we did not need to go through the school district for the enrollment process when he turned three in 2004. However, after the merger, the process became more complex; families like mine had to navigate new regulations and systems, adding to the already challenging journey of Deaf education. This new layer of complexity was not just a bureaucratic hurdle but also a source of frustration and anxiety for us as parents.
Following the merger in 2005, JMS came under the jurisdiction of Utah's special education regulations and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This meant that families were now required to refer their children to their local school district before enrolling them at the Utah School for the Deaf. As part of this process, I enrolled my three-year-old daughter, Danielle, at JMS in 2006. However, under the IDEA guidelines, Danielle was required to undergo evaluation testing, which took considerable time and effort. The IEP meeting revealed that her academic performance was six months behind that of her hearing peers, making her eligible for educational services at JMS. While the design of this process aimed to provide students with appropriate support, it was significantly complicated and delayed Danielle's educational journey.
I asked whether Danielle would still qualify to attend JMS if she performed academically at the same level as her peers. The IEP team informed me that she would lose her eligibility for JMS if that were the case. When I sought further clarification, I received vague responses, and like many parents before me, my questions went unanswered. During one IEP meeting, I struggled to fully understand the regulations of the Utah School for the Deaf, which hindered my ability to advocate for my daughter's needs.
When I applied for a vacant position to replace Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, whose term had expired, I suspected that my background in oral education and mainstreaming contributed to my selection. This role as an advocate for the Utah Deaf community has given me a distinct perspective and a platform to drive change. My journey, much like that of many others, has involved learning, advocacy, and striving for transparency in Utah's Deaf education laws.
Enrolling my Deaf children, Joshua and Danielle, at the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf was a markedly different experience. Before the merger of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind with the Jean Massieu School in 2005, enrolling Joshua at JMS was a straightforward process. Since JMS was an independent charter school, we did not need to go through the school district for the enrollment process when he turned three in 2004. However, after the merger, the process became more complex; families like mine had to navigate new regulations and systems, adding to the already challenging journey of Deaf education. This new layer of complexity was not just a bureaucratic hurdle but also a source of frustration and anxiety for us as parents.
Following the merger in 2005, JMS came under the jurisdiction of Utah's special education regulations and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This meant that families were now required to refer their children to their local school district before enrolling them at the Utah School for the Deaf. As part of this process, I enrolled my three-year-old daughter, Danielle, at JMS in 2006. However, under the IDEA guidelines, Danielle was required to undergo evaluation testing, which took considerable time and effort. The IEP meeting revealed that her academic performance was six months behind that of her hearing peers, making her eligible for educational services at JMS. While the design of this process aimed to provide students with appropriate support, it was significantly complicated and delayed Danielle's educational journey.
I asked whether Danielle would still qualify to attend JMS if she performed academically at the same level as her peers. The IEP team informed me that she would lose her eligibility for JMS if that were the case. When I sought further clarification, I received vague responses, and like many parents before me, my questions went unanswered. During one IEP meeting, I struggled to fully understand the regulations of the Utah School for the Deaf, which hindered my ability to advocate for my daughter's needs.
Jodi Christel Becker
A year later, in 2007, the issue resurfaced when Joshua's annual evaluation report arrived. During the IEP meeting, I learned that, as a kindergartner, he was just one point away from qualifying for mainstream education. I was stunned to find out that the Utah School for the Deaf and Blind had "kicked out" every Deaf and hard-of-hearing student who scored 85 or higher since the late 1970s, following the passage of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 1975. This policy also impacted students with low vision, as well as those who were blind or deafblind. The shock and disbelief I felt upon learning about this policy were overwhelming and clearly indicative of the injustices present in the system. According to Utah law, the USDB transferred students who performed well on standardized tests to public schools, where they either swim or sink.
While serving on the Utah Deaf Education and Literacy Board for the JMS Charter School, which facilitated the merger, we hoped the school would thrive afterward. Unfortunately, that was not the case. In 2006, just one year after the merger, JMS Charter School experienced a decline in enrollment, as it lost several bright students to mainstream programs. Additionally, some bright students transferred to state schools for the deaf in other states. Like the Utah School for the Deaf, JMS faced the challenge of losing academically advanced students and struggled with retention. This situation felt frustrating, resembling a Catch-22.
Following the merger, Julio Diaz Jr., Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz, and I—parents of students in the JMS Program—found ourselves struggling to identify the root cause of our concerns. Our path to understanding took a significant turn when the administration at the Utah School for the Deaf revealed an unexpected issue under the Utah Code. This revelation was eye-opening; we learned that the Utah Code, which promoted mainstreaming, not only governed the operations of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind but also had an impact on the JMS Program itself.
Upon reviewing the Utah Code, we found that Utah Code 53A-25-104(2)(a) and (b) requires children identified as hearing-impaired to undergo eligibility evaluations for special education services before an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) can be created and before they can attend the Utah School for the Deaf. In contrast, Utah Code 25A-25-103 defines the Utah School for the Deaf as an institution capable of educating all Deaf and hard-of-hearing children in the state. This creates a clear contradiction between Utah Code 53A-25-104 and Utah Code 25A-25-103, as established by the Utah State Legislature.
I soon realized that the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind were mandated by law to classify Deaf and hard-of-hearing students as special education students if they demonstrated academic delays. An IEP must provide special education services to students who require additional support and accommodations. At USDB, only students with special needs or those experiencing academic delays received services. Therefore, if these students showed academic delays, they would need an IEP.
However, a persistent issue arose for Deaf students who were at or above grade level but were not eligible for IEP services and, consequently, could not attend USDB classes. This challenge, first identified by Bronwyn many years ago, has resurfaced. The Jean Massieu School of the Deaf, a vital institution for education, language acquisition, and socialization, had recently enforced the removal of a Deaf or hard-of-hearing student from its environment under the auspices of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind.
Furthermore, the decision to place students from the Utah School for the Deaf into mainstream programs significantly restricted their access to various educational opportunities due to communication barriers. While the Utah Code aimed to promote mainstreaming, this situation necessitates urgent changes to prevent these unfortunate Catch-22 scenarios.
Minnie Mae was familiar with the regulations because Bronwyn, whom she had mentored during her struggles with the Deaf educational system, had previously worked with the Utah Code at USDB before relocating to Indiana. However, Minnie Mae did not connect the consequences of the 2005 merger between USDB and the Utah School for the Deaf to the root of the problem until it personally affected her. She realized how contradictory the regulations were. Like me, she witnessed the effects of the legislation during her daughter Briella's IEP meeting. The IEP team informed Minnie Mae that her daughter would no longer be eligible for services at JMS due to Briella's remarkable academic progress. The news that Briella could not continue her education at JMS shocked Minnie Mae. In summary, JMS had to relinquish its autonomy in accepting Deaf and hard-of-hearing children from across the state, sacrificing this independence to comply with the regulations set by the Utah Department of Special Education.
While serving on the Utah Deaf Education and Literacy Board for the JMS Charter School, which facilitated the merger, we hoped the school would thrive afterward. Unfortunately, that was not the case. In 2006, just one year after the merger, JMS Charter School experienced a decline in enrollment, as it lost several bright students to mainstream programs. Additionally, some bright students transferred to state schools for the deaf in other states. Like the Utah School for the Deaf, JMS faced the challenge of losing academically advanced students and struggled with retention. This situation felt frustrating, resembling a Catch-22.
Following the merger, Julio Diaz Jr., Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz, and I—parents of students in the JMS Program—found ourselves struggling to identify the root cause of our concerns. Our path to understanding took a significant turn when the administration at the Utah School for the Deaf revealed an unexpected issue under the Utah Code. This revelation was eye-opening; we learned that the Utah Code, which promoted mainstreaming, not only governed the operations of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind but also had an impact on the JMS Program itself.
Upon reviewing the Utah Code, we found that Utah Code 53A-25-104(2)(a) and (b) requires children identified as hearing-impaired to undergo eligibility evaluations for special education services before an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) can be created and before they can attend the Utah School for the Deaf. In contrast, Utah Code 25A-25-103 defines the Utah School for the Deaf as an institution capable of educating all Deaf and hard-of-hearing children in the state. This creates a clear contradiction between Utah Code 53A-25-104 and Utah Code 25A-25-103, as established by the Utah State Legislature.
I soon realized that the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind were mandated by law to classify Deaf and hard-of-hearing students as special education students if they demonstrated academic delays. An IEP must provide special education services to students who require additional support and accommodations. At USDB, only students with special needs or those experiencing academic delays received services. Therefore, if these students showed academic delays, they would need an IEP.
However, a persistent issue arose for Deaf students who were at or above grade level but were not eligible for IEP services and, consequently, could not attend USDB classes. This challenge, first identified by Bronwyn many years ago, has resurfaced. The Jean Massieu School of the Deaf, a vital institution for education, language acquisition, and socialization, had recently enforced the removal of a Deaf or hard-of-hearing student from its environment under the auspices of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind.
Furthermore, the decision to place students from the Utah School for the Deaf into mainstream programs significantly restricted their access to various educational opportunities due to communication barriers. While the Utah Code aimed to promote mainstreaming, this situation necessitates urgent changes to prevent these unfortunate Catch-22 scenarios.
Minnie Mae was familiar with the regulations because Bronwyn, whom she had mentored during her struggles with the Deaf educational system, had previously worked with the Utah Code at USDB before relocating to Indiana. However, Minnie Mae did not connect the consequences of the 2005 merger between USDB and the Utah School for the Deaf to the root of the problem until it personally affected her. She realized how contradictory the regulations were. Like me, she witnessed the effects of the legislation during her daughter Briella's IEP meeting. The IEP team informed Minnie Mae that her daughter would no longer be eligible for services at JMS due to Briella's remarkable academic progress. The news that Briella could not continue her education at JMS shocked Minnie Mae. In summary, JMS had to relinquish its autonomy in accepting Deaf and hard-of-hearing children from across the state, sacrificing this independence to comply with the regulations set by the Utah Department of Special Education.
Molly O'Hara, Jodi Christel Becker, Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz, & Bronwyn O'Hara, 2009
I was very concerned about a law that could adversely affect my children's education, as well as the education of all Deaf and hard-of-hearing students. Having experienced mainstream education myself, where I learned to speak instead of using sign language, I was determined to protect my children from facing similar challenges. My experience in the Gallaudet School Social Work Program has helped me understand the complexities of education, legislation, and policy. Additionally, my position on the Institutional Council has empowered me to raise my concerns with those in authority.
Following the merger of the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf with the Utah School for the Deaf in 2005, the school's dynamics underwent significant changes, resulting in a decline in enrollment due to the implementation of the Utah Code. To address the ongoing issues related to student loss, I presented my research findings to the Institutional Council on May 23, 2007, and emphasized the importance of amending Utah Codes 53A-25-104 and 53A-25-103. My presentation highlighted the contradictions within these laws and their adverse effects on education.
I emphasized the urgent need for change by sharing my children's experiences, which demonstrate the inconsistencies and adverse effects of the existing codes. I also requested the Institutional Council's support in amending Code 53A-25-104 to reflect current national trends in Deaf education. This amendment would remove Utah's placement restrictions, allowing for more flexible educational options for Deaf and hard-of-hearing students. Furthermore, it would end the promotion of mainstreaming, which has created on-campus education options.
I also proposed an amendment to Utah Code 53A-25-103 to explicitly state that the Utah School for the Deaf can accommodate both delayed and non-delayed Deaf or hard-of-hearing students. This amendment would ensure that students with academic delays have their educational needs met if their Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) include special services. At the same time, students at or above grade level who are eligible for special education services under Section 504 of the federal statute may also receive educational accommodations.
By implementing these federal laws in this manner, the Utah School for the Deaf would be able to provide services to any Deaf or hard-of-hearing student in the state who attends their programs (Jodi Christel Becker, personal communication, April 14, 2007).
The Utah Code had a detrimental effect on the quality of education for Deaf and hard-of-hearing students at the Utah School for the Deaf. Due to inadequate progress in academic delivery and procedures, many academically advanced students had to transfer to public schools, and some have chosen to attend out-of-state schools (Becker-Kinner, UAD Bulletin, April 2008). Furthermore, this Utah Code has prevented the school from adapting to current educational trends. Consequently, the regulation has hindered the Utah School for the Deaf's ability to effectively serve the Deaf and hard-of-hearing student population, directly conflicting with the reauthorized Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997 (Jodi Christel Becker, personal communication, April 14, 2007).
For the first time, the 1997 reauthorization of IDEA included specific language addressing the needs of Deaf or hard-of-hearing students (Seaver, 2006). In 2004, the reauthorization of IDEA mandated a full continuum of alternative school placements 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). Given these developments, it became clear that the Utah Code needed urgent updates and revisions.
In a school for the deaf, teachers who had completed specialized Deaf education courses, focusing on American Sign Language as the primary language of instruction, viewed their Deaf and hard-of-hearing students as typical learners. While some students may face academic challenges due to limited communication and language access at home, teachers adjusted their curriculum to meet the needs of traditional education while also encouraging their students to achieve academic success. Research shows a connection between student achievement and higher expectations set by teachers. However, if mainstream students decide to return to the Utah School for the Deaf classroom, they will encounter a dilemma, as they lack academic peers with whom to learn alongside. Similarly, the Utah Code required students at or above grade level to transfer out of the Utah School for the Deaf and attend a public school they did not want, resulting in this Catch-22 situation. The Utah Code's goal was to mainstream all Deaf and hard-of-hearing students in school districts, which resulted in a frustrating downward spiral for everyone involved, making it the 'Number One' culprit (Jodi Christel Becker, personal communication, April 14, 2007; Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz, personal communication, 2007).
Utah Code 53A-25-104 has significantly impacted oral, total communication, and ASL/English bilingual programs at the Utah School for the Deaf, as well as mainstream settings across school districts. This code emphasized special education, which created substantial barriers to providing quality education at USD/JMS. As a result, the Utah School for the Deaf focused exclusively on mainstream placements. This shift hindered effective communication and the achievement of language-based educational goals for students, especially following the amendments made to the reauthorization of IDEA in 1997 and 2004. Furthermore, the statute requiring remedial instruction made it challenging to improve the quality of Deaf education at both the state and district levels.
Following the merger of the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf with the Utah School for the Deaf in 2005, the school's dynamics underwent significant changes, resulting in a decline in enrollment due to the implementation of the Utah Code. To address the ongoing issues related to student loss, I presented my research findings to the Institutional Council on May 23, 2007, and emphasized the importance of amending Utah Codes 53A-25-104 and 53A-25-103. My presentation highlighted the contradictions within these laws and their adverse effects on education.
I emphasized the urgent need for change by sharing my children's experiences, which demonstrate the inconsistencies and adverse effects of the existing codes. I also requested the Institutional Council's support in amending Code 53A-25-104 to reflect current national trends in Deaf education. This amendment would remove Utah's placement restrictions, allowing for more flexible educational options for Deaf and hard-of-hearing students. Furthermore, it would end the promotion of mainstreaming, which has created on-campus education options.
I also proposed an amendment to Utah Code 53A-25-103 to explicitly state that the Utah School for the Deaf can accommodate both delayed and non-delayed Deaf or hard-of-hearing students. This amendment would ensure that students with academic delays have their educational needs met if their Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) include special services. At the same time, students at or above grade level who are eligible for special education services under Section 504 of the federal statute may also receive educational accommodations.
By implementing these federal laws in this manner, the Utah School for the Deaf would be able to provide services to any Deaf or hard-of-hearing student in the state who attends their programs (Jodi Christel Becker, personal communication, April 14, 2007).
The Utah Code had a detrimental effect on the quality of education for Deaf and hard-of-hearing students at the Utah School for the Deaf. Due to inadequate progress in academic delivery and procedures, many academically advanced students had to transfer to public schools, and some have chosen to attend out-of-state schools (Becker-Kinner, UAD Bulletin, April 2008). Furthermore, this Utah Code has prevented the school from adapting to current educational trends. Consequently, the regulation has hindered the Utah School for the Deaf's ability to effectively serve the Deaf and hard-of-hearing student population, directly conflicting with the reauthorized Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997 (Jodi Christel Becker, personal communication, April 14, 2007).
For the first time, the 1997 reauthorization of IDEA included specific language addressing the needs of Deaf or hard-of-hearing students (Seaver, 2006). In 2004, the reauthorization of IDEA mandated a full continuum of alternative school placements 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). Given these developments, it became clear that the Utah Code needed urgent updates and revisions.
In a school for the deaf, teachers who had completed specialized Deaf education courses, focusing on American Sign Language as the primary language of instruction, viewed their Deaf and hard-of-hearing students as typical learners. While some students may face academic challenges due to limited communication and language access at home, teachers adjusted their curriculum to meet the needs of traditional education while also encouraging their students to achieve academic success. Research shows a connection between student achievement and higher expectations set by teachers. However, if mainstream students decide to return to the Utah School for the Deaf classroom, they will encounter a dilemma, as they lack academic peers with whom to learn alongside. Similarly, the Utah Code required students at or above grade level to transfer out of the Utah School for the Deaf and attend a public school they did not want, resulting in this Catch-22 situation. The Utah Code's goal was to mainstream all Deaf and hard-of-hearing students in school districts, which resulted in a frustrating downward spiral for everyone involved, making it the 'Number One' culprit (Jodi Christel Becker, personal communication, April 14, 2007; Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz, personal communication, 2007).
Utah Code 53A-25-104 has significantly impacted oral, total communication, and ASL/English bilingual programs at the Utah School for the Deaf, as well as mainstream settings across school districts. This code emphasized special education, which created substantial barriers to providing quality education at USD/JMS. As a result, the Utah School for the Deaf focused exclusively on mainstream placements. This shift hindered effective communication and the achievement of language-based educational goals for students, especially following the amendments made to the reauthorization of IDEA in 1997 and 2004. Furthermore, the statute requiring remedial instruction made it challenging to improve the quality of Deaf education at both the state and district levels.
Dr. Grant B. Bitter Advocates
for the Mainstreaming Act in Utah
for the Mainstreaming Act in Utah
There was speculation that Dr. Grant B. Bitter, a strong proponent of oral and mainstream education, played a significant role in creating Utah Code 53A-25-104 in the late 1970s (Bitter, 1977, p. 6). This came after the federal government passed Public Law 94-142 on November 29, 1975, which aimed to integrate children with special needs into regular public schools. Utah's code appears to have been specifically designed to promote the mainstreaming of Deaf and hard-of-hearing students.
One instance of Dr. Bitter's potential involvement occurred on August 19, 1977, when he reported to the Utah State Board of Education. He highlighted the actions taken by the Michigan State Board of Education in response to Public Law 94-142, which established a Study Committee. This committee evaluated educational programs at the Michigan School for the Deaf and the Michigan School for the Blind, ultimately making several significant recommendations:
Dr. Bitter noted Michigan's shift from serving academically appropriate Deaf and Blind students to becoming facilities mainly for Deaf and blind students with multiple disabilities. He seemed to support the recommendations of the Michigan Study Committee, successfully altering the role of the Utah School for the Deaf to resemble that of Michigan's state schools. While the previous law, Utah Code 25A-25-103, allowed USD to serve all Deaf and hard-of-hearing students in the state, Utah Code 53A-25-104 was created to restrict admissions for Deaf students who were academically ready for the school.
Compounding the problem, both USD and the local Utah school districts were unaware that the updated federal law, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), superseded Utah Code 53A-25-104. Consequently, they continued to adhere to the outdated Utah law. This lack of alignment with the reauthorized IDEA resulted in insufficient attention being given to the language and communication needs of Deaf and hard-of-hearing students during IEP meetings.
The critical mass required to fully understand and address the educational needs of Deaf students was absent from USD's programs and classrooms. Many students were being mainstreamed without considering the negative consequences of such placements. The "Least Restrictive Environment" (LRE) failed to become a "Language Rich Environment" for Deaf and hard-of-hearing students. Instead, these students were often placed in public, mainstream "hearing" schools, a decision that was rarely challenged, despite being the most restrictive environment for them (Seaver & DesGeorges, Hands & Voices PowerPoint, 2007).
These developments hindered USD's ability to provide quality education, full accessibility to language and communication, and sufficient support for the growing number of Deaf and hard-of-hearing students in Utah. This situation raised serious concerns about the future of Deaf education in the state.
One instance of Dr. Bitter's potential involvement occurred on August 19, 1977, when he reported to the Utah State Board of Education. He highlighted the actions taken by the Michigan State Board of Education in response to Public Law 94-142, which established a Study Committee. This committee evaluated educational programs at the Michigan School for the Deaf and the Michigan School for the Blind, ultimately making several significant recommendations:
- Establish an Admissions and Discharge Committee to determine the eligibility and needs of children for enrollment at MSD and MSB.
- Phase out academic programming for typically Deaf children in favor of programs for hearing-impaired and visually impaired students at the local level.
- Focus primarily on serving multiply-handicapped Deaf students at MSD and multiply-handicapped blind students at MSB.
- Develop outreach services to assist local programs in serving Deaf and blind children (Bitter, August 19, 1977, p. 6).
Dr. Bitter noted Michigan's shift from serving academically appropriate Deaf and Blind students to becoming facilities mainly for Deaf and blind students with multiple disabilities. He seemed to support the recommendations of the Michigan Study Committee, successfully altering the role of the Utah School for the Deaf to resemble that of Michigan's state schools. While the previous law, Utah Code 25A-25-103, allowed USD to serve all Deaf and hard-of-hearing students in the state, Utah Code 53A-25-104 was created to restrict admissions for Deaf students who were academically ready for the school.
Compounding the problem, both USD and the local Utah school districts were unaware that the updated federal law, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), superseded Utah Code 53A-25-104. Consequently, they continued to adhere to the outdated Utah law. This lack of alignment with the reauthorized IDEA resulted in insufficient attention being given to the language and communication needs of Deaf and hard-of-hearing students during IEP meetings.
The critical mass required to fully understand and address the educational needs of Deaf students was absent from USD's programs and classrooms. Many students were being mainstreamed without considering the negative consequences of such placements. The "Least Restrictive Environment" (LRE) failed to become a "Language Rich Environment" for Deaf and hard-of-hearing students. Instead, these students were often placed in public, mainstream "hearing" schools, a decision that was rarely challenged, despite being the most restrictive environment for them (Seaver & DesGeorges, Hands & Voices PowerPoint, 2007).
These developments hindered USD's ability to provide quality education, full accessibility to language and communication, and sufficient support for the growing number of Deaf and hard-of-hearing students in Utah. This situation raised serious concerns about the future of Deaf education in the state.
Dr. Grant B. Bitter. Source: FamilySearch.org
The Jean Massieu School of the Deaf:
A Call for Legal Awareness
A Call for Legal Awareness
The recent discovery by parents of Deaf children at the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf, along with the wider Utah Deaf community, regarding the implications of Utah Code 53A-25-104 on admissions to the Utah School for the Deaf has prompted significant concern and protests. Many were alarmed to learn of the law's discriminatory nature, particularly since even Utah Deaf Education and Literacy, Inc., the agency managing the school and advocating for its merger with USD, was caught off guard by an eligibility requirement that only applied to USD and not the pre-merger JMS. This situation has created barriers to educational access for all Deaf and hard-of-hearing students.
The legislation governing the Utah School for the Deaf contains serious inconsistencies. Both the Utah School for the Deaf and local school districts appeared to be unaware of significant amendments to accessibility requirements for Deaf education under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). These amendments contradict the outdated provisions of Utah Code 53A-25-104.
The regulations governing the Utah School for the Deaf contain troubling inconsistencies, as both the USD and local school districts appeared to be unaware of key amendments to accessibility requirements for Deaf education under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). These amendments stand in stark contrast to the outdated provisions of Utah Code 53A-25-104.
As a result, the current educational system continues to rely on antiquated laws. It failed to address the essential language and communication needs of Deaf and hard-of-hearing students during Individualized Education Program (IEP) sessions. Many programs and classrooms at USD have struggled with low enrollment, which in turn has diminished educational quality. Consequently, many Deaf and hard-of-hearing students find themselves in mainstream educational settings, often resulting in inadequate educational outcomes.
The time had finally arrived to address these critical issues and ensure that the educational rights and needs of Deaf and hard-of-hearing students were recognized and prioritized.
The legislation governing the Utah School for the Deaf contains serious inconsistencies. Both the Utah School for the Deaf and local school districts appeared to be unaware of significant amendments to accessibility requirements for Deaf education under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). These amendments contradict the outdated provisions of Utah Code 53A-25-104.
The regulations governing the Utah School for the Deaf contain troubling inconsistencies, as both the USD and local school districts appeared to be unaware of key amendments to accessibility requirements for Deaf education under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). These amendments stand in stark contrast to the outdated provisions of Utah Code 53A-25-104.
As a result, the current educational system continues to rely on antiquated laws. It failed to address the essential language and communication needs of Deaf and hard-of-hearing students during Individualized Education Program (IEP) sessions. Many programs and classrooms at USD have struggled with low enrollment, which in turn has diminished educational quality. Consequently, many Deaf and hard-of-hearing students find themselves in mainstream educational settings, often resulting in inadequate educational outcomes.
The time had finally arrived to address these critical issues and ensure that the educational rights and needs of Deaf and hard-of-hearing students were recognized and prioritized.
The Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind
Legislative Workgroup Is Formed
Legislative Workgroup Is Formed
During the tenure of USDB Superintendent Linda Rutledge, Joseph and Melanie Minor, the parents of a non-verbal hearing boy with Down syndrome, requested to enroll their son in the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf. Although their son is not deaf, he communicates using American Sign Language (ASL). Despite their efforts, he was deemed ineligible for admission due to the absence of a sensory disabilities, such as hearing loss. In their pursuit of securing a place for their son at JMS, the family sought the support of their local legislator, Kenneth W. Sumsion (R-American Fork), who was advocating for a change in the existing eligibility criteria for the Utah School for the Deaf. They hoped he would sponsor an amendment to the law governing admissions to the state school.
The Deaf and Blind representatives on the Institutional Council strongly opposed this form of inclusion. They argued that the USDB should remain committed to its original mission of serving only Deaf/Hard of Hearing, Blind/Low Vision, and DeafBlind students. The school was already facing challenges in raising academic standards for these programs, and admitting students without sensory disabilities would dilute or divert from these efforts.
The Deaf and Blind representatives on the Institutional Council strongly opposed this form of inclusion. They argued that the USDB should remain committed to its original mission of serving only Deaf/Hard of Hearing, Blind/Low Vision, and DeafBlind students. The school was already facing challenges in raising academic standards for these programs, and admitting students without sensory disabilities would dilute or divert from these efforts.
Kenneth W. Sumsion. Source: KenForSenate14
In response to these concerns, Karl Wilson, the USDB supervisor from the Utah State Office of Education, convened the USDB Legislative Workgroup on August 17, 2007. This group, comprising various stakeholders and lawmakers, sought to revise and update the Utah Code that governs the USDB. The workgroup met monthly from that point until June 1, 2009. It included Dennis R. Platt and me, the two Deaf representatives on the Institutional Council, as well as Jil Radford, the principal of JMS at the time. Together, we represented the interests and objectives of the state school.
The main concerns discussed by the workgroup included:
Given the urgency surrounding the promotion of mainstreaming in the Utah Code, it was a fortunate opportunity for the USDB Legislative Work Group—a team of experts and stakeholders in Deaf education—to review and revise these regulations. Their role was vital in ensuring that the revisions were shaped by the needs and perspectives of the Deaf community.
The main concerns discussed by the workgroup included:
- The future administrative structure of USDB
- Student eligibility and admissions to USDB
- The role of the USDB Institutional Council
- Student eligibility and admissions to USDB
- Services provided by USDB
- The funding mechanism for USDB
- USDB partnership with the Utah Department of Health and Human Services
Given the urgency surrounding the promotion of mainstreaming in the Utah Code, it was a fortunate opportunity for the USDB Legislative Work Group—a team of experts and stakeholders in Deaf education—to review and revise these regulations. Their role was vital in ensuring that the revisions were shaped by the needs and perspectives of the Deaf community.
Karl White. Source: Utah Public Education
Utah Deaf Advocates Speak
at the Utah State Board of Education
at the Utah State Board of Education
Despite the unexpected provisions within the Utah Code governing the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind, which prioritized mainstream education over specialized programs, the Utah Deaf community and the parents of Deaf children showed remarkable courage. They uncovered the hidden agenda of the administration at the Utah School for the Deaf and advocates of oral education, who had crafted the code to promote mainstreaming while engaging with families in a vague manner. In the face of these challenges, the community remained resilient. A notable example of this resilience is seen in the experience of Bronwyn O'Hara, who, after moving to Indiana, heard USDB Superintendent Lee Robinson say, "I won't lie to you, but I won't necessarily tell you everything." At that moment, Bronwyn recognized that Steven Noyce had taken a similar approach to Superintendent Robinson (Bronwyn O'Hara, personal communication, August 27, 2009).
Dr. Patti Harrington, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, along with the Utah State Board of Education, received twenty-eight letters from parents and members of the Utah Deaf community and two letters from the Blind community between September 18, 2007, and October 2, 2007. These letters expressed concern about the Utah Code governing the Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind and its impact on the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf. The correspondents urged the department to revise the statute, particularly regarding the promotion of mainstream education for Deaf students. At that time, Dr. Bitter had passed away, and Steven Noyce had relocated out of state for a job opportunity. The ASL/English bilingual advocates, despite facing years of challenges from oral advocates, were finally making significant progress. Their persistence and determination to push for amendments to the Utah Code were actively supported by USDB Superintendent Timothy W. Smith, offering hope for a brighter future for Deaf education in Utah.
On October 5, 2007, four Deaf individuals attended the Utah State Board of Education meeting to hear the report from the USDB Legislative Workgroup. The attendees were as follows:
Dr. Patti Harrington, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, along with the Utah State Board of Education, received twenty-eight letters from parents and members of the Utah Deaf community and two letters from the Blind community between September 18, 2007, and October 2, 2007. These letters expressed concern about the Utah Code governing the Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind and its impact on the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf. The correspondents urged the department to revise the statute, particularly regarding the promotion of mainstream education for Deaf students. At that time, Dr. Bitter had passed away, and Steven Noyce had relocated out of state for a job opportunity. The ASL/English bilingual advocates, despite facing years of challenges from oral advocates, were finally making significant progress. Their persistence and determination to push for amendments to the Utah Code were actively supported by USDB Superintendent Timothy W. Smith, offering hope for a brighter future for Deaf education in Utah.
On October 5, 2007, four Deaf individuals attended the Utah State Board of Education meeting to hear the report from the USDB Legislative Workgroup. The attendees were as follows:
- Dan V. Mathis, grandson of USD alums Jack and Vida White
- Jeff W. Pollock, Coordinator of Deaf Services/Advisor
- Julio Diaz, Jr. husband of JMS co-founder Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz
- Jodi Christel Becker, a Deaf representative on the USDB Institutional Council
Dr. Patti Harrington. Source: KSL.com
Dan expressed his dissatisfaction with Utah's Deaf education system, stating that he had seen better education for Deaf children in other parts of the United States. He supported the recommended code revisions and believed that legislative changes were necessary to allow the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind to offer improved options and services to parents of Deaf, Blind, and DeafBblind children. Jeff added, "We can't stop changing the law. In Utah, there are systematic problems throughout USDB that impact Deaf education. According to the Utah State Board of Education minutes from October 5, 2007, Deaf students are not receiving adequate college preparation.
Many Deaf parents and members of the Utah Deaf Community supported changing the Utah Code to allow students who were at or above the grade level to attend USDB, potentially leaving some USDB children without an Individualized Education Program (IEP). The thirty letters of support had a positive impact on the Utah State Board of Education, and ultimately, State Superintendent Harrington brought the legislators' attention to the concerns expressed in those letters (Utah State Board of Education: USDB Legislative Workgroup Report, October 5, 2007).
Many Deaf parents and members of the Utah Deaf Community supported changing the Utah Code to allow students who were at or above the grade level to attend USDB, potentially leaving some USDB children without an Individualized Education Program (IEP). The thirty letters of support had a positive impact on the Utah State Board of Education, and ultimately, State Superintendent Harrington brought the legislators' attention to the concerns expressed in those letters (Utah State Board of Education: USDB Legislative Workgroup Report, October 5, 2007).
Dan V. Mathis
Julio Diaz, Jr.
|
Jeff W. Pollock
|
Concerned Legislators Take Action
At the beginning of the legislative session on February 6, 2008, a proactive group of legislators took significant steps to address concerns regarding student eligibility at the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind (USDB). Among these dedicated legislators was Representative Jennifer M. Seelig (D-Salt Lake City), a close friend of Joe Zeidner and a co-sponsor of the bill. She worked tirelessly with the USDB Legislative Work Group to advocate for the rights of Deaf, Blind, and DeafBlind students to attend USDB.
By the end of the month, on February 28, 2008, the members of the USDB Institutional Council unanimously agreed to allow Deaf, blind, and DeafBlind students who had met grade-level standards to remain at USDB (Utah State Legislature Letter, February 6, 2008; Becker, Institutional Council Minutes, February 28, 2008; Becker-Kinner, UAD Bulletin, April 2008).
With the support of the USDB Institutional Council, Dr. Harrington, the State Superintendent, addressed a letter from the Utah State Legislature concerning the USDB during a meeting of the Utah State Board of Education on March 7, 2008 (Memorandum, March 7, 2008). Her request to the legislature was clear: to allow students who performed at or above grade level to continue receiving services from USDB/JMS. Understanding this history helps stakeholders recognize their role in shaping ongoing support for USDB students and fosters a sense of shared effort.
As part of this initiative, we incorporated a Section 504 plan into the bill, since the previous law mandated mainstreaming for students scoring 85 or higher. Our goal was to emphasize the critical role of the USDB in supporting Deaf and hard-of-hearing students by providing protections that would enable them to remain at the Utah School for the Deaf, where they can receive instruction in American Sign Language (ASL) and benefit from enhanced academic standards on campus. Highlighting these legal protections reassures stakeholders that Deaf students' rights are prioritized and safeguarded.
By the end of the month, on February 28, 2008, the members of the USDB Institutional Council unanimously agreed to allow Deaf, blind, and DeafBlind students who had met grade-level standards to remain at USDB (Utah State Legislature Letter, February 6, 2008; Becker, Institutional Council Minutes, February 28, 2008; Becker-Kinner, UAD Bulletin, April 2008).
With the support of the USDB Institutional Council, Dr. Harrington, the State Superintendent, addressed a letter from the Utah State Legislature concerning the USDB during a meeting of the Utah State Board of Education on March 7, 2008 (Memorandum, March 7, 2008). Her request to the legislature was clear: to allow students who performed at or above grade level to continue receiving services from USDB/JMS. Understanding this history helps stakeholders recognize their role in shaping ongoing support for USDB students and fosters a sense of shared effort.
As part of this initiative, we incorporated a Section 504 plan into the bill, since the previous law mandated mainstreaming for students scoring 85 or higher. Our goal was to emphasize the critical role of the USDB in supporting Deaf and hard-of-hearing students by providing protections that would enable them to remain at the Utah School for the Deaf, where they can receive instruction in American Sign Language (ASL) and benefit from enhanced academic standards on campus. Highlighting these legal protections reassures stakeholders that Deaf students' rights are prioritized and safeguarded.
Dr. Jennifer M. Seelig. Source: linkedin.com
Recommendations from the Utah Schools for the Deaf
and the Blind Legislative Workgroup
and the Blind Legislative Workgroup
Under the leadership of Karl Wilson, the USDB Legislative Workgroup meticulously compiled recommendations over several months, concluding its work on May 28, 2008. The group was disbanded on June 1, 2008, after presenting its findings to the Utah State Board of Education at the June meeting.
Key recommendations included changes to the eligibility criteria for students who are deaf, blind, or deafblind to access USDB services, such as the Individualized Education Program (IEP) process and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. This process marked a significant step in recognizing the educational needs of students who are deaf, blind, or deafblind and performing at or above grade level. A critical aspect of the legislation was allowing students to remain in a USDB placement if it was deemed beneficial (Utah State Board of Education USDB Legislative Workgroup Update, June 13, 2008).
Following the board meeting, Karl Wilson facilitated seven public input meetings. Held at the Robert G. Sanderson Community Center of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing on July 31, 2008, these meetings provided a valuable opportunity for parents of Deaf children and members of the Utah Deaf community to share their feedback, emphasizing the importance of their voices in shaping USDB policies.
A group from the USDB Legislative Workgroup, of which I was a part, met on August 8, 2008, to review the legislative proposals in detail. As representatives of the Deaf community, we proposed changing the term "Hearing Impaired" to "Deaf and Hard of Hearing" in HB 296. Despite our efforts, the legislative workgroup—mainly composed of non-Deaf individuals—chose to retain the federal term "Hearing Impaired" in the bill to align with federal standards, which often shape legislative language.
We took the time to thoroughly discuss each issue, ensuring that all perspectives were considered before reaching a consensus. Additionally, Karl Wilson gathered insights from USDB Institutional Council members regarding their support for or opposition to specific recommendations, highlighting how various stakeholders influence terminology decisions.
After completing this feedback process, Karl Wilson met with Dr. Patti Harrington, the State Superintendent, to discuss the findings. On September 12, 2008, he presented these recommendations to the State Board of Education for consideration during the 2009 legislative session, which was an important step toward supporting students' educational needs.
Key recommendations included changes to the eligibility criteria for students who are deaf, blind, or deafblind to access USDB services, such as the Individualized Education Program (IEP) process and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. This process marked a significant step in recognizing the educational needs of students who are deaf, blind, or deafblind and performing at or above grade level. A critical aspect of the legislation was allowing students to remain in a USDB placement if it was deemed beneficial (Utah State Board of Education USDB Legislative Workgroup Update, June 13, 2008).
Following the board meeting, Karl Wilson facilitated seven public input meetings. Held at the Robert G. Sanderson Community Center of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing on July 31, 2008, these meetings provided a valuable opportunity for parents of Deaf children and members of the Utah Deaf community to share their feedback, emphasizing the importance of their voices in shaping USDB policies.
A group from the USDB Legislative Workgroup, of which I was a part, met on August 8, 2008, to review the legislative proposals in detail. As representatives of the Deaf community, we proposed changing the term "Hearing Impaired" to "Deaf and Hard of Hearing" in HB 296. Despite our efforts, the legislative workgroup—mainly composed of non-Deaf individuals—chose to retain the federal term "Hearing Impaired" in the bill to align with federal standards, which often shape legislative language.
We took the time to thoroughly discuss each issue, ensuring that all perspectives were considered before reaching a consensus. Additionally, Karl Wilson gathered insights from USDB Institutional Council members regarding their support for or opposition to specific recommendations, highlighting how various stakeholders influence terminology decisions.
After completing this feedback process, Karl Wilson met with Dr. Patti Harrington, the State Superintendent, to discuss the findings. On September 12, 2008, he presented these recommendations to the State Board of Education for consideration during the 2009 legislative session, which was an important step toward supporting students' educational needs.
Utah Governor Jon M. Huntsman, Jr.
Signs House Bill 296
Signs House Bill 296
After House Bill 296 moved forward without issue, advocates faced a challenge when Ron Gardner, a Blind attorney and a representative from the USDB Institutional Council, attempted to block it before a House Education Committee session began. He argued that the legislation did not sufficiently address critical issues related to the educational model and delivery system at USDB, claiming it was "skirting around" complex problems. In response, USDB Superintendent Timothy W. Smith and I met with him to discuss and address these concerns. Although HB 296 is not perfect, it represents a step forward in ending the promotion of mainstreaming. The inclusion of the Section 504 option aims to improve education quality, as the assessment placement requirement has ended.
Following our resolution of the issue, on February 17, 2009, I had the opportunity to address the House Education Committee after two years of collaborative discussions with the USDB Legislative Workgroup. This workgroup, composed of various stakeholders in Deaf education, was instrumental in developing House Bill 296. Legislators Kenneth W. Sumsion and Jennifer M. Seelig, representing different political backgrounds, sponsored the bill. It emerged from extensive research and negotiation within the workgroup. Notably, it received unanimous support from both the House Education Committee and the State Senate, highlighting its bipartisan nature and significance for Deaf education in Utah.
The bill passed the House of Representatives on February 18 by a vote of 68-0, then moved to the Senate, where it passed unanimously on March 18 by a vote of 27-0. Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, Jr., signed HB 296 into law on March 25, 2009. The formal signing ceremony took place in the Gold Room of the Capitol building on April 30, 2009, marking the official enactment of the legislation.
Present at the ceremony were Representatives Kenneth Sumsion and Jennifer Seelig, along with Deaf adults Craig Radford, Leslie Gertsch, and her husband, Dero Gertsch; parents Joe and Debbie Zeidner and their daughter, Jessi; and Joseph and Melanie Minor with their son, who has Down syndrome. Also in attendance were USD professionals Jill Radford, Michelle Tanner, and Melanie Austin; Advisory Council members Jodi Christel Becker, and Von Hortin; Legislative Advocate Jan Ferre; State Superintendent Larry Shumway from the Utah State Office of Education; and D. Gregg Buxton from the State Department of Facilities and Construction Management.
The ceremony marked a pivotal shift in Utah's educational approach, transitioning from previous methods that favored mainstreaming to a more inclusive, language- and communication-driven model. This legal victory directed funding and resources to ensure that all Deaf and hard-of-hearing students were appropriately placed at the Utah School for the Deaf, effectively addressing the educational disparities they had faced. The implementation of the bill has led to substantial changes at the school, enabling students to fully engage with the core curriculum and realize their academic potential. Educators from JMS and USD acknowledged that while it will take time for all students to reach the necessary levels, achieving this goal is both possible and transformative for Deaf education in Utah.
The legislation has brought significant changes to educational options, emphasizing access to language and communication. The USD now empowers all students to fully engage with the core curriculum, enabling them to realize their academic potential. The bill has also encouraged the end of restrictive practices such as mainstreaming, fostering a more inclusive and supportive learning environment on campus. Its implementation aligns with the revised federal IDEA law, providing a strong legal foundation for advancing Deaf education in Utah.
Following our resolution of the issue, on February 17, 2009, I had the opportunity to address the House Education Committee after two years of collaborative discussions with the USDB Legislative Workgroup. This workgroup, composed of various stakeholders in Deaf education, was instrumental in developing House Bill 296. Legislators Kenneth W. Sumsion and Jennifer M. Seelig, representing different political backgrounds, sponsored the bill. It emerged from extensive research and negotiation within the workgroup. Notably, it received unanimous support from both the House Education Committee and the State Senate, highlighting its bipartisan nature and significance for Deaf education in Utah.
The bill passed the House of Representatives on February 18 by a vote of 68-0, then moved to the Senate, where it passed unanimously on March 18 by a vote of 27-0. Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, Jr., signed HB 296 into law on March 25, 2009. The formal signing ceremony took place in the Gold Room of the Capitol building on April 30, 2009, marking the official enactment of the legislation.
Present at the ceremony were Representatives Kenneth Sumsion and Jennifer Seelig, along with Deaf adults Craig Radford, Leslie Gertsch, and her husband, Dero Gertsch; parents Joe and Debbie Zeidner and their daughter, Jessi; and Joseph and Melanie Minor with their son, who has Down syndrome. Also in attendance were USD professionals Jill Radford, Michelle Tanner, and Melanie Austin; Advisory Council members Jodi Christel Becker, and Von Hortin; Legislative Advocate Jan Ferre; State Superintendent Larry Shumway from the Utah State Office of Education; and D. Gregg Buxton from the State Department of Facilities and Construction Management.
The ceremony marked a pivotal shift in Utah's educational approach, transitioning from previous methods that favored mainstreaming to a more inclusive, language- and communication-driven model. This legal victory directed funding and resources to ensure that all Deaf and hard-of-hearing students were appropriately placed at the Utah School for the Deaf, effectively addressing the educational disparities they had faced. The implementation of the bill has led to substantial changes at the school, enabling students to fully engage with the core curriculum and realize their academic potential. Educators from JMS and USD acknowledged that while it will take time for all students to reach the necessary levels, achieving this goal is both possible and transformative for Deaf education in Utah.
The legislation has brought significant changes to educational options, emphasizing access to language and communication. The USD now empowers all students to fully engage with the core curriculum, enabling them to realize their academic potential. The bill has also encouraged the end of restrictive practices such as mainstreaming, fostering a more inclusive and supportive learning environment on campus. Its implementation aligns with the revised federal IDEA law, providing a strong legal foundation for advancing Deaf education in Utah.
Jon M. Huntsman, Jr., Utah Governor. Source: Wikipedia
Thanks to parents and members of the Utah Deaf community who sent 28 letters to Dr. Patti Harrington, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, advocating for changes in Deaf education. Their concerns played a crucial role in reshaping this area. We extend our gratitude to Deaf advocates Dan V. Mathis and Jeff W. Pollock for addressing the Utah State Board of Education regarding the needs of Deaf and hard-of-hearing students, as their efforts highlighted existing inequalities.
It was reassuring to see the Utah State Office of Education, the Utah State Board of Education, and legislators recognizing the importance of keeping Deaf and hard-of-hearing students at the Utah School for the Deaf, where their educational, linguistic, and social needs can be effectively met. We appreciated the strong legislative support in this endeavor. The USDB Institutional Council and the USDB Legislative Workgroup received legislative approval for House Bill 296, which mandates that the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind provide equal services to both delayed and non-delayed students. This bill is vital in ensuring that every student, regardless of academic standing, receives the necessary support, including instruction in American Sign Language. We are committed to creating individualized education programs (IEPs) for students with delays and offering Section 504 accommodations for those performing at or above grade level. This focus on tailored support is essential to meeting the needs of all Deaf and hard-of-hearing students and fostering an equitable and inclusive environment.
HB 296 was a major victory for Deaf education in Utah, a testament to the collective efforts and commitment to creating a more equitable and inclusive Deaf education system across the state. This moment showcased the impact of collaboration and the power of advocacy, making us all proud of the progress we've made
It was reassuring to see the Utah State Office of Education, the Utah State Board of Education, and legislators recognizing the importance of keeping Deaf and hard-of-hearing students at the Utah School for the Deaf, where their educational, linguistic, and social needs can be effectively met. We appreciated the strong legislative support in this endeavor. The USDB Institutional Council and the USDB Legislative Workgroup received legislative approval for House Bill 296, which mandates that the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind provide equal services to both delayed and non-delayed students. This bill is vital in ensuring that every student, regardless of academic standing, receives the necessary support, including instruction in American Sign Language. We are committed to creating individualized education programs (IEPs) for students with delays and offering Section 504 accommodations for those performing at or above grade level. This focus on tailored support is essential to meeting the needs of all Deaf and hard-of-hearing students and fostering an equitable and inclusive environment.
HB 296 was a major victory for Deaf education in Utah, a testament to the collective efforts and commitment to creating a more equitable and inclusive Deaf education system across the state. This moment showcased the impact of collaboration and the power of advocacy, making us all proud of the progress we've made
Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, Jr., ceremonially signed HB 296 into law at the Utah Capitol on April 30, 2009, to regulate Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind. I'm on the left side, wearing a vest and a white blouse, witnessing the signature
SECTION VI: The Utah School for the Deaf
Deserves a Permanent School Building To Call Home
Deserves a Permanent School Building To Call Home
A New Permanent School Building Is Needed for
Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind
in the Salt Lake Area
Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind
in the Salt Lake Area
In 2008, during the development of House Bill 296, I was interviewed by The Deseret News, The Salt Lake Tribune, and SignNews as a parent of two Deaf children, Joshua and Danielle, who attended the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf. I expressed my concerns about the urgent challenges the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind face in securing legislative funding for a permanent school building. For ten years, the Utah State Legislature had rejected USDB's requests for a permanent school facility in the Salt Lake area, and the need for action was becoming increasingly pressing.
The JMS community speculated that either the state-building list had not prioritized USDB sufficiently or the marginalization of Deaf and hard-of-hearing students was a contributing factor. This situation made Deaf students feel undervalued and less included compared to their hearing peers, who had access to buildings, equipment, green spaces, mascots, and strong school identities. Deaf students yearned for the same amenities afforded to their hearing counterparts, and their longing for equality was palpable. Unfortunately, USDB's need for school buildings equipped with adequate classrooms, gyms, playgrounds, and other essential spaces remained largely unrecognized.
A significant challenge arose from the legal document that established USDB as a state agency. This document outlined the roles, responsibilities, and limitations of USDB as a state entity. Despite being an educational organization, USDB faced operational limitations due to its status as a state entity. While many other states classified their Deaf schools as educational institutions, Utah's classification came with notable drawbacks. As a state agency, USDB was vulnerable to budget cuts and lacked recognition as an independent academic institution, creating numerous obstacles to securing the necessary funding from the legislature.
The JMS community speculated that either the state-building list had not prioritized USDB sufficiently or the marginalization of Deaf and hard-of-hearing students was a contributing factor. This situation made Deaf students feel undervalued and less included compared to their hearing peers, who had access to buildings, equipment, green spaces, mascots, and strong school identities. Deaf students yearned for the same amenities afforded to their hearing counterparts, and their longing for equality was palpable. Unfortunately, USDB's need for school buildings equipped with adequate classrooms, gyms, playgrounds, and other essential spaces remained largely unrecognized.
A significant challenge arose from the legal document that established USDB as a state agency. This document outlined the roles, responsibilities, and limitations of USDB as a state entity. Despite being an educational organization, USDB faced operational limitations due to its status as a state entity. While many other states classified their Deaf schools as educational institutions, Utah's classification came with notable drawbacks. As a state agency, USDB was vulnerable to budget cuts and lacked recognition as an independent academic institution, creating numerous obstacles to securing the necessary funding from the legislature.
Jodi Christel Becker (center) at home with her Deaf children, Danielle, 4 & Joshua, 6, protested the lack of a permanent school building. Source: The Salt Lake Tribune, July 14, 2008. Photo by Scott Sommerdorf
Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, a prominent advocate for Deaf education, played a crucial role in shaping Utah's approach to educating Deaf students. He noticed that Utah's method differed significantly from most state schools for the deaf across the United States. While many other state schools focused primarily on educating Deaf and hard-of-hearing students, the Utah School for the Deaf was required to enroll these students in public schools as soon as possible.
House Bill 296, a significant legislative change, repealed the practice that had been standard until the 2009 legislative session. This repeal had a profound impact on the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind, which had misinterpreted the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, leading to a shift in approach.
According to Public Law 94-142, many state administrators believed that mainstream public schools would offer the least restrictive environment (LRE) for students with disabilities. In response, the Utah School for the Deaf maintained self-contained classes within neighborhood schools, serving as an educational provider for Deaf children rather than merely integrating them into public schools. This approach allowed their students to participate in regular education classes throughout the day. The administrators believed they were adhering to the federal mandate to place students in the least restrictive environment.
In 2005, the merger of the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf led to significant changes in the function of the Utah School for the Deaf. JMS, located at the USDB, aimed to offer what other state schools for the deaf provided, including a dedicated building for students from pre-kindergarten through high school and an athletic program for students. However, a key question remained: How could they achieve these goals within the current Utah School for the Deaf system?
The Utah School for the Deaf, which primarily served Deaf and hard-of-hearing children throughout the state, recognized the urgent need for a dedicated school entity on a physical campus. In partnership with the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf, the Utah School for the Deaf aimed to establish a day school program for its students. However, this initiative faced several challenges, particularly the need to convince the Utah State Board of Education and the Utah Legislature of the need for a permanent building, highlighting the school's perseverance in the face of adversity.
An amendment to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 2004 required a range of equal and appropriate educational placement options for Deaf and hard-of-hearing students, including those attending specialized schools. The state encountered significant challenges in ensuring this continuity. The Jean Massieu School of the Deaf offered language-driven placement options for parents, emphasizing the complexities of implementing the bilingual program at the Utah School for the Deaf and the need for careful policy planning and execution.
House Bill 296, a significant legislative change, repealed the practice that had been standard until the 2009 legislative session. This repeal had a profound impact on the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind, which had misinterpreted the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, leading to a shift in approach.
According to Public Law 94-142, many state administrators believed that mainstream public schools would offer the least restrictive environment (LRE) for students with disabilities. In response, the Utah School for the Deaf maintained self-contained classes within neighborhood schools, serving as an educational provider for Deaf children rather than merely integrating them into public schools. This approach allowed their students to participate in regular education classes throughout the day. The administrators believed they were adhering to the federal mandate to place students in the least restrictive environment.
In 2005, the merger of the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf led to significant changes in the function of the Utah School for the Deaf. JMS, located at the USDB, aimed to offer what other state schools for the deaf provided, including a dedicated building for students from pre-kindergarten through high school and an athletic program for students. However, a key question remained: How could they achieve these goals within the current Utah School for the Deaf system?
The Utah School for the Deaf, which primarily served Deaf and hard-of-hearing children throughout the state, recognized the urgent need for a dedicated school entity on a physical campus. In partnership with the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf, the Utah School for the Deaf aimed to establish a day school program for its students. However, this initiative faced several challenges, particularly the need to convince the Utah State Board of Education and the Utah Legislature of the need for a permanent building, highlighting the school's perseverance in the face of adversity.
An amendment to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 2004 required a range of equal and appropriate educational placement options for Deaf and hard-of-hearing students, including those attending specialized schools. The state encountered significant challenges in ensuring this continuity. The Jean Massieu School of the Deaf offered language-driven placement options for parents, emphasizing the complexities of implementing the bilingual program at the Utah School for the Deaf and the need for careful policy planning and execution.
Jodi Christel Becker signs with her son, Joshua, 6, about a remote-controlled toy helicopter. Jodi is lobbying for a school for Deaf children. Source: The Salt Lake Tribune, July 14, 2008. Photo by Scott Sommerdorf
Utah's strong interpretation of the "least restrictive environment" for Deaf students led to their enrollment in USD programs in numerous neighborhood schools. As public school enrollment grew, a space dilemma emerged. Mainstream Deaf programs have to relocate to new spaces. The frequent movement of Utah's Deaf and hard-of-hearing students was a cause for frustration. Yet, these resilient students continued to attend classes in facilities with insufficient space, run-down buildings, or aging portables. Malfunctioning plumbing, faulty heating or air conditioning, leaking roofs, and unsafe carpets were common problems in the building that originally housed JMS. There was an urgent need for a permanent, safe, and suitable learning environment.
The playground also lacked grass and was unsuitable for a play area, resulting in a shortage of space that hampered the children's academic and social development. The cold classroom also made students uncomfortable, making it difficult for them to pay attention to their teachers. They deserved a secure, consistent learning environment in a permanent building (Fulton, The Salt Lake Tribune, July 2008; Firkins, SignNews, September 2008). However, this was not the case, and they had to relocate regularly. In June 2005, the Jean Massieu School needed to relocate quickly to a leased location in South Jordan, Utah, and the State of Utah had to determine whether to provide them with a permanent facility.
During a discussion with stakeholders, State Superintendent Patti Harrington strongly advised using the USDB Conner Street location for JMS students. Superintendent Timothy W. Smith of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind agreed, and the Jean Massieu School relocated to USDB's another run-down 55-year-old former administrative office in Salt Lake City, Utah, in June 2008. The plan was to keep JMS there until the lease expired at the end of 2009.
The playground also lacked grass and was unsuitable for a play area, resulting in a shortage of space that hampered the children's academic and social development. The cold classroom also made students uncomfortable, making it difficult for them to pay attention to their teachers. They deserved a secure, consistent learning environment in a permanent building (Fulton, The Salt Lake Tribune, July 2008; Firkins, SignNews, September 2008). However, this was not the case, and they had to relocate regularly. In June 2005, the Jean Massieu School needed to relocate quickly to a leased location in South Jordan, Utah, and the State of Utah had to determine whether to provide them with a permanent facility.
During a discussion with stakeholders, State Superintendent Patti Harrington strongly advised using the USDB Conner Street location for JMS students. Superintendent Timothy W. Smith of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind agreed, and the Jean Massieu School relocated to USDB's another run-down 55-year-old former administrative office in Salt Lake City, Utah, in June 2008. The plan was to keep JMS there until the lease expired at the end of 2009.
Rally at the Utah State Capitol on July 8th
Fed up with frequent relocations, around 100 parents and members of the Utah Deaf community held a rally at the Utah State Capitol on July 8, 2008, demonstrating their fierce determination to secure a new permanent school building. In an interview with The Salt Lake Tribune, I shared that the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind had been requesting a school building for ten years, but state lawmakers had consistently rejected their plea (Fulton, The Salt Lake Tribune, July 14, 2008). At the rally, parents, Utah Deaf community members, and students held signs reading "No Child Left Behind, Unless You Are Deaf and Blind," "Crumbling Classrooms are Not Acceptable," and "School Building Now!"
At the Utah Capitol Rally in 2008, parents, Utah Deaf community members, and students held signs reading "Crumbling Classrooms are Not Acceptable"
A news reporter interviewed Maggie Flavin, a 12-year-old JMS student. She said, "It's just unfair. We need to open a new school for our students. That way, we can communicate with each other. If I were the only deaf student among hearing students, I wouldn’t have anyone to talk to. I would be isolated. I wouldn’t be able to learn and communicate” (Ziegler, KSL.com, July 8, 2008).
Jennifer Jackson, the hearing mother of a 12-year-old JMS student, also participated in the interview. She said, “The alternative, [which is] mainstreaming the students, is not a satisfactory option.” She emphasized that the JMS students gain a sense of strength through their unity as the deaf student body. My son's progress would rapidly decline if he were mainstreamed. He has a sense of pride—he is deaf and proud of it—and he wants to be with his deaf peers." (Ziegler, KSL.com, July 8, 2008).
Jennifer Jackson, the hearing mother of a 12-year-old JMS student, also participated in the interview. She said, “The alternative, [which is] mainstreaming the students, is not a satisfactory option.” She emphasized that the JMS students gain a sense of strength through their unity as the deaf student body. My son's progress would rapidly decline if he were mainstreamed. He has a sense of pride—he is deaf and proud of it—and he wants to be with his deaf peers." (Ziegler, KSL.com, July 8, 2008).
Triplets Abby, Ben and Colin Poole & Keith Johnson. Source: Deseret News, July 9, 2008
Although there was already a Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind facility in Ogden, Utah, parents believed that Salt Lake County needed its own building to serve Deaf, Blind, DeafBlind, and DeafDisabled students, as it was the largest population center (Fulton, The Salt Lake Tribune, July 14, 2008). However, since most Deaf students were mainstreamed into their local school systems, the State of Utah might have assumed that the USDB needed only an administrative office to fulfill its integration mission. The lawmakers were unaware that the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf, which operated under the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind, served actual students on a real school campus.
As both a state agency and a school, the Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind cannot collect funds like regular school districts. Instead, they must request funding from the legislature every year. Being a state agency also makes them vulnerable to budget cuts (Fulton, The Salt Lake Tribune, July 14, 2008). Moreover, unlike many other state schools for the deaf, the USDB did not receive academic recognition.
Parents and supporters of Deaf students in Utah were dissatisfied with the poor educational conditions their children and teachers were facing, including insufficient space and deteriorating facilities. Despite numerous efforts to bring this issue to the attention of lawmakers, they received no prompt response. As a result, they organized a rally on the Capitol steps to advocate for urgent funding to build a permanent school building in Salt Lake County (Fulton, The Salt Lake Tribune, July 14, 2008).
As both a state agency and a school, the Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind cannot collect funds like regular school districts. Instead, they must request funding from the legislature every year. Being a state agency also makes them vulnerable to budget cuts (Fulton, The Salt Lake Tribune, July 14, 2008). Moreover, unlike many other state schools for the deaf, the USDB did not receive academic recognition.
Parents and supporters of Deaf students in Utah were dissatisfied with the poor educational conditions their children and teachers were facing, including insufficient space and deteriorating facilities. Despite numerous efforts to bring this issue to the attention of lawmakers, they received no prompt response. As a result, they organized a rally on the Capitol steps to advocate for urgent funding to build a permanent school building in Salt Lake County (Fulton, The Salt Lake Tribune, July 14, 2008).
Bryce Jackson holds a sign during a rally at the Capitol for a better school facility for Deaf students in Utah. Keith Johnson,. Source: Deseret News, July 9, 2008
In an email interview with The Salt Lake Tribune, I stated, "We feel our children have been marginalized because their sensory disabilities appear to make them less worthy citizens than other 'normal' school children who have buildings and equipment and green space and mascots and identity." I also pointed out the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which mandates "equal and appropriate education placement options" for students with disabilities (Fulton, The Salt Lake Tribune, July 14, 2008).
Joshua & Danielle at the Utah State Capitol rally for a new school building. Source: KSL.com, July 8, 2008
The Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind served approximately 2,100 students from birth to age 21, per Melanie Austin, assistant superintendent for USDB. Of these, 85 to 90 percent were deaf, 10 to 15 percent were blind or visually impaired, and a small percentage were both Deaf and blind. Many Deaf students attended traditional schools, where they learned lip-reading skills. In contrast, students who preferred an American Sign Language curriculum with their Deaf peers attended the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf (Fulton, The Salt Lake Tribune, July 14, 2008).
On July 8, 2008, parents and campaigners organized a rally to urge Utah legislators to allocate funding to construct a stand-alone school for the deaf in Salt Lake Valley. The proposed school aimed to transform the often negative experiences of 350–450 Deaf students into positive ones. This effort aimed to prioritize the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind during the 2009 legislative session in January (Gonzalez, KSL.com, July 8, 2008). On July 8, 2008, as shown in the section below, we distributed a flyer with 10 points to demonstrate the need for a permanent school building in the Salt Lake area.
On July 8, 2008, parents and campaigners organized a rally to urge Utah legislators to allocate funding to construct a stand-alone school for the deaf in Salt Lake Valley. The proposed school aimed to transform the often negative experiences of 350–450 Deaf students into positive ones. This effort aimed to prioritize the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind during the 2009 legislative session in January (Gonzalez, KSL.com, July 8, 2008). On July 8, 2008, as shown in the section below, we distributed a flyer with 10 points to demonstrate the need for a permanent school building in the Salt Lake area.
Ten Key Points to Demonstrate the
Need for a Permanent School Building
Need for a Permanent School Building
I collaborated with two hearing parents, Gwyneth Kenner and Amy Porter Poole, to create ten "Talking Points" for the rally on July 8, 2008. These points clearly outlined the issues we aimed to address, including the need for permanent school facilities, the impact of insufficient funding, and the challenges our students face. We distributed a flyer at the Utah State Capitol that detailed the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind's past struggles to secure state funding for a permanent building. As mentioned below, on July 8, 2008, we circulated a ten-point flyer to demonstrate the urgent need for a permanent school facility in the Salt Lake area.
USDB was both a state agency and a statewide school serving approximately 2,000 students throughout Utah. Around 400 of these students were in self-contained classrooms led by teachers trained to work with the Deaf and Blind.
For over a decade, the Utah Legislature has consistently rejected USDB's requests for permanent buildings, significantly affecting the quality of education our students receive. During the 2007 legislative session, USDB was offered a used five-story office building and $500,000 for renovations instead of funding for a new permanent building. The legislature assured USDB that they would only approve the old building and no other options.
Although USDB attempted to use the older building referenced earlier, it soon became evident that bringing only the first floor up to code would cost $1.4 million. Additionally, state law prohibits schools from exceeding three stories in height. The Utah State Office of Education, upon hearing about this situation, withdrew the funds without discussing alternative plans.
The building that housed USDB's newly expanded ASL/English bilingual programs was scheduled for demolition in 2008, leaving the school without adequate facilities for its 72 day students in grades pre-K through 9. This situation has placed our students in a precarious position, jeopardizing their educational environment. USDB was subsequently offered a school building in the Salt Lake City school district. However, the building was contaminated with asbestos and did not meet code requirements, requiring renovations costing more than $1.5 million to make it usable. In addition, USDB would need another $660,000 per year to lease the same building. The legislature provided $264,000 from one-time lease funds, but USDB would have to make up the additional costs by cutting direct services to students.
Meetings and negotiations among the Utah State Office of Education, legislators, and the governor's office to discuss USDB's building needs often excluded the administrators of the state school.
The State of Utah unexpectedly granted the Deaf and Blind School an additional office building, which was not suitable for student use. There was insufficient time to renovate enough classroom space before the start of school—only 45 days remained to complete the task. The petitioners could not see how the Connor Street building was a viable option; it lacked adequate space, as the blind preschool and staff offices occupied it. The building was run-down and had only a year left on its lease. What would happen to these children when the Connor Street lease expired in spring 2009?
As parents, we felt our children had been marginalized and relegated to an unimportant and powerless position. We had not met their educational needs to the same extent as our hearing peers. They deserved to have a school they could be proud of, complete with proper facilities, equipment, a mascot, school spirit, and identity. We urged the leaders of the State of Utah to roll up their sleeves and genuinely serve the Utah children who are deaf, hard of hearing, blind, low vision, and deafblind. See the "10 Talking Points for the Demonstration" flyer below.
USDB was both a state agency and a statewide school serving approximately 2,000 students throughout Utah. Around 400 of these students were in self-contained classrooms led by teachers trained to work with the Deaf and Blind.
For over a decade, the Utah Legislature has consistently rejected USDB's requests for permanent buildings, significantly affecting the quality of education our students receive. During the 2007 legislative session, USDB was offered a used five-story office building and $500,000 for renovations instead of funding for a new permanent building. The legislature assured USDB that they would only approve the old building and no other options.
Although USDB attempted to use the older building referenced earlier, it soon became evident that bringing only the first floor up to code would cost $1.4 million. Additionally, state law prohibits schools from exceeding three stories in height. The Utah State Office of Education, upon hearing about this situation, withdrew the funds without discussing alternative plans.
The building that housed USDB's newly expanded ASL/English bilingual programs was scheduled for demolition in 2008, leaving the school without adequate facilities for its 72 day students in grades pre-K through 9. This situation has placed our students in a precarious position, jeopardizing their educational environment. USDB was subsequently offered a school building in the Salt Lake City school district. However, the building was contaminated with asbestos and did not meet code requirements, requiring renovations costing more than $1.5 million to make it usable. In addition, USDB would need another $660,000 per year to lease the same building. The legislature provided $264,000 from one-time lease funds, but USDB would have to make up the additional costs by cutting direct services to students.
Meetings and negotiations among the Utah State Office of Education, legislators, and the governor's office to discuss USDB's building needs often excluded the administrators of the state school.
The State of Utah unexpectedly granted the Deaf and Blind School an additional office building, which was not suitable for student use. There was insufficient time to renovate enough classroom space before the start of school—only 45 days remained to complete the task. The petitioners could not see how the Connor Street building was a viable option; it lacked adequate space, as the blind preschool and staff offices occupied it. The building was run-down and had only a year left on its lease. What would happen to these children when the Connor Street lease expired in spring 2009?
As parents, we felt our children had been marginalized and relegated to an unimportant and powerless position. We had not met their educational needs to the same extent as our hearing peers. They deserved to have a school they could be proud of, complete with proper facilities, equipment, a mascot, school spirit, and identity. We urged the leaders of the State of Utah to roll up their sleeves and genuinely serve the Utah children who are deaf, hard of hearing, blind, low vision, and deafblind. See the "10 Talking Points for the Demonstration" flyer below.
The flyer with ten points for the demonstration of a permanent school building in the Salt Lake area was distributed on July 8, 2008
Representative Christine Johnson spoke with the rally participants. In a news interview, she expressed that her fellow lawmakers had neglected the issue for too long. She hoped that this year would be different. Parents, teachers, and advocates were becoming more vocal and visible, thanks to local TV and radio coverage. Rep. Johnson believed that their presence would make it more difficult to ignore their legitimate requests (Gonzalez, KSL.com, July 8, 2008).
Christine Johnson. Source: Wikipedia
Invitation to the Office of Governor Jon M. Huntsman Jr.
After the rally, the parents of Deaf children and I were invited to meet with Governor Jon M. Huntsman Jr. Two cabinet members and a representative from the Utah Department of Facilities and Construction Management, which was responsible for finding buildings for government use, also attended the meeting. As I approached the governor's office, Governor Huntsman told us about Thomas Edison's light bulbs. I was delighted to see the original bulbs, but I couldn't help wondering whether the lawmakers knew that Thomas Edison was deaf.
During our discussion, the governor mentioned some proposals that were still in the early stages of development. One parent of a Deaf child expressed interest in establishing a school in her area, which ultimately led to the development of the Elizabeth DeLong School of the Deaf in 2019. Nevertheless, Governor Huntsman suggested his support for a permanent school building. Overall, the outcome was very positive and marked a step in the right direction.
During our discussion, the governor mentioned some proposals that were still in the early stages of development. One parent of a Deaf child expressed interest in establishing a school in her area, which ultimately led to the development of the Elizabeth DeLong School of the Deaf in 2019. Nevertheless, Governor Huntsman suggested his support for a permanent school building. Overall, the outcome was very positive and marked a step in the right direction.
Thomas Edison. Source: Wikipedia
Funding Support Secured for the
Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind
Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind
Approximately six weeks after the Capitol Hill rally, Dr. Patti Harrington, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, took a proactive step by writing a letter on August 19, 2008, to Ron Bigelow, a member of the Utah House of Representatives and the Education Committee. In her letter, Superintendent Harrington acknowledged the importance of the USDB and suggested treating it like any other state agency when it comes to building needs. She recommended that the Department of Facilities and Construction Management handle these requests. Despite the existing ranking process, Superintendent Harrington emphasized that the specialized needs of USDB students warranted a distinct category in the evaluation process (Utah State Office of Education, 2008). This department then initiated the necessary approval process, which was a major step forward for the cause.
Continuing this positive momentum for parents and the Utah Deaf community, USDB Superintendent Timothy W. Smith presented his case to the Utah State Board of Education on September 13, 2008. The board responded to his appeal with a decisive and unanimous vote, publicly endorsing his proposal to seek state funding for a permanent building. This show of support from the board was a critical milestone that brought the issue to light. Equally significant was the backing from top legislative leadership, which further solidified the cause (Fulton, The Salt Lake Tribune, September 13, 2008).
In March 2009, the Utah State Board of Education and state legislators voted in favor of Superintendent Smith's proposal, allowing the state to issue bonds to purchase the Libby Edwards Elementary School building in Salt Lake City, Utah. The goal was to buy and renovate the Granite School District's Libby Edwards Elementary School, located at 1655 East 3300 South, to serve as the permanent location for the Jean Massieu School, with classes scheduled to begin in the fall of 2009. Since USDB cannot issue bonds directly during a general election, it must approach lawmakers annually to explain its needs and request funding. This process illustrates the essential role of legislative approval in funding and project approval, emphasizing that it required ongoing advocacy. During the 2008 legislative session, Superintendent Smith requested $14.9 million from state lawmakers for a school in Salt Lake County. Everyone was surprised when the request was turned down. He stated, "If the Legislature refuses what we're proposing, to be honest, I don't know what we're going to do... Circumstances will worsen" (Fulton, The Salt Lake Tribune, September 13, 2008).
Fortunately, the Department of Facilities Construction and Management developed a strategic political approach to strengthen its position. Without this initiative, the Jean Massieu School risked losing its building, which had expired in 2009. This plan led to the state's building request receiving a #1 ranking, successfully passing both the House and the Senate, and culminating in Governor Jon M. Huntsman Jr. signing Senate Bill 201 on March 23, 2009. This historic milestone authorized the issuance of bonds to purchase the Libby Edwards Elementary School, showcasing the department's foresight and strategic planning in advancing the project.
Continuing this positive momentum for parents and the Utah Deaf community, USDB Superintendent Timothy W. Smith presented his case to the Utah State Board of Education on September 13, 2008. The board responded to his appeal with a decisive and unanimous vote, publicly endorsing his proposal to seek state funding for a permanent building. This show of support from the board was a critical milestone that brought the issue to light. Equally significant was the backing from top legislative leadership, which further solidified the cause (Fulton, The Salt Lake Tribune, September 13, 2008).
In March 2009, the Utah State Board of Education and state legislators voted in favor of Superintendent Smith's proposal, allowing the state to issue bonds to purchase the Libby Edwards Elementary School building in Salt Lake City, Utah. The goal was to buy and renovate the Granite School District's Libby Edwards Elementary School, located at 1655 East 3300 South, to serve as the permanent location for the Jean Massieu School, with classes scheduled to begin in the fall of 2009. Since USDB cannot issue bonds directly during a general election, it must approach lawmakers annually to explain its needs and request funding. This process illustrates the essential role of legislative approval in funding and project approval, emphasizing that it required ongoing advocacy. During the 2008 legislative session, Superintendent Smith requested $14.9 million from state lawmakers for a school in Salt Lake County. Everyone was surprised when the request was turned down. He stated, "If the Legislature refuses what we're proposing, to be honest, I don't know what we're going to do... Circumstances will worsen" (Fulton, The Salt Lake Tribune, September 13, 2008).
Fortunately, the Department of Facilities Construction and Management developed a strategic political approach to strengthen its position. Without this initiative, the Jean Massieu School risked losing its building, which had expired in 2009. This plan led to the state's building request receiving a #1 ranking, successfully passing both the House and the Senate, and culminating in Governor Jon M. Huntsman Jr. signing Senate Bill 201 on March 23, 2009. This historic milestone authorized the issuance of bonds to purchase the Libby Edwards Elementary School, showcasing the department's foresight and strategic planning in advancing the project.
Timothy W. Smith
Ribbon-Cutting Ceremony at the
Libby Edwards Elementary School
Libby Edwards Elementary School
On March 15, 2010, a ribbon-cutting ceremony marked the completion of a long-standing effort to secure a permanent home for the Utah School for the Deaf. This achievement was made possible by the unwavering support of our community. Since merging with JMS in 2005, the Utah School for the Deaf has significantly enhanced the educational experiences of Deaf and hard-of-hearing students. The implementation of House Bill 296 has been essential in ensuring full language and communication accessibility on campus. This legislation has removed barriers, expanded educational options, and created a nurturing environment where Deaf and hard-of-hearing students can thrive and feel at home.
Steven Noyce, superintendent of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind, left, and David G. Buxton, director of the Utah Department of Administrative Services, use giant scissors to cut the ribbon. Source: Scott G. Winterton, Deseret News, March 16, 2010
Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind, Salt Lake City, Utah. Source: USDB Website
Steven W. Noyce's Return as USDB Superintendent:
A Shocking Moment in Utah's Deaf Education History
A Shocking Moment in Utah's Deaf Education History
However, in 2009, significant challenges emerged for Utah's Deaf education system when Steven W. Noyce was appointed Superintendent of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind, following the passage of House Bill 296. In response to concerns from the Utah Deaf community, the Utah Deaf Education Core Group was formed to protect the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf and its invaluable ASL/English bilingual education program.
During his tenure as superintendent from 2009 to 2011, Deaf advocates in Utah faced issues such as oral bias and placement restrictions in ASL/English bilingual and listening and spoken language (LSL) programs. A pivotal moment occurred at one of my children's Individualized Education Program (IEP) meetings, when Superintendent Noyce insisted on providing only an IEP and proposed eliminating Section 504 accommodations. His appointment raised alarms in the Utah Deaf community about potential policy restrictions that could negatively impact Deaf education.
While Steven Noyce was in Oregon, important legislation was enacted in Utah that empowered the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf to excel academically and socially. This new law, alongside House Bill 296 and Senate Bill 201, played a critical role in establishing and sustaining three Deaf schools: Jean Massieu, Kenneth Burdett, and Elizabeth DeLong. However, following his return, Utah Deaf community efforts faced challenges due to his oral-centered agenda, underscoring the ongoing resilience and hope for improvement in Deaf education.
During his tenure as superintendent from 2009 to 2011, Deaf advocates in Utah faced issues such as oral bias and placement restrictions in ASL/English bilingual and listening and spoken language (LSL) programs. A pivotal moment occurred at one of my children's Individualized Education Program (IEP) meetings, when Superintendent Noyce insisted on providing only an IEP and proposed eliminating Section 504 accommodations. His appointment raised alarms in the Utah Deaf community about potential policy restrictions that could negatively impact Deaf education.
While Steven Noyce was in Oregon, important legislation was enacted in Utah that empowered the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf to excel academically and socially. This new law, alongside House Bill 296 and Senate Bill 201, played a critical role in establishing and sustaining three Deaf schools: Jean Massieu, Kenneth Burdett, and Elizabeth DeLong. However, following his return, Utah Deaf community efforts faced challenges due to his oral-centered agenda, underscoring the ongoing resilience and hope for improvement in Deaf education.
In Danger: Deaf Education in Utah and
Its Impact on ASL/English Bilingual Program as well as Inequality of
Deaf Education in Utah
Part V
Compiled & Written by Jodi Christel Becker
Edited by Valerie G. Kinney
Contributing Editing by Bronwyn O’Hara and
Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz
Published in 2019
Updated in 2025
Its Impact on ASL/English Bilingual Program as well as Inequality of
Deaf Education in Utah
Part V
Compiled & Written by Jodi Christel Becker
Edited by Valerie G. Kinney
Contributing Editing by Bronwyn O’Hara and
Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz
Published in 2019
Updated in 2025
Utah's Deaf Education Landscape:
An Evolving Saga
An Evolving Saga
The passage of House Bill 296 in 2009 marked a pivotal moment for Deaf education in Utah. This legislation paved the way for significant developments, including the acquisition of the Libby Edwards School building in Salt Lake City by the Utah School for the Deaf (USD), which was utilized to house the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf (JMS). The original JMS staff worked with leaders from the Utah Deaf community and USD administrators to support a bilingual approach using American Sign Language (ASL) and English, ensuring it received the same resources as the Listening and Spoken Language (LSL) method. However, ongoing debates and policy shifts have continued to influence the availability and focus of these educational approaches, directly affecting the options available to Deaf families.
For a time, JMS benefited from a productive partnership with the Utah School for the Deaf. However, Steven W. Noyce's appointment as the USD superintendent in 2009, following his return from Oregon, disrupted this harmony. Known for his strong advocacy of oralism and his active involvement with the Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf, Steven Noyce's leadership sparked renewed controversy over Deaf education methods—a debate that has persisted since 1884.
Historically, supporters of both ASL and LSL coexisted relatively peacefully. However, Steven Noyce's appointment heightened tensions within the community. His efforts to promote a pro-oral agenda, often accompanied by the manipulation of information to support his viewpoint, left many in the Utah Deaf community feeling marginalized. In response to the implications of his leadership, concerned individuals formed the Utah Deaf Education Core Group to counter Superintendent Noyce's influence. Meanwhile, Day Mullings, the newly appointed Director of the Parent Infant Program (PIP) and an advocate for LSL, supported Superintendent Noyce's vision, further deepening the divide.
Advocates for ASL have consistently sought intervention from higher authorities within the USDB Advisory Council, the Utah State Board of Education, and the Utah State Office of Education. They highlighted glaring inequalities in access to essential information regarding educational programs, as well as significant disparities in financial resources, equipment, and facilities. Unfortunately, these appeals have yet to result in meaningful action.
The vision shared by Noyce and Mullings for Deaf children closely resembles the education of hearing children. However, the Utah Deaf Education Core Group stressed the critical importance of providing Deaf children with early and consistent exposure to ASL while ensuring access to both ASL and English. They were steadfast in their commitment to preventing a repeat of the mistakes observed in Canada in 2007, when an anti-sign language policy stripped Deaf and hard-of-hearing children of their linguistic rights. This misguided policy forced parents to choose between cochlear implants for their Deaf children or the use of sign language, effectively eliminating options and igniting widespread outrage within the Canadian Deaf community, as well as support from organizations like the National Association of the Deaf in the United States. This movement firmly endorsed the belief that "language is a fundamental human right" (UAD Bulletin, June 2007).
In a decisive move, Superintendent Noyce introduced a new policy for the Parent Infant Program that prohibits parents from opting for both ASL and LSL. This controversial decision has raised significant concerns about parental rights, prompting the Utah Deaf Education Core Group to advocate for parents' freedom to make informed choices without coercion to choose 'either/or' between the two programs. The Core Group was committed to promoting communication and language development for Deaf children while fostering trust in the school's ability to meet their unique needs.
For a time, JMS benefited from a productive partnership with the Utah School for the Deaf. However, Steven W. Noyce's appointment as the USD superintendent in 2009, following his return from Oregon, disrupted this harmony. Known for his strong advocacy of oralism and his active involvement with the Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf, Steven Noyce's leadership sparked renewed controversy over Deaf education methods—a debate that has persisted since 1884.
Historically, supporters of both ASL and LSL coexisted relatively peacefully. However, Steven Noyce's appointment heightened tensions within the community. His efforts to promote a pro-oral agenda, often accompanied by the manipulation of information to support his viewpoint, left many in the Utah Deaf community feeling marginalized. In response to the implications of his leadership, concerned individuals formed the Utah Deaf Education Core Group to counter Superintendent Noyce's influence. Meanwhile, Day Mullings, the newly appointed Director of the Parent Infant Program (PIP) and an advocate for LSL, supported Superintendent Noyce's vision, further deepening the divide.
Advocates for ASL have consistently sought intervention from higher authorities within the USDB Advisory Council, the Utah State Board of Education, and the Utah State Office of Education. They highlighted glaring inequalities in access to essential information regarding educational programs, as well as significant disparities in financial resources, equipment, and facilities. Unfortunately, these appeals have yet to result in meaningful action.
The vision shared by Noyce and Mullings for Deaf children closely resembles the education of hearing children. However, the Utah Deaf Education Core Group stressed the critical importance of providing Deaf children with early and consistent exposure to ASL while ensuring access to both ASL and English. They were steadfast in their commitment to preventing a repeat of the mistakes observed in Canada in 2007, when an anti-sign language policy stripped Deaf and hard-of-hearing children of their linguistic rights. This misguided policy forced parents to choose between cochlear implants for their Deaf children or the use of sign language, effectively eliminating options and igniting widespread outrage within the Canadian Deaf community, as well as support from organizations like the National Association of the Deaf in the United States. This movement firmly endorsed the belief that "language is a fundamental human right" (UAD Bulletin, June 2007).
In a decisive move, Superintendent Noyce introduced a new policy for the Parent Infant Program that prohibits parents from opting for both ASL and LSL. This controversial decision has raised significant concerns about parental rights, prompting the Utah Deaf Education Core Group to advocate for parents' freedom to make informed choices without coercion to choose 'either/or' between the two programs. The Core Group was committed to promoting communication and language development for Deaf children while fostering trust in the school's ability to meet their unique needs.
Steven W. Noyce
Reflection
We, members of the Utah Deaf community, attended a transformative Deafhood workshop led by Marvin T. Miller, founding board member of the Deafhood Foundation, in Utah from March 7 to 10, 2019. This workshop proved pivotal as we navigated significant challenges in Deaf education. During the session, I reflected on the strategies the Utah Deaf Education Core Group might have used when opposing Superintendent Steven W. Noyce of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind (USDB)—an ardent supporter of oralism—alongside the listening and spoken language (LSL) group from 2009 to 2011. Understanding the institutional bias and systemic resistance we encountered is key to comprehending our ongoing struggle to safeguard ASL/English bilingual education, a cause that unites us as advocates and community members.
Marvin emphasized that advocating for pro-choice or parental choice can lead to complications. If both ASL and LSL tracks are offered at a state school for the deaf, the LSL program may weaken the effectiveness of the ASL/English bilingual program. He urged everyone to stand firmly in support of ASL, citing the successful resistance by Deaf communities at the Delaware School for the Deaf and the Indiana School for the Deaf to LSL initiatives in 2011. However, Utah presents a different challenge. The dual-track program at the Utah School for the Deaf, established in 1962, has created a complex advocacy landscape, making it difficult to revert to a solely ASL/English bilingual model.
The Utah Deaf Education Core Group found that staff members of the Parent Infant Program at the Utah School for the Deaf held biases favoring LSL, making it harder for parents to choose ASL/English bilingual options. As a community committed to equitable access, many parents only learned about the ASL pathway after their Deaf child faced challenges—such as oral failure and language deprivation—in the LSL program. Recognizing these systemic barriers strengthens our resolve to advocate for informed parental choice and the rights of Deaf families, because we share a common goal of supporting every child's language and cultural identity.
It is important to clarify that the Utah Deaf activists established the Utah Deaf Education Core Group, a grassroots, community-driven advocacy organization dedicated to protecting ASL/English bilingual education against any attempts to undermine it. Contrary to the unfounded claims made by Superintendent Noyce and some LSL advocates, we were neither radical nor fanatical in our approach. Our primary mission was to ensure that the Utah School for the Deaf offered fair, equitable, and transparent options for families. As a result, we adopted a pro-choice stance. Understanding this distinction is crucial for fully grasping our motivations and actions as a Core Group.
Our advocacy efforts included writing letters to key decision-makers, participating in town halls, attending meetings of the Utah State Board of Education and the USDB Advisory Council, publishing clarifications on our website, promoting policies that support the communication and language rights of Deaf children, and calling for the removal of Superintendent Noyce. Despite our persistence, Superintendent Noyce continued to push forward with LSL services and mainstream initiatives, much like a football player driving relentlessly toward the goal line, while we remained steadfast in our opposition. Our ongoing commitment is vital to maintaining momentum and ensuring our voices continue to influence policy and practice.
During Steven Noyce's tenure as superintendent, he was dedicated to upholding the legacy of his esteemed professor, Dr. Grant B. Bitter, in the oral preparation program at the University of Utah. This initiative was halted when Joel Coleman, USDB superintendent, and Michelle Tanner, USD associate superintendent, took bold steps to implement a hybrid program. This new approach allowed parents to choose between options without compromising the USD's educational philosophies or introducing bias in the preschool program. Students could transition between ASL/English and LSL classes based on decisions made by their Individualized Education Program (IEP) teams. This flexibility enabled students to benefit from both programs while remaining true to each program's educational philosophies and methods. As a result, this initiative has set a new standard in the field, fostering continuous innovation and inspiring others to adopt similar approaches.
Robert Heinlein's words, "A generation that ignores history has no past and no future," highlight the importance of understanding Utah's history of educational inequality to honor our collective responsibility. Our ongoing work seeks to ensure that future generations will benefit from the ASL/English bilingual program, even if its protection is not guaranteed forever. In the Bitter Phase I, the Utah Association for the Deaf passed the torch to the Utah Deaf Education Core Group during the Noyce Phase II. Today, our mission is to learn from past mistakes and carry this legacy forward for future members of the Utah Deaf community. Our commitment calls for creating inclusive learning environments that uphold the communication and language rights of Deaf students. By fostering collaboration among families, educators, and advocates, we aim to build a more equitable system that empowers every child to thrive.
Marvin emphasized that advocating for pro-choice or parental choice can lead to complications. If both ASL and LSL tracks are offered at a state school for the deaf, the LSL program may weaken the effectiveness of the ASL/English bilingual program. He urged everyone to stand firmly in support of ASL, citing the successful resistance by Deaf communities at the Delaware School for the Deaf and the Indiana School for the Deaf to LSL initiatives in 2011. However, Utah presents a different challenge. The dual-track program at the Utah School for the Deaf, established in 1962, has created a complex advocacy landscape, making it difficult to revert to a solely ASL/English bilingual model.
The Utah Deaf Education Core Group found that staff members of the Parent Infant Program at the Utah School for the Deaf held biases favoring LSL, making it harder for parents to choose ASL/English bilingual options. As a community committed to equitable access, many parents only learned about the ASL pathway after their Deaf child faced challenges—such as oral failure and language deprivation—in the LSL program. Recognizing these systemic barriers strengthens our resolve to advocate for informed parental choice and the rights of Deaf families, because we share a common goal of supporting every child's language and cultural identity.
It is important to clarify that the Utah Deaf activists established the Utah Deaf Education Core Group, a grassroots, community-driven advocacy organization dedicated to protecting ASL/English bilingual education against any attempts to undermine it. Contrary to the unfounded claims made by Superintendent Noyce and some LSL advocates, we were neither radical nor fanatical in our approach. Our primary mission was to ensure that the Utah School for the Deaf offered fair, equitable, and transparent options for families. As a result, we adopted a pro-choice stance. Understanding this distinction is crucial for fully grasping our motivations and actions as a Core Group.
Our advocacy efforts included writing letters to key decision-makers, participating in town halls, attending meetings of the Utah State Board of Education and the USDB Advisory Council, publishing clarifications on our website, promoting policies that support the communication and language rights of Deaf children, and calling for the removal of Superintendent Noyce. Despite our persistence, Superintendent Noyce continued to push forward with LSL services and mainstream initiatives, much like a football player driving relentlessly toward the goal line, while we remained steadfast in our opposition. Our ongoing commitment is vital to maintaining momentum and ensuring our voices continue to influence policy and practice.
During Steven Noyce's tenure as superintendent, he was dedicated to upholding the legacy of his esteemed professor, Dr. Grant B. Bitter, in the oral preparation program at the University of Utah. This initiative was halted when Joel Coleman, USDB superintendent, and Michelle Tanner, USD associate superintendent, took bold steps to implement a hybrid program. This new approach allowed parents to choose between options without compromising the USD's educational philosophies or introducing bias in the preschool program. Students could transition between ASL/English and LSL classes based on decisions made by their Individualized Education Program (IEP) teams. This flexibility enabled students to benefit from both programs while remaining true to each program's educational philosophies and methods. As a result, this initiative has set a new standard in the field, fostering continuous innovation and inspiring others to adopt similar approaches.
Robert Heinlein's words, "A generation that ignores history has no past and no future," highlight the importance of understanding Utah's history of educational inequality to honor our collective responsibility. Our ongoing work seeks to ensure that future generations will benefit from the ASL/English bilingual program, even if its protection is not guaranteed forever. In the Bitter Phase I, the Utah Association for the Deaf passed the torch to the Utah Deaf Education Core Group during the Noyce Phase II. Today, our mission is to learn from past mistakes and carry this legacy forward for future members of the Utah Deaf community. Our commitment calls for creating inclusive learning environments that uphold the communication and language rights of Deaf students. By fostering collaboration among families, educators, and advocates, we aim to build a more equitable system that empowers every child to thrive.
Marvin T. Miller
Testimonial
I find Vea Lyn Jarvis's remarks about the inequality of Deaf education in Utah uplifting. The Utah Deaf Education Core Group faced criticism for its "radical" actions. Vea's comments serve as a reminder that our efforts were aimed at championing a just cause, not to further a personal agenda. I appreciate this sentiment and have included it in this webpage, as follows:
*****
"I read or skimmed this whole thing! It is long but worth the time. It made me sooooooo sad that after 40 years of continually fighting for deaf rights, I don't see a lot of change happening. It felt like going back in time and rereading my story with my deaf kids, only with different characters. It bothers me that a lot of hearing adults are making the decisions for capable, talented, wonderful deaf people without asking them what they really want. It also encourages me that the fight so many of us fought so long ago is still being carried on by amazing deaf and hearing people who have what is best for deaf children in mind. In my opinion, parents need access to information on all forms of deaf education, and then they need to make the decision that best suits them and their child. Choosing LSL or ASL is not a valid option, especially so early in a child's upbringing. Both should be available for as long as a parent or child needs them, along with any other options that may be available. Hurray for those who champion the truth rather than their personal agenda!!! Raising a deaf child is not easy, whatever you choose, but it is soooooooo worth it to put in the effort to make their lives what they really can be. How do I know? I am the mother of three amazing deaf adults and mother-in-law to their equally amazing Deaf spouses!" ~ Vea Lynn Jarvis, February 27, 2019
*****
"I read or skimmed this whole thing! It is long but worth the time. It made me sooooooo sad that after 40 years of continually fighting for deaf rights, I don't see a lot of change happening. It felt like going back in time and rereading my story with my deaf kids, only with different characters. It bothers me that a lot of hearing adults are making the decisions for capable, talented, wonderful deaf people without asking them what they really want. It also encourages me that the fight so many of us fought so long ago is still being carried on by amazing deaf and hearing people who have what is best for deaf children in mind. In my opinion, parents need access to information on all forms of deaf education, and then they need to make the decision that best suits them and their child. Choosing LSL or ASL is not a valid option, especially so early in a child's upbringing. Both should be available for as long as a parent or child needs them, along with any other options that may be available. Hurray for those who champion the truth rather than their personal agenda!!! Raising a deaf child is not easy, whatever you choose, but it is soooooooo worth it to put in the effort to make their lives what they really can be. How do I know? I am the mother of three amazing deaf adults and mother-in-law to their equally amazing Deaf spouses!" ~ Vea Lynn Jarvis, February 27, 2019
A New USDB Superintendent Is Appointed
For years, the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind (USDB) were managed by one superintendent and one assistant superintendent. However, when House Bill 296 passed during the 2009 legislative session, it established a new administrative structure for USDB. This structure designated one superintendent and two associate superintendents. The superintendent would serve as the school's chief executive officer (CEO), while one associate superintendent would oversee Deaf Education, and the other would manage Blind Education. The associate superintendents were tasked with supervising daily educational activities, whereas the superintendent would interact with the legislature and manage USDB's finances. This new format meant that the superintendent was no longer responsible for the educational content or teacher quality at the state school, and it was no longer necessary for the superintendent to have detailed knowledge of Deaf or Blind education or the related challenges.
Dr. Jennifer Howell, the USDB curriculum coordinator, applied for the superintendent position. Hard of hearing and fluent in ASL, Dr. Howell was selected as one of four finalists for the role.
Dr. Jennifer Howell, the USDB curriculum coordinator, applied for the superintendent position. Hard of hearing and fluent in ASL, Dr. Howell was selected as one of four finalists for the role.
Dr. Jennifer Howell
Steven W. Noyce was also among the finalists. He was no stranger to the Deaf community in Utah, having graduated from the Teacher Training Program at the University of Utah between 1965 and 1972 (Steven Noyce: LinkedIn). He studied under the guidance of two professors, Reid C. Miller and Dr. Grant B. Bitter, who were advocates of oral and mainstream education.
Steven started his career as an oral teacher at the Utah School for the Deaf and later became the Director of the USD Outreach Program based in Ogden and Salt Lake City (Steven Noyce: LinkedIn). While his background in oral philosophy was notable, it raised concerns about potential unconscious bias against sign language if selected as superintendent.
Steven had long wanted the superintendent position at the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind. In 2004, during a period of budget challenges at USD and while searching for Dr. Lee Robinson's successor, he was one of three finalists for the position but was ultimately not selected. After that, he moved to Portland, Oregon, in 2005 and served as the executive director of the Tucker-Maxon Oral School for four years. Steven has since re-applied for the superintendent position.
Steven started his career as an oral teacher at the Utah School for the Deaf and later became the Director of the USD Outreach Program based in Ogden and Salt Lake City (Steven Noyce: LinkedIn). While his background in oral philosophy was notable, it raised concerns about potential unconscious bias against sign language if selected as superintendent.
Steven had long wanted the superintendent position at the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind. In 2004, during a period of budget challenges at USD and while searching for Dr. Lee Robinson's successor, he was one of three finalists for the position but was ultimately not selected. After that, he moved to Portland, Oregon, in 2005 and served as the executive director of the Tucker-Maxon Oral School for four years. Steven has since re-applied for the superintendent position.
Dr. Martell Menlove. Source: Utah State University
Julio Diaz, Jr., a Deaf father of three Deaf children and husband of Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz (co-founder of the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf), voiced the general concern regarding Steven Noyce's candidacy. Rather than appoint someone who had a clear commitment to auditory-oral education, Julio argued that USD needed a leader who "would forge new ground." Leslie Castle, a member of the State Board of Education who chaired the interview committee for the new superintendent, expressed her desire for a "bridge builder" to help resolve the conflicts at USDB (Stewart, The Salt Lake Tribune, July 30, 2009).
There was a widespread expectation among the USDB community, both Deaf and Blind, that Dr. Howell would be the chosen candidate. However, shock rippled through the Utah Deaf community when the Utah State Board of Education announced on August 7, 2009, that Steven W. Noyce had been appointed as the new superintendent for USDB (Schencker, The Salt Lake Tribune, August 7, 2009).
There was a widespread expectation among the USDB community, both Deaf and Blind, that Dr. Howell would be the chosen candidate. However, shock rippled through the Utah Deaf community when the Utah State Board of Education announced on August 7, 2009, that Steven W. Noyce had been appointed as the new superintendent for USDB (Schencker, The Salt Lake Tribune, August 7, 2009).
Back L-R: Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz, Julio Diaz, Jr.,and Briella. Front L-R: Tres and Isabelle
Several members of the Utah Deaf community expressed concern about Steven Noyce's appointment as the new superintendent of the school, fearing he would uphold Dr. Bitter's legacy and potentially jeopardize the ASL/English bilingual program they had diligently established. However, Leslie noted that many parents, faculty, and other stakeholders associated with the Utah Schools for the Deaf were pleased with Steven Noyce's appointment (Leslie Castle, personal communication, August 20, 2009).
Leslie Castle. The Salt Lake Tribune
The Utah Deaf Community Emphasizes the Need for
Qualified Leadership in Deaf Education
Qualified Leadership in Deaf Education
The Utah Deaf community raised critical concerns about Steven W. Noyce's appointment, emphasizing the need for qualified leadership in Deaf education. Between January and June 2009, numerous letters and emails were sent to Dr. Martell Menlove and Leslie Castle, highlighting worries about Steven's alleged prejudice against sign language and his support for the oral program, which could impact the future of Deaf education at the Utah School for the Deaf.
Members of the Utah Deaf community expressed apprehension about Steven's appointment as the new superintendent of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind. On August 11, 2009, the Utah Association for the Deaf (UAD) and the Beehive Chapter of the Gallaudet Alumni Association (BCGUAA) co-authored a letter addressed to the Utah State Board of Education, various members of the Utah State Office of Education, and several legislators and stakeholders in Deaf issues. The letter requested that the Associate Superintendent of the Deaf Program at USDB be a native ASL speaker with background in the ASL/English bilingual philosophy. See the letter from UAD & BCGUAA below.
According to the specific language of House Bill 296, the appointment of the associate superintendent should be based on clear legal criteria, ensuring a fair and transparent selection process that stakeholders can trust.
The criteria include (a) demonstrated competency as an expert educator for Deaf individuals and (b) knowledge of school management and instruction specifically for Deaf individuals (The UAD Board and BCGUAA Letter to the Utah State Board of Education, August 11, 2009).
Dr. Jennifer Howell met all the criteria outlined above and was hired as the new Associate Superintendent for the Utah School for the Deaf. The UAD and BCGUAA members supported this decision, recognizing Dr. Howell's native ASL skills, extensive experience managing Deaf education, and familiarity with the ASL/English bilingual philosophy used at the Jean Massieu School. Their support aimed to ensure strong leadership and prevent undue influence by Superintendent Noyce, in line with the law's emphasis on protecting educational integrity.
Members of the Utah Deaf community expressed apprehension about Steven's appointment as the new superintendent of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind. On August 11, 2009, the Utah Association for the Deaf (UAD) and the Beehive Chapter of the Gallaudet Alumni Association (BCGUAA) co-authored a letter addressed to the Utah State Board of Education, various members of the Utah State Office of Education, and several legislators and stakeholders in Deaf issues. The letter requested that the Associate Superintendent of the Deaf Program at USDB be a native ASL speaker with background in the ASL/English bilingual philosophy. See the letter from UAD & BCGUAA below.
According to the specific language of House Bill 296, the appointment of the associate superintendent should be based on clear legal criteria, ensuring a fair and transparent selection process that stakeholders can trust.
The criteria include (a) demonstrated competency as an expert educator for Deaf individuals and (b) knowledge of school management and instruction specifically for Deaf individuals (The UAD Board and BCGUAA Letter to the Utah State Board of Education, August 11, 2009).
Dr. Jennifer Howell met all the criteria outlined above and was hired as the new Associate Superintendent for the Utah School for the Deaf. The UAD and BCGUAA members supported this decision, recognizing Dr. Howell's native ASL skills, extensive experience managing Deaf education, and familiarity with the ASL/English bilingual philosophy used at the Jean Massieu School. Their support aimed to ensure strong leadership and prevent undue influence by Superintendent Noyce, in line with the law's emphasis on protecting educational integrity.
Letter written by the Utah Association for the Deaf and the Beehive Chapter of the Gallaudet University Alumni Association
Letter written by the Utah Association for the Deaf and the Beehive Chapter of the Gallaudet University Alumni Association
A Meeting with Dr. Martell Menlove,
Deputy State Superintendent
Deputy State Superintendent
A Meeting with Dr. Martell Menlove, Deputy State Superintendent
Shortly after the Utah State Board of Education hired Noyce, Dr. Martell Menlove sought to meet with key community leaders to listen to and understand their concerns. As the liaison between the Utah State Board of Education and the USDB Advisory Council, he aimed to acknowledge the community's feelings and create an atmosphere of inclusion, especially after I, as a Deaf individual, expressed my grave concerns about Steven Noyce's appointment.
Dr. Menlove invited Joe Ziedner, Dr. J. Freeman King, and me to a meeting on August 21, 2009. Leslie Castle, a member of the Utah State Board of Education, also joined Dr. Menlove.
During the meeting, we discussed much of USDB's history along with various viewpoints on Steven Noyce. Dr. Menlove mentioned he had received letters from supporters of Noyce and shared comments from parents and other interested parties expressing support for his appointment. However, he did not mention the letters and emails he received from many who opposed Steven's selection. By the end of the meeting, it was acknowledged that there were many opinions about Steven, both positive and negative (Joe Ziedner, personal communication, August 25, 2009).
To reassure the Utah Deaf Community, Dr. Menlove emphasized three critical points:
At the end of the meeting, we were encouraged to "wait and see" whether Steven Noyce would be as problematic as we had feared (Joe Ziedner, personal communication, August 25, 2009).
The reality became clear to everyone: Steve W. Noyce was the new USDB superintendent, regardless of any opposition to his selection, and he would begin his role on August 24, 2009.
Shortly after the Utah State Board of Education hired Noyce, Dr. Martell Menlove sought to meet with key community leaders to listen to and understand their concerns. As the liaison between the Utah State Board of Education and the USDB Advisory Council, he aimed to acknowledge the community's feelings and create an atmosphere of inclusion, especially after I, as a Deaf individual, expressed my grave concerns about Steven Noyce's appointment.
Dr. Menlove invited Joe Ziedner, Dr. J. Freeman King, and me to a meeting on August 21, 2009. Leslie Castle, a member of the Utah State Board of Education, also joined Dr. Menlove.
During the meeting, we discussed much of USDB's history along with various viewpoints on Steven Noyce. Dr. Menlove mentioned he had received letters from supporters of Noyce and shared comments from parents and other interested parties expressing support for his appointment. However, he did not mention the letters and emails he received from many who opposed Steven's selection. By the end of the meeting, it was acknowledged that there were many opinions about Steven, both positive and negative (Joe Ziedner, personal communication, August 25, 2009).
To reassure the Utah Deaf Community, Dr. Menlove emphasized three critical points:
- The Utah State Board of Education must review the USDB Superintendent's contract every two years and either renew it or not.
- Mr. Noyce would undergo an annual performance review with the Board of Education, which would include specific criteria and feedback mechanisms to ensure transparency and accountability.
- As Deputy State Superintendent, Dr. Menlove reported directly to Utah State Superintendent Larry Shumway. This position makes him a reliable contact for the Utah Deaf community, allowing him to make prompt adjustments as necessary and ensuring that their concerns are heard and addressed quickly (Joe Ziedner, personal communication, August 25, 2009).
At the end of the meeting, we were encouraged to "wait and see" whether Steven Noyce would be as problematic as we had feared (Joe Ziedner, personal communication, August 25, 2009).
The reality became clear to everyone: Steve W. Noyce was the new USDB superintendent, regardless of any opposition to his selection, and he would begin his role on August 24, 2009.
The Impact of USDB Superintendent
Steven W. Noyce on the Utah School for the Deaf
as Observed by Utah Deaf Advocates
Steven W. Noyce on the Utah School for the Deaf
as Observed by Utah Deaf Advocates
With Steven W. Noyce as the new superintendent of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind, many advocates in the Utah Deaf community expressed frustration that their voices were not being heard, especially regarding Deaf education. They viewed the reduction of the ASL/English bilingual program as a step backward, endangering important initiatives such as the Deaf Mentor Program, the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf, and various training programs that the community had diligently established. They felt it was Superintendent Noyce's duty to support all programs within his authority, regardless of his personal views.
Steven Noyce has had a 40-year career in Deaf education, but his interactions with Deaf colleagues raised significant concerns. He rarely greeted Deaf staff members and UAD leaders and often showed reluctance to engage in discussions about Deaf culture and ASL/English bilingual education. This behavior has led to skepticism about his understanding of Deaf children's needs and perspectives. For instance, while serving on the USDB Advisory Council, I noticed that during my ASL presentation at a meeting with the Utah State Office of Education, he seemed preoccupied with his laptop while others were actively involved in the discussion. Additionally, as a newly hired superintendent, he turned away when I tried to greet him in the hallway, which made me feel invisible.
In a meeting, Steven, who is hearing, claimed he felt oppressed by the Deaf community. This comment struck Utah Deaf advocates as odd, as they recognize themselves as an oppressed minority. They worried that his attitude might reflect on his communication with the Utah State Office of Education. In one correspondence, he suggested that ASL advocates will never be satisfied with the current programs, casting doubt on his grasp of the community's concerns. Deaf advocates insisted that he publicly support both educational approaches offered at the Utah School for the Deaf and ensure proper funding for the bilingual program backed by the taxes that support his salary and others in the state.
Deaf advocates also emphasized the importance of providing parents of Deaf children with accurate information for educational decisions. They pointed to historical issues, like those noted in Dr. Robert G. Sanderson's 1992 article. He criticized biased, one-sided information in educational programs (Sanderson, UAD Bulletin, July 1992), especially in the Parent Infant Program. They advocated for his vision and for thorough, unbiased evaluations that prioritize the child's best interests.
The inclusion of Deaf voices in education is crucial. For instance, as mentioned in Part II, Henry C. White, the former principal and head teacher of the Utah School for the Deaf, faced significant neglect and lack of support from both administrators and parents. In the manuscript "Origin and Early Beginnings of the Utah School for the Deaf," it is noted that in 1894, while Deaf advocates were challenging Alexander Graham Bell and opposing the expansion of oral day schools across the United States, a newspaper in Portland, Maine, reported on Henry's criticism of school administrators for failing to consult directly with Deaf adults. He emphasized the importance of Deaf adults' involvement in educational matters by raising the question, "What of the Deaf themselves? Have they no say in a matter that means intellectual life and death to them?" (Buchanan, 1850–1950, p. 28). His urgent question, "What of the Deaf themselves?" remains relevant today. Acknowledging the significance of Deaf perspectives in the formulation of educational policies can lead to more inclusive and effective systems, particularly given the historical marginalization of Deaf voices.
Fast forward 115 years to 2009; Deaf advocates still encountered similar challenges when the Utah State Board of Education and administrators ignored Deaf adults' perspectives. This ongoing neglect underscores the barriers the Deaf community faces in achieving inclusion in educational policy decisions. Ensuring Deaf voices are heard is imperative, as Deaf education is a matter of "life and death."
The Utah State Board of Education took steps to address concerns raised by the Utah Deaf community soon after Steven Noyce was hired. Leslie Castle, whom Julio Diaz regularly communicated with through video relay calls about the new superintendent, reported that the Board would closely monitor Superintendent Noyce's actions (Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz, personal communication, August 11, 2009).
Steven Noyce has had a 40-year career in Deaf education, but his interactions with Deaf colleagues raised significant concerns. He rarely greeted Deaf staff members and UAD leaders and often showed reluctance to engage in discussions about Deaf culture and ASL/English bilingual education. This behavior has led to skepticism about his understanding of Deaf children's needs and perspectives. For instance, while serving on the USDB Advisory Council, I noticed that during my ASL presentation at a meeting with the Utah State Office of Education, he seemed preoccupied with his laptop while others were actively involved in the discussion. Additionally, as a newly hired superintendent, he turned away when I tried to greet him in the hallway, which made me feel invisible.
In a meeting, Steven, who is hearing, claimed he felt oppressed by the Deaf community. This comment struck Utah Deaf advocates as odd, as they recognize themselves as an oppressed minority. They worried that his attitude might reflect on his communication with the Utah State Office of Education. In one correspondence, he suggested that ASL advocates will never be satisfied with the current programs, casting doubt on his grasp of the community's concerns. Deaf advocates insisted that he publicly support both educational approaches offered at the Utah School for the Deaf and ensure proper funding for the bilingual program backed by the taxes that support his salary and others in the state.
Deaf advocates also emphasized the importance of providing parents of Deaf children with accurate information for educational decisions. They pointed to historical issues, like those noted in Dr. Robert G. Sanderson's 1992 article. He criticized biased, one-sided information in educational programs (Sanderson, UAD Bulletin, July 1992), especially in the Parent Infant Program. They advocated for his vision and for thorough, unbiased evaluations that prioritize the child's best interests.
The inclusion of Deaf voices in education is crucial. For instance, as mentioned in Part II, Henry C. White, the former principal and head teacher of the Utah School for the Deaf, faced significant neglect and lack of support from both administrators and parents. In the manuscript "Origin and Early Beginnings of the Utah School for the Deaf," it is noted that in 1894, while Deaf advocates were challenging Alexander Graham Bell and opposing the expansion of oral day schools across the United States, a newspaper in Portland, Maine, reported on Henry's criticism of school administrators for failing to consult directly with Deaf adults. He emphasized the importance of Deaf adults' involvement in educational matters by raising the question, "What of the Deaf themselves? Have they no say in a matter that means intellectual life and death to them?" (Buchanan, 1850–1950, p. 28). His urgent question, "What of the Deaf themselves?" remains relevant today. Acknowledging the significance of Deaf perspectives in the formulation of educational policies can lead to more inclusive and effective systems, particularly given the historical marginalization of Deaf voices.
Fast forward 115 years to 2009; Deaf advocates still encountered similar challenges when the Utah State Board of Education and administrators ignored Deaf adults' perspectives. This ongoing neglect underscores the barriers the Deaf community faces in achieving inclusion in educational policy decisions. Ensuring Deaf voices are heard is imperative, as Deaf education is a matter of "life and death."
The Utah State Board of Education took steps to address concerns raised by the Utah Deaf community soon after Steven Noyce was hired. Leslie Castle, whom Julio Diaz regularly communicated with through video relay calls about the new superintendent, reported that the Board would closely monitor Superintendent Noyce's actions (Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz, personal communication, August 11, 2009).
Herny C. White. Source: Utah Eagle, Feb. 1922
Resistance to the Sign Language Proficiency
Interview at the Utah School for the Deaf
Interview at the Utah School for the Deaf
Before proceeding further, let's explore the crucial contributions of Jean Greenwood Thomas, a sign language specialist whose pioneering work on the SLPI at the Utah School for the Deaf has shaped Deaf education. Her conflict with Steven Noyce highlights the complexities faced in advancing language assessment.
To begin with, the SLPI was developed by Bill Newell and Frank Cassamise from the National Technical Institute for the Deaf, based on the Language/Oral Proficiency Interview (L/OPI). This tool tests sign language skills by having personalized, one-on-one conversations. Its goal is to make teachers and students more confident in their language testing.
The training provided by Bill and Frank at the Utah School for the Deaf, along with the introduction of this assessment tool, marked a key milestone in Deaf education. A pivotal meeting occurred in 2003 or 2004 on the Salt Lake City campus, involving key figures such as Superintendent Lee Robinson and Assistant Superintendent Joseph Di Lorenzo, which shaped future assessment practices.
To begin with, the SLPI was developed by Bill Newell and Frank Cassamise from the National Technical Institute for the Deaf, based on the Language/Oral Proficiency Interview (L/OPI). This tool tests sign language skills by having personalized, one-on-one conversations. Its goal is to make teachers and students more confident in their language testing.
The training provided by Bill and Frank at the Utah School for the Deaf, along with the introduction of this assessment tool, marked a key milestone in Deaf education. A pivotal meeting occurred in 2003 or 2004 on the Salt Lake City campus, involving key figures such as Superintendent Lee Robinson and Assistant Superintendent Joseph Di Lorenzo, which shaped future assessment practices.
Jean Greenwood Thomas
However, a disagreement emerged between Steven Noyce, supported by oral advocates, who claimed the SLPI was an ASL test, and Jean, who held a different perspective. She argued that if the Utah School for the Deaf had opted for the ASL/PI from Gallaudet University, it would have focused solely on ASL. This debate sparked ongoing discussions about the language focus and practices in Deaf education.
Steven also opposed the mandated skill assessments implemented by Superintendent Lee and the Institutional Council, which applied to all staff working with Deaf students. The goal of these assessments was to ensure that all Deaf students, regardless of their program, could access language.
During a meeting, Steven informed Jean that the Utah School for the Deaf would never become a Bi-Bi school. She countered that the school had already implemented a Bi-Bi approach through its Deaf Mentor program, established in 1993. The oral team was taken aback when a teacher from the oral group agreed with Jean regarding the structure and use of ASL. Jean stated that selecting the SLPI as an assessment tool should not be a threat to staff at the Utah School for the Deaf (Jean Greenwood Thomas, personal communication, August 8, 2024).
In the end, Steven's assertion was proven incorrect. The Utah School for the Deaf eventually merged with the Jean Massieu School for the Deaf in 2005 to provide an ASL/English bilingual option. Additionally, the total communication program was integrated into the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf in 2008 to establish a single ASL/English bilingual program.
Currently, the Utah School for the Deaf offers four ASL/English bilingual programs located in Ogden, Salt Lake City, Springville, and St. George. However, the ongoing conflict following Steven's appointment as superintendent has created tensions that impact program support, leading to a noticeable bias in favor of the LSL program. It is crucial to understand the historical and political context that underlies these biases and policies, as detailed below, to better advocate for balanced and equitable programs.
Steven also opposed the mandated skill assessments implemented by Superintendent Lee and the Institutional Council, which applied to all staff working with Deaf students. The goal of these assessments was to ensure that all Deaf students, regardless of their program, could access language.
During a meeting, Steven informed Jean that the Utah School for the Deaf would never become a Bi-Bi school. She countered that the school had already implemented a Bi-Bi approach through its Deaf Mentor program, established in 1993. The oral team was taken aback when a teacher from the oral group agreed with Jean regarding the structure and use of ASL. Jean stated that selecting the SLPI as an assessment tool should not be a threat to staff at the Utah School for the Deaf (Jean Greenwood Thomas, personal communication, August 8, 2024).
In the end, Steven's assertion was proven incorrect. The Utah School for the Deaf eventually merged with the Jean Massieu School for the Deaf in 2005 to provide an ASL/English bilingual option. Additionally, the total communication program was integrated into the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf in 2008 to establish a single ASL/English bilingual program.
Currently, the Utah School for the Deaf offers four ASL/English bilingual programs located in Ogden, Salt Lake City, Springville, and St. George. However, the ongoing conflict following Steven's appointment as superintendent has created tensions that impact program support, leading to a noticeable bias in favor of the LSL program. It is crucial to understand the historical and political context that underlies these biases and policies, as detailed below, to better advocate for balanced and equitable programs.
USDB Superintendent Steven W. Noyce's Audist Attitude
Towards Deaf Culture and American Sign Language
Towards Deaf Culture and American Sign Language
Jean Greenwood Thomas's earlier description of USDB Superintendent Steven W. Noyce emphasizes how audist attitudes can undermine trust within the Deaf community. As the superintendent of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind, Steven's views, similar to those of Dr. Grant B. Bitter, left the Utah Deaf community skeptical about his understanding of their values. Below are four examples that illustrate his lack of empathy toward the values cherished by the Utah Deaf community:
1. During a retreat for members of the USDB Advisory Council on August 28, 2009, Steven incorrectly stated that the Sanderson Community Center of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing focused solely on Deaf individuals who used ASL. This outdated perspective mirrored comments made by his former professor, Dr. Grant B. Bitter, regarding the Deaf Center. At that time, Marilyn Tiller Call, a member of the Advisory Council and the Director of the Sanderson Community Center, clarified that significant changes had occurred over the years. The state of Utah required the Sanderson Center to be neutral regarding various communication styles by offering a continuum of services for all Deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals in the state. This mandate led many Utah Deaf advocates to question why the state could not impose the same neutrality at the Utah School for the Deaf, particularly concerning the Parent Infant Program, which was separately funded by the Legislature.
1. During a retreat for members of the USDB Advisory Council on August 28, 2009, Steven incorrectly stated that the Sanderson Community Center of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing focused solely on Deaf individuals who used ASL. This outdated perspective mirrored comments made by his former professor, Dr. Grant B. Bitter, regarding the Deaf Center. At that time, Marilyn Tiller Call, a member of the Advisory Council and the Director of the Sanderson Community Center, clarified that significant changes had occurred over the years. The state of Utah required the Sanderson Center to be neutral regarding various communication styles by offering a continuum of services for all Deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals in the state. This mandate led many Utah Deaf advocates to question why the state could not impose the same neutrality at the Utah School for the Deaf, particularly concerning the Parent Infant Program, which was separately funded by the Legislature.
Marilyn Tiller Call
2. On November 12, 2009, a town hall meeting was held at the Sanderson Community Center featuring Steven Noyce and Associate Superintendent Dr. Jennifer Howell as the main speakers. Over 250 people attended this two-and-a-half-hour meeting, during which Dr. Howell did most of the talking. When Steven contributed, he frequently referenced the LSL approach and defended various aspects of its methodology. Many attendees felt uneasy about Steven's unconscious message. Despite the meeting's overall success, Steven's preference for LSL over the ASL/English bilingual option at USD was clear. The Deaf community decided to give him a chance, hoping he would provide equal attention to both approaches.
3. At an Advisory Council meeting on December 10, 2009, Superintendent Noyce reported on a visit to an oral program in California he and other USDB administrators had made. I, a representative from the Utah Deaf community, asked if he would visit an ASL/English bilingual program. He bluntly replied, "That is not going to happen." The Deaf advocates were stunned at such a dismissive attitude. Although Superintendent Noyce eventually sent USD ASL/English bilingual staff to the California School for the Deaf in Fremont, he did not accompany them.
4. During a retreat for Advisory Council members on September 22, 2010, Superintendent Noyce announced that most parents were opting for cochlear implants and the LSL approach. He also commented on the newly organized PIP, stating that "there are people in the Deaf community who fear ASL will cease to exist," with the interpreter signing "FADE AWAY." This remark raised speculation among Deaf advocates about Steven's attitude. Although we cannot know his true thoughts, many interpreted it as a message for the Deaf community to come to terms with the potential decline of ASL. Naturally, his statement offended many within the Utah Deaf community. They felt that his understanding of the meeting's purpose was lacking. The Deaf leadership was not primarily concerned about ASL's potential decline; instead, they focused on the language, communication, and educational needs of Deaf and hard-of-hearing children in Utah. As George W. Veditz stated in 1913, "As long as there are Deaf people, we will have [ASL]."
3. At an Advisory Council meeting on December 10, 2009, Superintendent Noyce reported on a visit to an oral program in California he and other USDB administrators had made. I, a representative from the Utah Deaf community, asked if he would visit an ASL/English bilingual program. He bluntly replied, "That is not going to happen." The Deaf advocates were stunned at such a dismissive attitude. Although Superintendent Noyce eventually sent USD ASL/English bilingual staff to the California School for the Deaf in Fremont, he did not accompany them.
4. During a retreat for Advisory Council members on September 22, 2010, Superintendent Noyce announced that most parents were opting for cochlear implants and the LSL approach. He also commented on the newly organized PIP, stating that "there are people in the Deaf community who fear ASL will cease to exist," with the interpreter signing "FADE AWAY." This remark raised speculation among Deaf advocates about Steven's attitude. Although we cannot know his true thoughts, many interpreted it as a message for the Deaf community to come to terms with the potential decline of ASL. Naturally, his statement offended many within the Utah Deaf community. They felt that his understanding of the meeting's purpose was lacking. The Deaf leadership was not primarily concerned about ASL's potential decline; instead, they focused on the language, communication, and educational needs of Deaf and hard-of-hearing children in Utah. As George W. Veditz stated in 1913, "As long as there are Deaf people, we will have [ASL]."
USDB Superintendent Steven W. Noyce
Revamps the Parent Infant Program
Revamps the Parent Infant Program
When Superintendent Noyce was hired at USDB, he quickly revamped the Parent Infant Program to prioritize the listening and spoken language (LSL) approach over the ASL/English bilingual option. This change, likened to a football team striving to reach its goal, raised concerns within the Utah Deaf community.
Advocates for the Deaf in Utah had hoped that parents of Deaf children would have fair choices. Ensuring fairness was essential for rebuilding trust within the community, which had been eroded by growing concerns and mistrust. Although Superintendent Noyce claimed to support parental choice, his new policies effectively eliminated those options. Under the revamped PIP, parents were forced to choose either the LSL option or the ASL/English bilingual option, with no possibility of a combination. They could not explore both options until their child turned three, which pressured them to make an early decision without fully understanding which pathway would be better for their child's education.
Deaf advocates felt that Superintendent Noyce's policies favored LSL over bilingual options, ignored the diverse needs of the community, and raised fairness concerns.
1. National training generally supported the ASL/English bilingual method, concentrating on three key areas:
Under the new PIP, oracy services were not available to children under three who chose ASL/English, meaning parents could access these services only once their child was in the ASL/E preschool.
2. Many parents wanted to use both LSL and ASL in their children's education, but the policy denied them a Deaf Mentor at home if they chose LSL, while those preferring ASL were also restricted from accessing speech services.
3. Most parents leaned toward LSL to promote speech skills, often unaware that the bilingual program included oracy services. It became evident that Superintendent Noyce and PIP Director Day Mullings favored LSL. Had parents known more about the benefits of ASL/English bilingual education—especially regarding oracy—more might have chosen this route.
Deaf advocates increasingly saw Superintendent Noyce guiding parents toward LSL, which they felt misrepresented the advantages of the bilingual approach. They compared the restructuring of the PIP to forms of segregation, raising alarms about biases in decision-making. Jacob Dietz, a hearing parent of Deaf children, described Superintendent Noyce's decisions as limiting options and echoed his experience, as he and his wife lacked choices regarding their daughter's education.
Faced with the "either/or" selection process for their daughter—who preferred signing but was also receiving oracy training—Jacob worried that choosing LSL would disconnect her from ASL. After clarifications that the ASL path covered both ASL and English services, they decided on ASL. However, by remaining in PIP, their daughter had to forgo oracy therapy, which was available later at JMS but for which she was ineligible at that time. Their attempts to communicate with Superintendent Noyce about continuing oracy therapy went unanswered.
Jacob even met with Dr. Martell Menlove, but despite promises of changes, nothing improved. From their perspective, the revised guidelines restricted communication options for parents and families. They were among the few willing to confront administrators, while many parents accepted the new policies and restrictions without question.
Advocates for the Deaf in Utah had hoped that parents of Deaf children would have fair choices. Ensuring fairness was essential for rebuilding trust within the community, which had been eroded by growing concerns and mistrust. Although Superintendent Noyce claimed to support parental choice, his new policies effectively eliminated those options. Under the revamped PIP, parents were forced to choose either the LSL option or the ASL/English bilingual option, with no possibility of a combination. They could not explore both options until their child turned three, which pressured them to make an early decision without fully understanding which pathway would be better for their child's education.
Deaf advocates felt that Superintendent Noyce's policies favored LSL over bilingual options, ignored the diverse needs of the community, and raised fairness concerns.
1. National training generally supported the ASL/English bilingual method, concentrating on three key areas:
- Signacy: ASL skills as the first language
- Literacy: Reading and writing skills
- Oracy: Listening and speaking skills (Nover, 2006)
Under the new PIP, oracy services were not available to children under three who chose ASL/English, meaning parents could access these services only once their child was in the ASL/E preschool.
2. Many parents wanted to use both LSL and ASL in their children's education, but the policy denied them a Deaf Mentor at home if they chose LSL, while those preferring ASL were also restricted from accessing speech services.
3. Most parents leaned toward LSL to promote speech skills, often unaware that the bilingual program included oracy services. It became evident that Superintendent Noyce and PIP Director Day Mullings favored LSL. Had parents known more about the benefits of ASL/English bilingual education—especially regarding oracy—more might have chosen this route.
Deaf advocates increasingly saw Superintendent Noyce guiding parents toward LSL, which they felt misrepresented the advantages of the bilingual approach. They compared the restructuring of the PIP to forms of segregation, raising alarms about biases in decision-making. Jacob Dietz, a hearing parent of Deaf children, described Superintendent Noyce's decisions as limiting options and echoed his experience, as he and his wife lacked choices regarding their daughter's education.
Faced with the "either/or" selection process for their daughter—who preferred signing but was also receiving oracy training—Jacob worried that choosing LSL would disconnect her from ASL. After clarifications that the ASL path covered both ASL and English services, they decided on ASL. However, by remaining in PIP, their daughter had to forgo oracy therapy, which was available later at JMS but for which she was ineligible at that time. Their attempts to communicate with Superintendent Noyce about continuing oracy therapy went unanswered.
Jacob even met with Dr. Martell Menlove, but despite promises of changes, nothing improved. From their perspective, the revised guidelines restricted communication options for parents and families. They were among the few willing to confront administrators, while many parents accepted the new policies and restrictions without question.
Jacob Dietz
Jacob Dietz shared further thoughts in his blog, emphasizing the following:
*****
"According to part C of IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act), which governs early intervention, it discusses the Individualized Family Service Plan. This is where, in the beginning, the family meets with USDB, in this case, and sets up services based on what is available, based on the needs and concerns of the family. This means it should vary from individual to individual and should not be a choice of two predetermined paths. That is not individualized at all. I felt like this was closer to what we had when Johnny and Eliza were first identified, but then last year I had to pick from two different paths for Eliza, neither of which I felt met her individual needs. We were assured by Day Mullings in a town hall meeting that it was the ASL/ENGLISH path. What we were not told was that if we picked it, the English part does not start at all until pre-school. So, after a year of listening and auditory therapy, our daughter had no services for listening or spoken English. She would end up having a break from this for almost 18 months, meaning she would probably regress in her oral skills, and she would have to make up even more ground when she started pre-school. Which brings up an interesting point. Steve Noyce mentioned that teachers in PIP are trained in oracy, just like in the pre-school and k-12 programs. I can tell you that our ASL specialist is very good about having an "ASL" day and a "talking" day, but this does not compare to the therapy that is available to Johnny at JMS. The same therapy that was available to Eliza but is not now. The oracy available at JMS is amazing, but it is absolutely not available to children in PIP. In fact, like us, other parents we have talked to have informed us that they have been told they shouldn't pick the ASL path if they are considering cochlear implantation for their kids. Like us, they have been told that oral and auditory services are not available through JMS at all. So, while Steve Noyce is saying in the newspaper that "oracy" is available in the infant program, as well as the k-12 program, his employees are telling parents the opposite. Our experience has shown that speech and listening services are in fact not available to ASL kids in PIP, and the oracy that is available at JMS has more to do with Jill Radford than Steve Noyce” (Jacob Dietz, personal communication, February 21, 2011).
*****
The incidents led Utah Deaf advocates to conclude that Superintendent Noyce was providing only verbal support for the bilingual program at JMS. His quick actions in restructuring the PIP Department, distributing misinformation to parents, and directing more children into the LSL program suggested that he was still committed to his previous beliefs.
The Deaf advocates felt that the PIP program needed to be reassessed to ensure that parents receive accurate information and feel confident in their decisions.
*****
"According to part C of IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act), which governs early intervention, it discusses the Individualized Family Service Plan. This is where, in the beginning, the family meets with USDB, in this case, and sets up services based on what is available, based on the needs and concerns of the family. This means it should vary from individual to individual and should not be a choice of two predetermined paths. That is not individualized at all. I felt like this was closer to what we had when Johnny and Eliza were first identified, but then last year I had to pick from two different paths for Eliza, neither of which I felt met her individual needs. We were assured by Day Mullings in a town hall meeting that it was the ASL/ENGLISH path. What we were not told was that if we picked it, the English part does not start at all until pre-school. So, after a year of listening and auditory therapy, our daughter had no services for listening or spoken English. She would end up having a break from this for almost 18 months, meaning she would probably regress in her oral skills, and she would have to make up even more ground when she started pre-school. Which brings up an interesting point. Steve Noyce mentioned that teachers in PIP are trained in oracy, just like in the pre-school and k-12 programs. I can tell you that our ASL specialist is very good about having an "ASL" day and a "talking" day, but this does not compare to the therapy that is available to Johnny at JMS. The same therapy that was available to Eliza but is not now. The oracy available at JMS is amazing, but it is absolutely not available to children in PIP. In fact, like us, other parents we have talked to have informed us that they have been told they shouldn't pick the ASL path if they are considering cochlear implantation for their kids. Like us, they have been told that oral and auditory services are not available through JMS at all. So, while Steve Noyce is saying in the newspaper that "oracy" is available in the infant program, as well as the k-12 program, his employees are telling parents the opposite. Our experience has shown that speech and listening services are in fact not available to ASL kids in PIP, and the oracy that is available at JMS has more to do with Jill Radford than Steve Noyce” (Jacob Dietz, personal communication, February 21, 2011).
*****
The incidents led Utah Deaf advocates to conclude that Superintendent Noyce was providing only verbal support for the bilingual program at JMS. His quick actions in restructuring the PIP Department, distributing misinformation to parents, and directing more children into the LSL program suggested that he was still committed to his previous beliefs.
The Deaf advocates felt that the PIP program needed to be reassessed to ensure that parents receive accurate information and feel confident in their decisions.
The Parent Infant Program
Hosts Town Halls
Hosts Town Halls
In April and May 2010, Day Mullings, the Parent Infant Program Director, held town hall meetings in Ogden, Salt Lake City, and Orem. During these meetings, Day's discussion of placement options revealed her strong inclination toward the LSL program. Several indicators supported this observation: she allocated more discussion time to the LSL program, and her tone became excited and enthusiastic when addressing it, while her voice grew low, serious, and filled with concern when discussing the bilingual option. Day's differing tonal inflections unconsciously influenced the parents in attendance regarding the duration of discussion devoted to each program.
When Day was hired, she initially seemed promising, but concerns about her leadership behavior and fairness arose during the town halls, as evidenced by specific examples from the Utah Deaf community.
In Ogden, Day asked a parent, who was also a Deaf individual, to leave the meeting after they became emotional. Superintendent Noyce later told the Advisory Council that if Deaf individuals "cause trouble" at the Salt Lake City meeting, they would be asked to leave. Such behavior reflects unfair stereotyping of a parent simply because they were Deaf.
Day also instructed another parent to refrain from being confrontational. Jeff W. Pollock, a Deaf advocate present at the meeting, noted that in a program designed to be adaptable and responsive to the needs of children and families, Day's reactions to parents who were seeking more information about the bilingual option displayed unexpected inflexibility and rigidity (Jeff W. Pollock, personal communication, April 23, 2010).
When Day was hired, she initially seemed promising, but concerns about her leadership behavior and fairness arose during the town halls, as evidenced by specific examples from the Utah Deaf community.
In Ogden, Day asked a parent, who was also a Deaf individual, to leave the meeting after they became emotional. Superintendent Noyce later told the Advisory Council that if Deaf individuals "cause trouble" at the Salt Lake City meeting, they would be asked to leave. Such behavior reflects unfair stereotyping of a parent simply because they were Deaf.
Day also instructed another parent to refrain from being confrontational. Jeff W. Pollock, a Deaf advocate present at the meeting, noted that in a program designed to be adaptable and responsive to the needs of children and families, Day's reactions to parents who were seeking more information about the bilingual option displayed unexpected inflexibility and rigidity (Jeff W. Pollock, personal communication, April 23, 2010).
Day Mullings. Source: schoolwires.net
During the Salt Lake City town hall meeting, Day accused Julio Diaz, Jr., a Deaf father of three Deaf children, of being a liar after he clapped loudly in support of a question posed by another father of two Deaf children. This incident was not handled professionally, as Day repeated her accusation twice after Julio retorted that she was lying, too. This confrontation was captured on film and archived on a DVD (SLC Parent Infant Program Town Hall DVD transcript, May 15, 2010).
At the Orem town hall, another unexpected issue arose. Although these meetings were publicized through UAD Announce and were open to all, Day refused to answer questions from attendees who were not the biological parents of Deaf children. She stated, "I don't need to answer your question," and became very defensive when anyone disagreed with her or questioned her statements. Day often interrupted audience comments and spoke over those who did not have a Deaf child enrolled in PIP. Two Deaf advocates, Chrystee Call Davenport and Randi Pippins Welborn, who are also parents of Deaf children, felt that such unprofessional behavior left a negative impression on the attendees (Chrystee Call Davenport and Randi Pippins Welborn, personal communication, May 12, 2010).
During the Orem town hall, Chrystee and Randi also noted that Day asserted that Deaf children who could speak and use hearing aids would have better futures. She also claimed that if parents wanted their children to perform as well as hearing children, they must not use any sign language with them (emphasis added). These comments highlighted her lack of awareness of crucial research concerning American Sign Language and bilingual learning (Chrystee Call Davenport and Randi Pippins Welborn, personal communication, May 12, 2010).
When asked about research at the town hall meeting in Orem, Day responded that she would rely solely on her own sources, disregarding those of others (Chrystee Call Davenport and Randi Pippins Welborn, personal communication, May 12, 2010).
At the Orem town hall, another unexpected issue arose. Although these meetings were publicized through UAD Announce and were open to all, Day refused to answer questions from attendees who were not the biological parents of Deaf children. She stated, "I don't need to answer your question," and became very defensive when anyone disagreed with her or questioned her statements. Day often interrupted audience comments and spoke over those who did not have a Deaf child enrolled in PIP. Two Deaf advocates, Chrystee Call Davenport and Randi Pippins Welborn, who are also parents of Deaf children, felt that such unprofessional behavior left a negative impression on the attendees (Chrystee Call Davenport and Randi Pippins Welborn, personal communication, May 12, 2010).
During the Orem town hall, Chrystee and Randi also noted that Day asserted that Deaf children who could speak and use hearing aids would have better futures. She also claimed that if parents wanted their children to perform as well as hearing children, they must not use any sign language with them (emphasis added). These comments highlighted her lack of awareness of crucial research concerning American Sign Language and bilingual learning (Chrystee Call Davenport and Randi Pippins Welborn, personal communication, May 12, 2010).
When asked about research at the town hall meeting in Orem, Day responded that she would rely solely on her own sources, disregarding those of others (Chrystee Call Davenport and Randi Pippins Welborn, personal communication, May 12, 2010).
Chrystee Call Davenport
|
Randi Pippins Welborn
|
These examples indicated a significant imbalance within the Parent Infant Program. Although Day claimed she was not biased toward any particular program, it was evident that she was strongly inclined toward the LSL program and actively guided parents toward it. Deaf advocates believed we should encourage parents to experiment with various communication methods at home. As they expanded their knowledge about hearing loss and language, they would be better equipped to choose the methods they felt would work best for their child.
As the PIP director, Day's primary responsibility was to ensure that both communication options were presented fairly, allowing parents to make informed choices without bias or undue influence.
Deaf advocates recognized that LSL specialists must agree with their aural/oral principles, just as ASL/English specialists should align with the ASL/English bilingual approach. However, the director needed to champion both options equally. Based on the outcomes of the town hall meetings, this level of fairness was not evident.
As the PIP director, Day's primary responsibility was to ensure that both communication options were presented fairly, allowing parents to make informed choices without bias or undue influence.
Deaf advocates recognized that LSL specialists must agree with their aural/oral principles, just as ASL/English specialists should align with the ASL/English bilingual approach. However, the director needed to champion both options equally. Based on the outcomes of the town hall meetings, this level of fairness was not evident.
"Separate But Equal?"
Deaf advocates believed the PIP Director needed to remain impartial regarding the two programs offered by the Utah School for the Deaf: the ASL/English bilingual program and the LSL program. Similarly, the superintendent should also be unbiased.
As a superintendent of a state-funded school whose salary is derived from taxpayer funds—including those from Deaf Utahns—the superintendent should ensure that both programs receive equal funding and resources. However, the LSL program has received a disproportionate share of the limited funds. One of the PIP employees explained that the budget allocated to each program was meant to reflect the proportion of the population they served. For example, if 75% of parents are involved in the LSL mentor program, then that program should receive 75% of the PIP funding. In reality, however, they received 95% of the PIP funds. Conversely, since only 12% of parents participated in the Deaf Mentor program, the ASL program should have received 12% of the funding, but they received 8% or less. These trackable figures indicate significant mismanagement of PIP funding, which could leave parents and stakeholders feeling betrayed and distrustful of the system.
The following excerpts are taken from various letters sent to Dr. Martell Menlove and illustrate Superintendent Noyce's ability to present himself in a way that obscures his true intentions:
As a superintendent of a state-funded school whose salary is derived from taxpayer funds—including those from Deaf Utahns—the superintendent should ensure that both programs receive equal funding and resources. However, the LSL program has received a disproportionate share of the limited funds. One of the PIP employees explained that the budget allocated to each program was meant to reflect the proportion of the population they served. For example, if 75% of parents are involved in the LSL mentor program, then that program should receive 75% of the PIP funding. In reality, however, they received 95% of the PIP funds. Conversely, since only 12% of parents participated in the Deaf Mentor program, the ASL program should have received 12% of the funding, but they received 8% or less. These trackable figures indicate significant mismanagement of PIP funding, which could leave parents and stakeholders feeling betrayed and distrustful of the system.
The following excerpts are taken from various letters sent to Dr. Martell Menlove and illustrate Superintendent Noyce's ability to present himself in a way that obscures his true intentions:
- Jean Greenwood Thomas, who served as a USD Sign Language Specialist from 1994 to 2006, wrote on August 20, 2009: "My concern is this: Mr. Noyce can discuss in a positive and persuasive manner how he supports options like sign language. However, his actions indicate that he neither favors nor supports sign language for Deaf children. His philosophy leans towards oral education."
- Bronwyn O'Hara, former USD parent (June 1, 2010): "Steve has greater access to you than concerned parents and the Deaf community. He is very persuasive and tends to dominate conversations. He labels his opponents in conveniently negative ways to isolate them from being heard. This is completely unfair."
- Ken and Vea Lynn Jarvis, former USD parents (June 4, 2010): "Steve is a nice enough person, but it's clear to me that in his heart he supports oral education above all else and does not advocate for ASL or any other sign language communication as passionately. From our experience, he tends to tell you what you want to hear while pursuing his personal agenda, which has always favored oral education."
Vea Lynn Jarvis
During the implementation of bilingual principles at the USD, many parents reported that staff failed to inform them about enrolling in the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf's bilingual program. Instead, they primarily promoted the LSL preschool/school option, warning parents that ASL could limit their child's potential, a viewpoint not supported by research on ASL or bilingual learning.
Since 1962, the USD staff had often placed children in the oral program, persuading parents to try it first. If parents didn't see sufficient progress, they were told their child could switch to the signing program.
Melissa Miller is a parent who experienced this dysfunctional system. Her son was placed in a total communication program, which was still acceptable at USD. When it was clear he wasn't learning speech or sign language, she was told he might have a processing disorder. Frustrated, Melissa sought the ASL/English bilingual program at the newly acquired Jean Massieu Charter School of the Deaf, hoping it would benefit her son. In her letter on the Utah Deaf Education Core Group's website, she expressed:
*****
"…..The Jean Massieu School of the Deaf (JMS) seemed to be the only choice we had. It felt like picking the lesser of two evils. We were terrified for him… Opening this door for him felt dark and scary… What we discovered was a bright, happy little boy whose ASL is far surpassing ours, and whose vocabulary has grown tremendously. His speech has also become clearer and continues to improve. He is thriving in school and is further along than his older hearing brothers were at his age."
Since 1962, the USD staff had often placed children in the oral program, persuading parents to try it first. If parents didn't see sufficient progress, they were told their child could switch to the signing program.
Melissa Miller is a parent who experienced this dysfunctional system. Her son was placed in a total communication program, which was still acceptable at USD. When it was clear he wasn't learning speech or sign language, she was told he might have a processing disorder. Frustrated, Melissa sought the ASL/English bilingual program at the newly acquired Jean Massieu Charter School of the Deaf, hoping it would benefit her son. In her letter on the Utah Deaf Education Core Group's website, she expressed:
*****
"…..The Jean Massieu School of the Deaf (JMS) seemed to be the only choice we had. It felt like picking the lesser of two evils. We were terrified for him… Opening this door for him felt dark and scary… What we discovered was a bright, happy little boy whose ASL is far surpassing ours, and whose vocabulary has grown tremendously. His speech has also become clearer and continues to improve. He is thriving in school and is further along than his older hearing brothers were at his age."
Melissa Miller
The National Association of State Directors of Special Education states in their book, "Meeting the Needs of Students Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing," that "choices about communication are frequently made as part of a process, rather than a one-time phenomenon" (page 6, emphasis added). However, this flexibility was absent at USD, where parents felt pressured to make early choices and later found it difficult to request options better suited to their child's needs.
Limited educational program choices for Deaf and hard-of-hearing children at USD date back to the 1960s and 1970s. From 2009 to 2013, Superintendent Noyce's mentality aligned with these outdated programs, frustrating Deaf advocates and motivating them to seek change. Noyce lacked significant connections to ASL/English bilingual organizations in his professional capacity.
Dr. J. Freeman King, a professor at Utah State University, posed an important question: "Why can't children be given the best of both worlds: the opportunity and ability to use sign language when appropriate, as well as the chance to use speech when appropriate?" (Freeman, 2009).
Limited educational program choices for Deaf and hard-of-hearing children at USD date back to the 1960s and 1970s. From 2009 to 2013, Superintendent Noyce's mentality aligned with these outdated programs, frustrating Deaf advocates and motivating them to seek change. Noyce lacked significant connections to ASL/English bilingual organizations in his professional capacity.
Dr. J. Freeman King, a professor at Utah State University, posed an important question: "Why can't children be given the best of both worlds: the opportunity and ability to use sign language when appropriate, as well as the chance to use speech when appropriate?" (Freeman, 2009).
Dr. Robert G. Sanderson's Dream
for an Equal Education for the Deaf
for an Equal Education for the Deaf
Since 1962, the Utah Association for the Deaf has been actively involved in addressing inequalities in Deaf education in Utah. The debate over dual-track and two-track programs has been a hot topic. Various teaching methods, communication strategies, educational philosophies, and concerns about providing the least restrictive environment (LRE) have all contributed to divisions among administrators, teachers, parents, and members of the Utah Deaf community. Despite these differences, advocates remain united in their commitment to fulfilling Dr. Robert G. Sanderson's vision of a fair, equitable, and transparent Deaf education system, demonstrating shared dedication to progress, as shown in the section below.
Dr. Sanderson's dream, initially published in the UAD Bulletin in July 1992, remains inspirational for those committed to promoting equitable education for the deaf today.
Dr. Sanderson's dream, initially published in the UAD Bulletin in July 1992, remains inspirational for those committed to promoting equitable education for the deaf today.
Dr. Robert Sanderson
"MY DREAM"
This is my dream and only mine. I’ll share it with you, even though some of you may think it’s more like a nightmare.
I dream:
That every deaf child in Utah will get an education as good as if not better than that provided to normally hearing children in the public schools;
That every deaf child will be encouraged and helped to develop his or her own identity as a person who is deaf, and who is not ashamed of deafness;
That each child will be carefully evaluated by unbiased professionals who have the best interests of the child at heart, rather than their personal philosophies.
I dream:
That there will be high quality options for parents who wish only the best for their children who are deaf, such as:
I dream:
That these quality schools will have:
I dream:
That there will be a program to get parents involved with adults who are deaf, to learn that we are anxious to help and to share our real life knowledge of what living with deafness is like.
And yes, I dream that we can all work together to make it happen! (Sanderson, UAD Bulletin, July 1992, p. 8).
I dream:
That every deaf child in Utah will get an education as good as if not better than that provided to normally hearing children in the public schools;
That every deaf child will be encouraged and helped to develop his or her own identity as a person who is deaf, and who is not ashamed of deafness;
That each child will be carefully evaluated by unbiased professionals who have the best interests of the child at heart, rather than their personal philosophies.
I dream:
That there will be high quality options for parents who wish only the best for their children who are deaf, such as:
- A top-quality comprehensive residential school for deaf children who live far from urban schools;
- A high quality day school with proper grading K-12 in a central division location in each of the major cities, SLC, Ogden, and Provo—in which children who are deaf may interact freely with their peers;
- Schools in which communication philosophies fit the child, and not the child to the philosophies.
I dream:
That these quality schools will have:
- Administrators who know who to motivate and get the best out of their teachers;
- Top-quality professional teachers who not only understand the subjects they teach, but deafness as well, and who will earn salaries commensurate with the special skills they have;
- That all graduates of the Utah School for the Deaf will score in the top 20% of all high school graduate statewide, and will qualify for higher education if they so desire.
I dream:
That there will be a program to get parents involved with adults who are deaf, to learn that we are anxious to help and to share our real life knowledge of what living with deafness is like.
And yes, I dream that we can all work together to make it happen! (Sanderson, UAD Bulletin, July 1992, p. 8).
Dr. Robert G. Sanderson's Dream. Source: UAD Bulletin, July 1992, p. 8
Dr. Robert G. Sanderson's Dream. Source: UAD Bulletin, July 1992, p. 8
Downsizing Deaf Mentor Services
While Dr. Robert G. Sanderson's 1992 dream remained unfulfilled, it marked a significant beginning when the Deaf Mentor Program, a part of USD-PIP since 1993, began to provide vital support and guidance to families of children with hearing loss. By employing Deaf Mentors fluent in American Sign Language (ASL), the program offered weekly visits to families, taught ASL, and shared insights into Deaf culture. Initially focused on families with children aged 0-3, the age range was later expanded to include children up to age 6, as many parents learn of their child's hearing loss around age 2, leaving limited time to learn ASL before the original age limit.
When Steven W. Noyce became superintendent in August 2009, the program was serving 93 families. However, by early 2010, that number had dropped dramatically to 24 due to a policy change that restricted parents from choosing Deaf Mentors when opting for the Listening and Spoken Language (LSL) approach. This shift impacted family choices and trust in the program.
In the summer of 2010, the program expanded its services to support children from birth to 22 years old, allowing families to transition from the LSL program to an ASL/English program when LSL proved inadequate. The duration of weekly visits increased from one hour to two, helping improve ASL learning outcomes for many families. By spring 2011, the number of families served had grown to 88, with a significant number aged 3–22. However, the number of Deaf Mentors had decreased to just seven, resulting in a waitlist for services. This situation highlights ongoing staffing challenges and the need for continued support to meet demand.
By June 30, 2011, due to budget cuts, the program lost five Deaf Mentors, leaving only two part-time positions. Consequently, services were limited to children under age 3, cutting support for approximately 71 families. Emily Tanner, a Deaf individual, was demoted from Deaf Mentor Coordinator to Lead Mentor and left to serve 17 families through central meetings rather than home visits.
When Steven W. Noyce became superintendent in August 2009, the program was serving 93 families. However, by early 2010, that number had dropped dramatically to 24 due to a policy change that restricted parents from choosing Deaf Mentors when opting for the Listening and Spoken Language (LSL) approach. This shift impacted family choices and trust in the program.
In the summer of 2010, the program expanded its services to support children from birth to 22 years old, allowing families to transition from the LSL program to an ASL/English program when LSL proved inadequate. The duration of weekly visits increased from one hour to two, helping improve ASL learning outcomes for many families. By spring 2011, the number of families served had grown to 88, with a significant number aged 3–22. However, the number of Deaf Mentors had decreased to just seven, resulting in a waitlist for services. This situation highlights ongoing staffing challenges and the need for continued support to meet demand.
By June 30, 2011, due to budget cuts, the program lost five Deaf Mentors, leaving only two part-time positions. Consequently, services were limited to children under age 3, cutting support for approximately 71 families. Emily Tanner, a Deaf individual, was demoted from Deaf Mentor Coordinator to Lead Mentor and left to serve 17 families through central meetings rather than home visits.
Emily Tanner
Concerns raised by USDB Advisory Council member Jeff W. Pollock regarding budget cuts prompted Superintendent Steven W. Noyce to defend the reductions. He explained that non-mandatory services had been eliminated due to budget constraints. Superintendent Noyce emphasized that Deaf Mentor services would continue to support families with Individual Family Service Plans (IFSPs) in the infant-toddler program. He noted that this program had recently expanded to include support for older children. Superintendent Noyce stated, "The Advisory Council suggested that all non-IEP-related and non-mandatory services be eliminated due to budget cuts. Deaf Mentor services will continue for families with Individual Family Service Plans in the infant-toddler program. These services will serve as a foundation for families to learn ASL Additionally, Deaf Mentor services were expanded to support families of school-age children only last school year when I became Superintendent" (Steven W. Noyce, personal communication, July 28, 2011).
Jean Greenwood Thomas, a former USD Interpreter Coordinator, wrote a letter to Deputy State Superintendent Dr. Martell Menlove, warning that USDB Superintendent Noyce would not support the Deaf Mentor component of school services, either philosophically or financially. She stated, "All of Mr. Noyce's efforts went into ensuring that this program was not successful" (Jean Greenwood Thomas, personal communication, August 20, 2009). With such a significant reduction in available Deaf Mentors, Deaf and hard-of-hearing children and their families lost access to vital Deaf community role models. The program deteriorated to such an extent that it effectively shut down.
Jean Greenwood Thomas, a former USD Interpreter Coordinator, wrote a letter to Deputy State Superintendent Dr. Martell Menlove, warning that USDB Superintendent Noyce would not support the Deaf Mentor component of school services, either philosophically or financially. She stated, "All of Mr. Noyce's efforts went into ensuring that this program was not successful" (Jean Greenwood Thomas, personal communication, August 20, 2009). With such a significant reduction in available Deaf Mentors, Deaf and hard-of-hearing children and their families lost access to vital Deaf community role models. The program deteriorated to such an extent that it effectively shut down.
Jean Greenwood Thomas
The Listening and Spoken Language
Program Has Doubled in Size
Program Has Doubled in Size
Superintendent Steven W. Noyce began his tenure in August 2009 and quickly restructured the early intervention specialists in the Parent Infant Program (PIP). By February 2011, the number of specialists with a background in the listening and spoken language (LSL) program had doubled compared to those specializing in American Sign Language (ASL). Specifically, there were seven LSL specialists and three ASL specialists. While these numbers were said to reflect parental demand (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, February 21, 2011), it was clear that families typically opted for LSL over ASL. Consequently, the data did not accurately reflect parents' valid preferences regarding early intervention specialists at the Utah Schools for the Deaf.
Unfortunately, these realities were overlooked by Superintendent Noyce, PIP Director Mullings, and the Utah State Board of Education. The Deaf advocates perceived this situation as a subtle form of discrimination against children in the ASL/English bilingual program, their parents who advocated for their educational choice, and the teaching staff seeking professional recognition from the USD.
Unfortunately, these realities were overlooked by Superintendent Noyce, PIP Director Mullings, and the Utah State Board of Education. The Deaf advocates perceived this situation as a subtle form of discrimination against children in the ASL/English bilingual program, their parents who advocated for their educational choice, and the teaching staff seeking professional recognition from the USD.
Downsizing the Utah School for the Deaf:
Changes in Residential Size
Changes in Residential Size
Since relocating to Ogden in 1896, the Utah School for the Deaf has played a vital role in Deaf education by offering residential dormitories for students from distant areas, highlighting its long-standing community importance. This tradition persisted when USD moved to 742 Harrison Blvd in Ogden on April 19, 1993, with cottages built to foster a homelike environment for residents (UAD Bulletin, May 1993).
Changing national attitudes toward residential schools influenced USD's services during the special education reform movement of the 1970s. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) had a tremendous impact on the Utah School for the Deaf during this period. Superintendent Noyce pointed out that this federal law required local school districts to serve students with various disabilities, including deafness, raising questions about the education of students in separate institutions. Previously, Deaf children benefited from attending residential schools that provided the specialized educational strategies they required, as well as from regional programs that consolidated services across districts to meet the needs of this low-incidence population. However, it was noted that many Deaf students were excluded from service options unless they resided in large school districts. As educators reevaluated their programs in light of this new federal law, they found that even children in regional programs or larger districts received fewer specialized, intensive services compared to those offered by residential state schools (Steven W. Noyce, personal communication, March 12, 2010).
Despite this, many families in Utah preferred to keep their Deaf children from receiving residential services. Initially, it was assumed that the requirement for the least restrictive environment meant Deaf children could not attend residential schools. Education administrators believed that the law mandated that all Deaf children receive services in their neighborhood schools. Due to these misunderstandings, the Ogden's residential campus lost many Deaf students to mainstream programs, and some even moved out of state to attend schools for the Deaf.
The passage of Public Law 94-142 further complicated the understanding of the educational and linguistic needs of children with hearing loss. Administrators interpreted PL-94-142 similarly to IDEA, believing educational services for Deaf children needed to be closer to home. Over the years of educational reform, the Ogden's residential campus diminished as services were offered in various locations throughout the state (USDB Accreditation Visiting Team Report, May 10-11, 2010, p. 4).
Changing national attitudes toward residential schools influenced USD's services during the special education reform movement of the 1970s. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) had a tremendous impact on the Utah School for the Deaf during this period. Superintendent Noyce pointed out that this federal law required local school districts to serve students with various disabilities, including deafness, raising questions about the education of students in separate institutions. Previously, Deaf children benefited from attending residential schools that provided the specialized educational strategies they required, as well as from regional programs that consolidated services across districts to meet the needs of this low-incidence population. However, it was noted that many Deaf students were excluded from service options unless they resided in large school districts. As educators reevaluated their programs in light of this new federal law, they found that even children in regional programs or larger districts received fewer specialized, intensive services compared to those offered by residential state schools (Steven W. Noyce, personal communication, March 12, 2010).
Despite this, many families in Utah preferred to keep their Deaf children from receiving residential services. Initially, it was assumed that the requirement for the least restrictive environment meant Deaf children could not attend residential schools. Education administrators believed that the law mandated that all Deaf children receive services in their neighborhood schools. Due to these misunderstandings, the Ogden's residential campus lost many Deaf students to mainstream programs, and some even moved out of state to attend schools for the Deaf.
The passage of Public Law 94-142 further complicated the understanding of the educational and linguistic needs of children with hearing loss. Administrators interpreted PL-94-142 similarly to IDEA, believing educational services for Deaf children needed to be closer to home. Over the years of educational reform, the Ogden's residential campus diminished as services were offered in various locations throughout the state (USDB Accreditation Visiting Team Report, May 10-11, 2010, p. 4).
Students at the Utah School for the Deaf on May 20, 1927. An old truck with piles of students is parked behind the Annex Building and a fire escape cylinder. Seated on the bumper is Wayne Stewart. Standing to his right is Cyrus Freston. Kenneth Burdett is standing tall above the cab of the truck. The first two standing nearest in the bed of the truck are Joseph Burnett (left) and Verl Throup (right)
By spring 2010, the number of students living in cottages had decreased significantly, leaving only a few, reflecting the low priority given to maintaining a robust residential program. Most Deaf students attended neighborhood schools.
On March 12, 2010, Superintendent Noyce informed teachers and staff that state schools for the deaf had traditionally been, and still were, predominantly residential institutions. He emphasized that USD has creatively expanded services statewide, providing intensive instruction in children's homes and communities.
The Accreditation Visiting Team evaluated the USDB's services in 2010 during Superintendent Noyce's tenure. The Accreditation Visiting Team Report noted that many students living in dormitory and cottage facilities felt lonely, despite the school's efforts to create a homelike atmosphere (USDB Accreditation Visiting Team Report, May 10-11, 2010). Consequently, many families in Utah were hesitant to enroll their children in a residential setting, which posed challenges for the school in providing the necessary support and resources. As a result, the administration began exploring alternative outreach strategies to engage families and create a more welcoming environment for those in need of assistance.
Throughout the accreditation process, it is worth considering whether Steven Noyce, a former student of Dr. Grant B. Bitter's Oral Training Program at the University of Utah in the early 1970s, influenced the perspective of the Accreditation Visiting Team into believing that it is better to mainstream Deaf or hard-of-hearing students in general education classes rather than sending them to a specialized school for the Deaf. Noyce's advocacy for integrating Deaf and hard-of-hearing students into general education may have impacted the report's conclusions. This situation highlights the unfortunate reality that the Utah School for the Deaf did not consult alums before the accreditation panel meeting to gather their insights, an essential step in the decision-making process. This oversight illustrates the value of incorporating diverse perspectives into educational discussions, particularly those of former students.
As of spring 2010, under the administration of Superintendent Noyce, residential services were provided to only 28 students during the school week, with each student returning home on weekends and holidays. Due to this declining enrollment in the residential program, USDB began reconfiguring its services in the 2010-11 school year to better meet the needs of students requiring intensive vocational and life skills instruction for independent living (USDB Accreditation Visiting Team Report, May 10-11, 2010). This led to the formation of the Transition Extension Program—a residential initiative for students ages sixteen to twenty-one. The program offers comprehensive academic, social, job-readiness, college-preparation, and life-skills instruction to prepare students for independent adulthood.
On the Admissions Page of the USDB website, it states, "Not all students who receive services from USDB attend a USDB school. Often, USDB and your neighborhood district will collaborate to provide the necessary services." Additionally, in response to the question, "What if I live far away from a USDB campus?" the Admissions page explains, "USDB provides services in many school districts throughout Utah by collaborating with local schools." Deaf advocates were worried that Superintendent Noyce's decision to close the residential option reduced the range of educational services available, including the residential setting that families are required to have under IDEA 2004, as mentioned in Part IV.
Moreover, a substantial amount of funding was allocated to renovate one of the cottages at the Ogden campus into a "specialty" center primarily for families opting for the LSL approach. Day Mullings, the PIP Director, indicated that the center was intended for families needing a few days to learn how to implement the LSL approach with their children at home. However, he did not clarify how families choosing the ASL/English bilingual approach could utilize the center. The renovations included not only painting the cottage but also adding new furniture and materials, despite tight budget constraints (The Utah Deaf Education Core Group's Letter, June 11, 2010).
On March 12, 2010, Superintendent Noyce informed teachers and staff that state schools for the deaf had traditionally been, and still were, predominantly residential institutions. He emphasized that USD has creatively expanded services statewide, providing intensive instruction in children's homes and communities.
The Accreditation Visiting Team evaluated the USDB's services in 2010 during Superintendent Noyce's tenure. The Accreditation Visiting Team Report noted that many students living in dormitory and cottage facilities felt lonely, despite the school's efforts to create a homelike atmosphere (USDB Accreditation Visiting Team Report, May 10-11, 2010). Consequently, many families in Utah were hesitant to enroll their children in a residential setting, which posed challenges for the school in providing the necessary support and resources. As a result, the administration began exploring alternative outreach strategies to engage families and create a more welcoming environment for those in need of assistance.
Throughout the accreditation process, it is worth considering whether Steven Noyce, a former student of Dr. Grant B. Bitter's Oral Training Program at the University of Utah in the early 1970s, influenced the perspective of the Accreditation Visiting Team into believing that it is better to mainstream Deaf or hard-of-hearing students in general education classes rather than sending them to a specialized school for the Deaf. Noyce's advocacy for integrating Deaf and hard-of-hearing students into general education may have impacted the report's conclusions. This situation highlights the unfortunate reality that the Utah School for the Deaf did not consult alums before the accreditation panel meeting to gather their insights, an essential step in the decision-making process. This oversight illustrates the value of incorporating diverse perspectives into educational discussions, particularly those of former students.
As of spring 2010, under the administration of Superintendent Noyce, residential services were provided to only 28 students during the school week, with each student returning home on weekends and holidays. Due to this declining enrollment in the residential program, USDB began reconfiguring its services in the 2010-11 school year to better meet the needs of students requiring intensive vocational and life skills instruction for independent living (USDB Accreditation Visiting Team Report, May 10-11, 2010). This led to the formation of the Transition Extension Program—a residential initiative for students ages sixteen to twenty-one. The program offers comprehensive academic, social, job-readiness, college-preparation, and life-skills instruction to prepare students for independent adulthood.
On the Admissions Page of the USDB website, it states, "Not all students who receive services from USDB attend a USDB school. Often, USDB and your neighborhood district will collaborate to provide the necessary services." Additionally, in response to the question, "What if I live far away from a USDB campus?" the Admissions page explains, "USDB provides services in many school districts throughout Utah by collaborating with local schools." Deaf advocates were worried that Superintendent Noyce's decision to close the residential option reduced the range of educational services available, including the residential setting that families are required to have under IDEA 2004, as mentioned in Part IV.
Moreover, a substantial amount of funding was allocated to renovate one of the cottages at the Ogden campus into a "specialty" center primarily for families opting for the LSL approach. Day Mullings, the PIP Director, indicated that the center was intended for families needing a few days to learn how to implement the LSL approach with their children at home. However, he did not clarify how families choosing the ASL/English bilingual approach could utilize the center. The renovations included not only painting the cottage but also adding new furniture and materials, despite tight budget constraints (The Utah Deaf Education Core Group's Letter, June 11, 2010).
USDB Accreditation Visiting Team Report, May 10-11, 2010
Superintendent Noyce's flawed interpretation of the LRE for Deaf children negatively affected enrollment at Jean Massieu School (JMS). The Utah Deaf community advocated for JMS to be recognized as a viable option for families. This lack of support harmed the Utah School for the Deaf's reputation and discouraged potential students from considering JMS, as highlighted in the CEASD's position paper on the full continuum of educational placement options for all Deaf and hard-of-hearing students. Many advocates are calling for policy reevaluations to ensure Deaf children receive appropriate and inclusive education.
Students of the Utah School for the Deaf, spring 1945. They were going on the annual spring hike
Alums of the Utah School for the Deaf have shared experiences and perspectives that significantly contrast with the findings of the Accreditation Visiting Team Report. In the 1976 and 1984 Alumni Reunion Booklets, these alums recalled their positive experiences and successful adjustments to life at the Ogden's residential campus. They emphasized their improved time management skills and the joy they found in various weekend activities. Their memories of school are filled with happiness, which starkly contrasts with the loneliness described in the Accreditation Visiting Team Report (First Reunion of the Utah School for the Deaf Alumni Booklet, 1976; A Century of Memories: Utah School for the Deaf 100th Year Anniversary Alumni Reunion Booklet, 1984). These contrasting experiences highlight the evolving campus culture, showcasing how community engagement and supportive friendships have positively impacted students' overall well-being. Alums celebrated their personal growth and lasting friendships as they reflected on their time at school.
'First Reunion of the Utah School for the Deaf Alumni, Ogden, Utah, June 24-25, 1976'
|
'A Century of Memories: Utah School for the Deaf 100th Year Anniversary Alumni Reunion: 1884-1984'
|
In 1989, the Utah Association for the Deaf hosted its 33rd Biennial Convention, which featured a 16-mm film titled "A History of the Utah School for the Deaf: 1940–1965." This film, along with extensive video documentation by Kenneth C. Burdett—a 1929 graduate and teacher at the Utah School for the Deaf—provides a comprehensive visual record of the experiences of Deaf students on the school's campus over the years. The videos capture significant events, such as class trips and graduations, providing a unique glimpse into the school's history (Mortensen, UAD Bulletin, June 1989). This historical documentation highlights the students' academic achievements while also showcasing the vibrant community and culture that thrived within the school. The film captures not only the challenges these students faced but also the friendships they formed, their accomplishments, and the lively community they built during their time on campus.
Kenneth C. Burdett,. Source: The UAD Bulletin, Summer 1968
In June 1990, W. David Mortensen, also known as Dave, then president of the Utah Association for the Deaf and a 1931 graduate of the Utah School for the Deaf in Ogden, published an article in the UAD Bulletin, as shown below. In his article, he reflected on the positive experiences he had at the residential school, emphasizing its beneficial impact on him. The school offered specialized education, opportunities for socialization with peers who shared similar experiences, leadership training through student organizations, and a variety of extracurricular activities. Dave fondly recalled his time at the school as "very, very happy times," highlighting the school's positive influence on its students.
W. David Mortensen
Despite his positive recollections, Dave acknowledged that changes have occurred over the years and raised questions about their benefits. He pointed out that mainstreaming is a current trend in education but expressed skepticism about its effectiveness. Dave urged others to consult Deaf residential school alums to better understand their experiences, reiterating the importance of considering their insights before making decisions about school placements for Deaf children. His main questions were, "Have times changed for the better or worse?" and "Is mainstreaming the answer?" He concluded that decision-making requires a balanced approach, emphasizing the importance of considering multiple perspectives (Mortensen, UAD Bulletin, June 1990, p. 1). The article captured a range of opinions regarding the evolution of Deaf education, reassuring readers that there are multiple perspectives to consider and encouraging an open-minded approach to decision-making. This recognition of varied viewpoints highlights the complexity of the issues at hand and the necessity for ongoing dialogue among educators, families, and the Utah Deaf community. Ultimately, creating a space for everyone to express their opinions can lead to more effective and inclusive educational strategies.
Utah Association for the Deaf President W. David Mortensen's President's Message. Source: UAD Bulletin, June 1990, p. 1
As the author of this website, I want to share the picture below to highlight students' positive experiences at their Ogden's residential campus. Additionally, the film by Kenneth C. Burdett will provide you with a deeper understanding of the enriching lives these students led. Contrary to what you may have imagined, their experiences were not as terrible as you might think.
Deaf students at the Utah School for the Deaf in Ogden, Utah, Fall 1949. Top row L-R: Carol McTee, Renea Nelson, Arthur Valdez, Bruce Harvey, Max Hardy, and Carol Nelson. Lower row: Rollin Jones, La Vell Olson, Doyle Fergus. Upper row: Alden Broomhead, and a girl at the bottom whose name is unknown
Did You Know?
On March 12, 2010, Superintendent Steven W. Noyce addressed the teachers and staff at the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind (USDB) with the following remarks:
Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind is unique. While state schools for the Deaf and state schools for the blind are closing or in seriously tenuous positions, USDB is thriving. If only for those reasons, USDB is a model for the country. But we can do even better (Steven W. Noyce, personal communication, March 12, 2010).
Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind is unique. While state schools for the Deaf and state schools for the blind are closing or in seriously tenuous positions, USDB is thriving. If only for those reasons, USDB is a model for the country. But we can do even better (Steven W. Noyce, personal communication, March 12, 2010).
The Impact of the USDB Superintendent on HB 296
When HB 296 was enacted in 2009, it allowed academically capable students who did not require IEPs to use Section 504 for direct communication and instruction in ASL at the Utah School for the Deaf. This change aimed to raise academic expectations and integrate Deaf and hard-of-hearing students on the USD/JMS campus, regardless of educational level. However, Superintendent Steven W. Noyce did not actively support the inclusion of students with Section 504 plans. Instead, he focused on IEP students, pushing those with Section 504 plans to attend local schools. This situation led to declining enrollment at JMS, affecting the quality of education and the school’s long-term viability.
Data from August 2010 showed that JMS, which educated Deaf and hard-of-hearing students from preschool through 12th grade using an ASL/English bilingual approach, had hoped to enroll 30 new students that fall—only to see the actual number drop to zero. The negative perception of the ASL/English bilingual program damaged community trust, leading to further enrollment losses. The following year, the school lost 21 students, demonstrating how communication issues and policy decisions hinder access to Deaf education and diminish community confidence.
Jeff W. Pollock, a new Advisory Council member who replaced me, argued that JMS could thrive with a full K-12 program and direct instruction for core subjects, allowing Deaf students to still access mainstream electives. However, despite HB 296, JMS did not establish such a comprehensive program, limiting educational opportunities for Deaf students (Jeff W. Pollock, personal communication, May 5, 2011). The effective policy reforms were needed to establish a full continuum of services and equitable access for all age groups.
As part of the USDB Legislative Work Group, I resigned from the USDB Advisory Council in September 2010 due to disagreements with Superintendent Noyce in five key areas:
Since joining the USDB Institutional Council in 2004, I aimed to improve education and services, but Superintendent Noyce’s leadership made it difficult to continue these efforts.
Data from August 2010 showed that JMS, which educated Deaf and hard-of-hearing students from preschool through 12th grade using an ASL/English bilingual approach, had hoped to enroll 30 new students that fall—only to see the actual number drop to zero. The negative perception of the ASL/English bilingual program damaged community trust, leading to further enrollment losses. The following year, the school lost 21 students, demonstrating how communication issues and policy decisions hinder access to Deaf education and diminish community confidence.
Jeff W. Pollock, a new Advisory Council member who replaced me, argued that JMS could thrive with a full K-12 program and direct instruction for core subjects, allowing Deaf students to still access mainstream electives. However, despite HB 296, JMS did not establish such a comprehensive program, limiting educational opportunities for Deaf students (Jeff W. Pollock, personal communication, May 5, 2011). The effective policy reforms were needed to establish a full continuum of services and equitable access for all age groups.
As part of the USDB Legislative Work Group, I resigned from the USDB Advisory Council in September 2010 due to disagreements with Superintendent Noyce in five key areas:
- The Parent Involvement Program (PIP) offered only one choice—either LSL or ASL—raising concerns over the future of inclusive language options.
- His budget allocation priorities.
- His inappropriate behavior towards USDB staff.
- His failure to champion both LSL and ASL and his interpretation of the least restrictive environment (LRE) affected enrollment at Jean Massieu School of the Deaf.
- Management of placement procedures for Section 504 students who struggled academically due to limited language skills and multiple disabilities.
Since joining the USDB Institutional Council in 2004, I aimed to improve education and services, but Superintendent Noyce’s leadership made it difficult to continue these efforts.
Did You Know?
Due to a lack of educational services, sports, extracurricular activities, and, most importantly, a stimulating peer environment, the following students left the state to attend other state schools for the deaf. The students' names are listed below in chronological order:
Additionally, four more students from JMS were transferred outside the state to attend other state schools for the Deaf during the 2010-2011 school year.
- Shane Nevins – California School for the Deaf, Fremont – 2007
- Lance Bahling Mangrum – Oregon School for the Deaf – 2008
- Blake Immell-Mischo – Model Secondary School for the Deaf – 2008
- ShaRae Himes – California School for the Deaf, Fremont – 2008
- Adriane and Abigail Gonzalez – Rochester School for the Deaf – 2008
- Briella, Tres, and Isabelle Diaz – Kansas School for the Deaf – 2010
- Jamila Walker – Washington School for the Deaf – 2010
- Mauri J. Lynn – Kansas School for the Deaf – 2010
- Zenn Williams – California School for the Deaf, Fremont – 2010
- Jessica Zeidner – Model Secondary School for the Deaf – 2011
- Katelynn Rockwell – Arizona School for the Deaf – 2011
Additionally, four more students from JMS were transferred outside the state to attend other state schools for the Deaf during the 2010-2011 school year.
Low Morale at the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind
In August 2009, the Utah State Board of Education, unaware of Steven Noyce's reputation, appointed him as the superintendent of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind. On August 20, 2009, Jean Greenwood Thomas, a former Interpreting Supervisor/Coordinator at USDB, emailed Dr. Menlove to warn that Superintendent Noyce's decisions would adversely affect programs beyond just the Deaf programs (Jean Greenwood Thomas, personal communication, August 20, 2009). Unfortunately, her prediction proved accurate: many teachers and staff members expressed dissatisfaction with Superintendent Noyce.
Superintendent Noyce's inappropriate and insensitive responses to USDB teachers and staff negatively affected school morale and underscored the need for stakeholder awareness of leadership concerns. More than half of the teachers at USDB reported their unhappiness with him and filed complaints through the teachers' union.
Michelle Tanner, a member of the USDB Advisory Council and President of the USDB Educators Association, reported to the council members on February 25, 2010, that many teachers were unhappy with Superintendent Noyce both personally and professionally, resulting in very low morale. She explained that they were processing appeals through union procedures and seeking assistance from the USDB Advisory Council. However, before she could elaborate further, Leslie Castle, another Advisory Council member representing the Utah State Board of Education, interrupted her, stating that there would be no discussion among the Advisory Council members and that a private meeting with Dr. Menlove was forthcoming. The promised private meeting had yet to take place (USDB Advisory Council Minutes/Meeting recorder minutes, February 25, 2010).
During the USDB Advisory Council meeting on October 27, 2010, Dr. Tanner revisited the concerns about teacher morale. After she stated, "The morale is very low," Superintendent Noyce bluntly responded, "I think Bill Clinton explained it this way: 'It's a recession, stupid.'" In reply, Dr. Tanner said, "That is why we want to do a survey." After a lengthy discussion, the USDB Advisory Council decided to form a subcommittee to create a survey to be presented to the USDB administration, teachers, staff, and parents. The teachers wanted the survey to demonstrate to the authorities that the issues stemmed from more than just budget cuts or the recession, as Superintendent Noyce claimed; they believed his negative attitudes and performance also contributed to the low morale (USDB Advisory Council Minutes/Meeting recorder minutes, October 27, 2010).
In November 2010, the subcommittee established in the previous meeting reported that they had gathered enough information to warrant a survey, which was conducted in Spring 2011.
On May 3, 2011, Anissa Wardell, an LSL parent and president of the LSL Parent Support Group, an ardent supporter of Superintendent Noyce, commented on her blog, "Special Needs Kids Lose Their Rights," about the survey. She stated, "I heard that there was a survey and that morale in all areas was what I would call 'happy,' not neutral or unhappy. Of course, there were some who were unhappy and others who were neutral, but the majority was happy. What we didn't get to hear or have a voice in was what I could only guess was a discussion about Superintendent Noyce" (Annisa Wardell, personal communication, May 3, 2011).
Superintendent Noyce's inappropriate and insensitive responses to USDB teachers and staff negatively affected school morale and underscored the need for stakeholder awareness of leadership concerns. More than half of the teachers at USDB reported their unhappiness with him and filed complaints through the teachers' union.
Michelle Tanner, a member of the USDB Advisory Council and President of the USDB Educators Association, reported to the council members on February 25, 2010, that many teachers were unhappy with Superintendent Noyce both personally and professionally, resulting in very low morale. She explained that they were processing appeals through union procedures and seeking assistance from the USDB Advisory Council. However, before she could elaborate further, Leslie Castle, another Advisory Council member representing the Utah State Board of Education, interrupted her, stating that there would be no discussion among the Advisory Council members and that a private meeting with Dr. Menlove was forthcoming. The promised private meeting had yet to take place (USDB Advisory Council Minutes/Meeting recorder minutes, February 25, 2010).
During the USDB Advisory Council meeting on October 27, 2010, Dr. Tanner revisited the concerns about teacher morale. After she stated, "The morale is very low," Superintendent Noyce bluntly responded, "I think Bill Clinton explained it this way: 'It's a recession, stupid.'" In reply, Dr. Tanner said, "That is why we want to do a survey." After a lengthy discussion, the USDB Advisory Council decided to form a subcommittee to create a survey to be presented to the USDB administration, teachers, staff, and parents. The teachers wanted the survey to demonstrate to the authorities that the issues stemmed from more than just budget cuts or the recession, as Superintendent Noyce claimed; they believed his negative attitudes and performance also contributed to the low morale (USDB Advisory Council Minutes/Meeting recorder minutes, October 27, 2010).
In November 2010, the subcommittee established in the previous meeting reported that they had gathered enough information to warrant a survey, which was conducted in Spring 2011.
On May 3, 2011, Anissa Wardell, an LSL parent and president of the LSL Parent Support Group, an ardent supporter of Superintendent Noyce, commented on her blog, "Special Needs Kids Lose Their Rights," about the survey. She stated, "I heard that there was a survey and that morale in all areas was what I would call 'happy,' not neutral or unhappy. Of course, there were some who were unhappy and others who were neutral, but the majority was happy. What we didn't get to hear or have a voice in was what I could only guess was a discussion about Superintendent Noyce" (Annisa Wardell, personal communication, May 3, 2011).
Gallaudet University President Roberta J. Cordano and Michelle Tanner
The Utah Deaf Education Core Group Is Formed
At the 2010 Deaf Studies Today! Conference at Utah Valley University, Deaf advocates expressed concern about his support for oral education, questioning his influence and stance within Deaf education. We were alarmed by his ambitious agenda and were up in arms. In response, Ella Mae Lentz, a co-founder of the Deafhood Foundation and a strong advocate for Deaf education, proposed the formation of the Deaf Education Core Group in April 2010. The Core Group's goals were as follows:
The efforts of this group laid the foundation for ongoing advocacy and policy changes that continue to impact Deaf education in Utah today.
- Protect ASL/English bilingual education,
- Combat inequality within the Deaf education system, and
- End Superintendent Noyce's two-year contract.
The efforts of this group laid the foundation for ongoing advocacy and policy changes that continue to impact Deaf education in Utah today.
Ella Mae Lentz. Source: Deafhood Foundation
Members of the Utah Deaf Education Core Group included Julio Diaz, Jr., Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz, Jeff W. Pollock, Dan V. Mathis, Stephanie Lowder Mathis, James (JR) Goff, Duane L. Kinner, and myself. Bronwyn O'Hara, a hearing parent of Deaf children who had previously challenged Steven W. Noyce in the 1990s, joined the Core Group to support our objectives. Although I have never met Dr. Grant B. Bitter, I am aware of how his personality influenced his writing, which I studied in his collection at the J. Willard Marriott Library at the University of Utah. It is evident that USDB Superintendent Noyce mirrored Dr. Bitter's personality, and their actions were strikingly similar. When I engage with the Utah Deaf community to discuss 'Deaf Education History in Utah,' I often refer to the 'Bitter Phase I group,' which marked the initial stage of our struggle, and the 'Noyce Phase II group,' which represented a continuation of our efforts and challenges. Recognizing these individuals helps us understand the ongoing fight for Deaf education in Utah.
Julio Diaz, Jr., Deaf Advocate/Parent
|
Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz, Deaf Advocate/Parent
|
Dan V. Mathis, Deaf Advocate
|
Stephanie Mathis, Deaf Advocate
|
Bronwyn O'Hara, Hearing Parent/Advocate
Duane L. Kinner, Deaf Advcoate/Parent
Jodi Christel Becker, Deaf Advocate/Parent
|
Jeff W. Pollock, Deaf Advocate
James (JR) Goff, Deaf Advocate/Parent
|
During my service on the USDB Institutional Council (2004–2010) and Legislative Work Group (2007–2009), I sought assistance from those who had come before me, including Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, who was 87 at the time. On May 16, 2007, he responded to my email regarding the Utah Code that governed the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind. In his reply, he remarked, "It's up to young, vigorous, and enthusiastic Deaf people like you to carry on." At that time, Robert and his wife, Mary, were enjoying their retirement, so I could not count on his direct involvement when I requested help. During our conflict with USDB Superintendent Noyce in 2009, I remembered his words. Dr. Sanderson's encouragement motivated me to keep fighting. The Utah Deaf Education Core Group continued the legacy of advocates like Dr. Sanderson, Ned C. Wheeler, W. David Mortensen, Lloyd H. Perkins, Kenneth L. Kinner, and others who had left off advocating for Deaf education equality in Utah. Understanding their contributions helps us appreciate the ongoing legacy of advocacy and the importance of building on past efforts to achieve progress today.
Robert & Mary Sanderson
At different times, both the Utah Association for the Deaf and the Utah Deaf Education Core Group were engaged in similar political activities to oppose Bitter and Noyce. The famous saying "History repeats itself because people don't listen the first time" resonated deeply with the Utah Deaf community. Our motivation stemmed from the Utah State Board of Education's disregard for our protests regarding the state's unequal educational system for the Deaf, particularly under the two-track program. Fortunately, we were aware of Dr. Bitter's history, which empowered us to advocate for communication and educational equality. This knowledge led us to establish the Utah Deaf Education Core Group to address the potential recurrence of similar issues under Superintendent Noyce's administration at the Utah Schools for the Deaf.
Since 1962, Dr. Grant B. Bitter and his team have taken pride in developing a unique dual-track approach to education for the Deaf. Only a few state schools for the Deaf in the United States have offered such a program, and the Utah School for the Deaf, especially under the administration of Steven W. Noyce, has held it in high regard. However, there has been an ongoing internal struggle between the oral and sign language programs at USD. Both the Utah Association for the Deaf and the Parent-Teacher-Student Association have consistently advocated for equal options for these programs. They wanted the Utah School for the Deaf to provide informed choices to parents, allowing them to choose between oral and sign language, or even both, rather than being limited to just one option. As a result of these efforts, the Utah Deaf Education Core Group criticized the implementation of the dual-track approach at USD and advised against its adoption in other states.
The Core Group recognized bias among staff against ASL/English bilingual services while predominantly promoting LSL options within the Parent Infant Program at the Utah School for the Deaf. Many parents of Deaf children were not informed about the ASL option until their child experienced challenges in the LSL program, a situation referred to as oral failure or language deprivation. Furthermore, the LSL team had a historically dominant presence at the Utah School for the Deaf.
To address this issue, the Core Group, which included advocates for ASL/English bilingual education and Deaf parents, felt compelled to advocate for a "choice" approach. This meant ensuring that all parents were fully aware of their options, including both ASL/English and LSL services. As a result, we were branded as "pro-choice."
Since 1962, Dr. Grant B. Bitter and his team have taken pride in developing a unique dual-track approach to education for the Deaf. Only a few state schools for the Deaf in the United States have offered such a program, and the Utah School for the Deaf, especially under the administration of Steven W. Noyce, has held it in high regard. However, there has been an ongoing internal struggle between the oral and sign language programs at USD. Both the Utah Association for the Deaf and the Parent-Teacher-Student Association have consistently advocated for equal options for these programs. They wanted the Utah School for the Deaf to provide informed choices to parents, allowing them to choose between oral and sign language, or even both, rather than being limited to just one option. As a result of these efforts, the Utah Deaf Education Core Group criticized the implementation of the dual-track approach at USD and advised against its adoption in other states.
The Core Group recognized bias among staff against ASL/English bilingual services while predominantly promoting LSL options within the Parent Infant Program at the Utah School for the Deaf. Many parents of Deaf children were not informed about the ASL option until their child experienced challenges in the LSL program, a situation referred to as oral failure or language deprivation. Furthermore, the LSL team had a historically dominant presence at the Utah School for the Deaf.
To address this issue, the Core Group, which included advocates for ASL/English bilingual education and Deaf parents, felt compelled to advocate for a "choice" approach. This meant ensuring that all parents were fully aware of their options, including both ASL/English and LSL services. As a result, we were branded as "pro-choice."
The Utah Deaf Education Core Group Requests a
360-Degree Evaluation of USDB Superintendent Noyce
360-Degree Evaluation of USDB Superintendent Noyce
The Utah Deaf Education Core Group raised serious concerns about Superintendent Noyce's leadership at the Utah School for the Deaf. They supported the USDB Educators Association's request for a survey to evaluate Superintendent Noyce's performance. Between April and June 2010, the Core Group communicated their concerns through several letters addressed to State Superintendent Dr. Larry K. Shumway, Deputy State Superintendent Dr. Martell Menlove, and State Board/USDB Advisory Council member Leslie Castle. The main objective of these letters was to request a comprehensive 360-degree evaluation to assess Superintendent Noyce's capabilities and administrative skills.
Various stakeholders were worried about Superintendent Noyce's job performance, including parents and members of the Utah Deaf community, as well as administrators, teachers, and staff in the LSL program, the ASL/English bilingual program, and the Blind division. Even parents not involved in the Core Group shared these concerns. The Core Group felt it was important to conduct a 360-degree evaluation to gather diverse perspectives on Superintendent Noyce's performance. In addition to the group letters, some members also submitted individual letters.
Various stakeholders were worried about Superintendent Noyce's job performance, including parents and members of the Utah Deaf community, as well as administrators, teachers, and staff in the LSL program, the ASL/English bilingual program, and the Blind division. Even parents not involved in the Core Group shared these concerns. The Core Group felt it was important to conduct a 360-degree evaluation to gather diverse perspectives on Superintendent Noyce's performance. In addition to the group letters, some members also submitted individual letters.
Dr. Larry K. Shumway. Source: utahpubliceducation.org
In response to their letters, Dr. Menlove advised the group to focus on the overall Utah Schools for the Deaf program rather than on the individual leading it. Alan Wilding, a member of the Deaf community and a brother of Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz, made an important point:
"We can analyze the system, but it is often the administrator who guides its direction. We cannot simply attempt to change the system while inadequate leaders remain in their positions. We must identify better-qualified and more neutral leaders to take the reins. This does not mean we should ignore their flawed leadership in the meantime.
Many in the Deaf education field make the mistake of trying to bypass ineffective leaders, thinking they can operate independently. This approach often leads to a worse system than if we had confronted the ineffective leaders from the beginning" (Alan Wilding, personal communication, June 2010).
"We can analyze the system, but it is often the administrator who guides its direction. We cannot simply attempt to change the system while inadequate leaders remain in their positions. We must identify better-qualified and more neutral leaders to take the reins. This does not mean we should ignore their flawed leadership in the meantime.
Many in the Deaf education field make the mistake of trying to bypass ineffective leaders, thinking they can operate independently. This approach often leads to a worse system than if we had confronted the ineffective leaders from the beginning" (Alan Wilding, personal communication, June 2010).
Alan Wilding. Source: medium.com
The Core Group emphasized that while it is possible to criticize and analyze the system, the administrator ultimately steers its direction. They cannot attempt to change the system without addressing the presence of inadequate leaders. Identifying and appointing more qualified and impartial leaders is crucial.
Additionally, a rumor suggests that Steve Noyce dismissed the concerns of the Utah Deaf community, telling Dr. Menlove that they are "fanatics" who will never be satisfied, to further his LSL agenda. This highlights the need for a transparent 360-degree evaluation. Such an evaluation would demonstrate that many stakeholders, not just members of the Utah Deaf community, were concerned about his leadership issues, thereby fostering confidence in the evaluation process.
The Core Group also underscored the importance of reminding Dr. Menlove and others about the value of Deaf individuals' lived experiences. Their "voice" is essential for building trust and demonstrating respect for those experiences. Lived experiences are authentic and cannot be replicated by any amount of experience gained from hearing others. However, despite these discussions, no action was taken regarding the 360-degree evaluation.
Additionally, a rumor suggests that Steve Noyce dismissed the concerns of the Utah Deaf community, telling Dr. Menlove that they are "fanatics" who will never be satisfied, to further his LSL agenda. This highlights the need for a transparent 360-degree evaluation. Such an evaluation would demonstrate that many stakeholders, not just members of the Utah Deaf community, were concerned about his leadership issues, thereby fostering confidence in the evaluation process.
The Core Group also underscored the importance of reminding Dr. Menlove and others about the value of Deaf individuals' lived experiences. Their "voice" is essential for building trust and demonstrating respect for those experiences. Lived experiences are authentic and cannot be replicated by any amount of experience gained from hearing others. However, despite these discussions, no action was taken regarding the 360-degree evaluation.
The Observations of Long-Neglected Inequalities in the
Utah School for the Deaf by the Utah Deaf Education Core Group
Utah School for the Deaf by the Utah Deaf Education Core Group
The Utah Deaf Education Core Group focused on ensuring equal educational opportunities and access for Deaf and hard-of-hearing children. They expressed concern about the long-neglected inequalities in the Deaf Division's implementation at the Utah School for the Deaf. The Core Group not only supported parental choice in educational approaches but also emphasized the importance of making decisions based on complete, unbiased information. Problems arose when parents received inadequate information about the different options, leading to skewed perceptions.
The Core Group believed that parental decisions should reflect their readiness and the child's unique needs, allowing for adjustments in methodologies as necessary. They highlighted the importance of exposing children to various communication strategies, including ASL, rather than the Parent Infant Program pushing Deaf and hard-of-hearing children into the LSL program.
The group criticized the lack of balanced support for both LSL and ASL/English bilingual programs under Superintendent Noyce's administration. They believed that as a state-funded agency, the Utah School for the Deaf should support both approaches equally. To address concerns about implementation, they advocated for equitable resources and support for both options, reassuring parents that balanced programs are achievable and sustainable.
They observed that the current program did not adequately support parents who wanted both LSL and ASL options. Many parents felt they were not receiving proper support, particularly for the ASL option. The group aimed to ensure fair treatment for the ASL/English Bilingual program amid policies that favored LSL and pushed students towards a singular path.
The Core Group expressed concern that it is vital to recognize each Deaf child's unique identity and needs. Ignoring these needs can lead to rights violations and feelings of marginalization among families and advocates.
The Core Group reaffirmed the importance of parental choice, emphasizing that empowering families to select the best communication approach for their children fosters confidence in the education system. They addressed Jacob Dietz's concerns regarding Superintendent Noyce's job performance and agreed that parental choice is essential. The group concurred that parents are best suited to determine their child's communication path, as they understand their child better than anyone else. This perspective was also reflected in his blog.
*****
"I have no confidence in Mr. Noyce because of his inconsistency. He has said from the beginning that he absolutely supports parent choice. I agree 100% with this idea. I positively believe that the people best able to choose the communication path for their child are the parents. No one knows their child better than they do. Mr. Noyce would say publicly that he agrees with that. He has told me that privately. Normally, I would take him at his word. However, his actions speak louder. He believes in parent choice, as long as they choose one of the two paths he has set up. He believes in a "one size fits all" kind of philosophy. Every Deaf or hard-of-hearing child fits completely in one of two categories: LSL or ASL. That's it. There is no in between. Despite what has been said concerning it being the "ASL/English" path, there is no true bilingual option within USDB right now. This is an option that many parents want but cannot have. My wife spoke with a mother who was frustrated because she chose the ASL path for her child, which has caused problems because she also wants a cochlear implant for her child. She wanted him to learn both ASL and spoken English. This is not an option within USDB. In fact, Steve Noyce has worked very hard to ensure that the LSL kids are completely separate from the ASL kids. If Mr. Noyce truly believed in Parent Choice, there would be a bilingual option. To make this clear, bilingual is different from TC or SimComm. Bilingual means the child would become fluent in two languages, in this case, ASL and spoken English. We need a superintendent who truly believes that each child is different and that the services each child receives from USDB should be tailored to that child's needs, rather than forcing each child down one of two paths. Mr. Noyce does not believe in parent choice, but he says he does. What else has he said that is not true (Jacob Dietz, personal communication, February 16, 2011)?
*****
Unlike most parents, who wanted both options but were not available, they ultimately chose the LSL program. In contrast, Jacob opted for the ASL option for his two Deaf children, which was uncommon. His decision was motivated by his belief in the importance of sign language for his children's cultural identity. His choice reflected a growing awareness among several parents that communication methods can significantly impact a child's social and emotional development.
The Core Group believed that parental decisions should reflect their readiness and the child's unique needs, allowing for adjustments in methodologies as necessary. They highlighted the importance of exposing children to various communication strategies, including ASL, rather than the Parent Infant Program pushing Deaf and hard-of-hearing children into the LSL program.
The group criticized the lack of balanced support for both LSL and ASL/English bilingual programs under Superintendent Noyce's administration. They believed that as a state-funded agency, the Utah School for the Deaf should support both approaches equally. To address concerns about implementation, they advocated for equitable resources and support for both options, reassuring parents that balanced programs are achievable and sustainable.
They observed that the current program did not adequately support parents who wanted both LSL and ASL options. Many parents felt they were not receiving proper support, particularly for the ASL option. The group aimed to ensure fair treatment for the ASL/English Bilingual program amid policies that favored LSL and pushed students towards a singular path.
The Core Group expressed concern that it is vital to recognize each Deaf child's unique identity and needs. Ignoring these needs can lead to rights violations and feelings of marginalization among families and advocates.
The Core Group reaffirmed the importance of parental choice, emphasizing that empowering families to select the best communication approach for their children fosters confidence in the education system. They addressed Jacob Dietz's concerns regarding Superintendent Noyce's job performance and agreed that parental choice is essential. The group concurred that parents are best suited to determine their child's communication path, as they understand their child better than anyone else. This perspective was also reflected in his blog.
*****
"I have no confidence in Mr. Noyce because of his inconsistency. He has said from the beginning that he absolutely supports parent choice. I agree 100% with this idea. I positively believe that the people best able to choose the communication path for their child are the parents. No one knows their child better than they do. Mr. Noyce would say publicly that he agrees with that. He has told me that privately. Normally, I would take him at his word. However, his actions speak louder. He believes in parent choice, as long as they choose one of the two paths he has set up. He believes in a "one size fits all" kind of philosophy. Every Deaf or hard-of-hearing child fits completely in one of two categories: LSL or ASL. That's it. There is no in between. Despite what has been said concerning it being the "ASL/English" path, there is no true bilingual option within USDB right now. This is an option that many parents want but cannot have. My wife spoke with a mother who was frustrated because she chose the ASL path for her child, which has caused problems because she also wants a cochlear implant for her child. She wanted him to learn both ASL and spoken English. This is not an option within USDB. In fact, Steve Noyce has worked very hard to ensure that the LSL kids are completely separate from the ASL kids. If Mr. Noyce truly believed in Parent Choice, there would be a bilingual option. To make this clear, bilingual is different from TC or SimComm. Bilingual means the child would become fluent in two languages, in this case, ASL and spoken English. We need a superintendent who truly believes that each child is different and that the services each child receives from USDB should be tailored to that child's needs, rather than forcing each child down one of two paths. Mr. Noyce does not believe in parent choice, but he says he does. What else has he said that is not true (Jacob Dietz, personal communication, February 16, 2011)?
*****
Unlike most parents, who wanted both options but were not available, they ultimately chose the LSL program. In contrast, Jacob opted for the ASL option for his two Deaf children, which was uncommon. His decision was motivated by his belief in the importance of sign language for his children's cultural identity. His choice reflected a growing awareness among several parents that communication methods can significantly impact a child's social and emotional development.
Jacob & Erica Dietz
The International Congress on the Education of the Deaf
Rejects the 1880 Milan Congress Resolution
Rejects the 1880 Milan Congress Resolution
While all things were going on with the political circumstances that existed at the Utah School for the Deaf, on July 19, 2010, the International Congress on the Education of the Deaf (ICED) made a historic announcement by formally rejecting the resolutions from the 1880 Milan Congress, which had discouraged the use of sign language in the education of Deaf individuals. The 1880 Milan Congress, held in Italy, was a pivotal event that endorsed oralism and banned the use of sign language, leading to decades of suppression of Deaf education. This decision came after a request from Dr. Bobbie Beth Scoggins, president of the National Association of the Deaf (NAD). She sought official recognition of sign language as a civil, human, and linguistic right in educational settings (NAD Website, July 1, 2010). See Dr. Scoggins's letter to the 21st International Congress on the Education of the Deaf below.
Dr. Bobbie Beth Scoggins's letter to the 21st International Congress on the Education of the Deaf
The announcement marked a meaningful step forward, opening the 21st Congress of ICED and formally rejecting the 1880 Milan Congress resolutions, symbolizing progress and resilience for the Deaf community. As mentioned in Part I, resolutions from the 1880 Congress had long caused harm to Deaf individuals worldwide. The NAD, established in the same year, stressed the importance of sign language and the rights of Deaf individuals to communicate and have their interests represented. They believed that overturning the decisions of the Milan Congress was crucial to recognizing sign language as a human right (NAD Website, July 21, 2010).
Dr. Bobbie Beth Scoggins. Source: Texas Lone Star
Dr. Scoggins expressed gratitude for ICED's support, stating, "We are elated to see that, for the first time in 130 years, the ICED has joined us in rejecting the actions of its predecessors." She highlighted that this rejection of the Milan resolutions marks the start of a collaborative effort to create a bilingual future grounded in cooperation and mutual respect, encouraging a sense of collective progress.
Furthermore, Dr. Scoggins urged the 21st Congress to confront the injustices faced by the global Deaf community to improve educational opportunities for all Deaf and hard-of-hearing children. This decision marked a notable victory for the Deaf community in Utah, ending years of political challenges in Deaf education. It was a significant achievement that inspires continued advocacy and hope for future progress.
Furthermore, Dr. Scoggins urged the 21st Congress to confront the injustices faced by the global Deaf community to improve educational opportunities for all Deaf and hard-of-hearing children. This decision marked a notable victory for the Deaf community in Utah, ending years of political challenges in Deaf education. It was a significant achievement that inspires continued advocacy and hope for future progress.
NAD Elated with ICED Rejection of 1880 Milan Congress Resolutions. Source: nad.org
The National Agenda: Advancing Educational
Equity for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students
Equity for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students
After the enactment of HB 296 on April 30, 2009, aimed at addressing enrollment disparities at the Utah School for the Deaf, I, as a member of the USDB Advisory Council, recognized that closing the achievement gap required more than this legislation alone. While the bill allowed students who were at or above grade level to attend, I saw no significant improvements under Superintendent Noyce due to persistent biases in philosophy, placement, communication, and service delivery.
On August 25, 2010, I presented "The National Agenda: Moving Forward on Achieving Educational Equality for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students" at the USDB Advisory Council, emphasizing the urgent need for educational reform for Deaf and hard-of-hearing students. I highlighted that the National Agenda Steering & Advisory Committees called for communication-driven educational programming that meets high academic standards and promotes social and emotional development. This approach demonstrates how such frameworks lead to tangible improvements in student success (April 2005).
Many states have successfully implemented effective frameworks, and Utah needed to do the same. A "one-size-fits-all" strategy cannot adequately address the specific communication, language, and educational needs of Deaf children. Utah had a crucial opportunity to lead the way in providing tailored educational options that truly benefit these children. It is important to point out that the IDEA 1997 amendment prioritizes the child's language and communication needs, while the IDEA 2004 amendment ensures a continuum of placement options for all Deaf and hard-of-hearing students. Utah must take decisive action to adopt this approach to improve Deaf education.
On August 25, 2010, I presented "The National Agenda: Moving Forward on Achieving Educational Equality for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students" at the USDB Advisory Council, emphasizing the urgent need for educational reform for Deaf and hard-of-hearing students. I highlighted that the National Agenda Steering & Advisory Committees called for communication-driven educational programming that meets high academic standards and promotes social and emotional development. This approach demonstrates how such frameworks lead to tangible improvements in student success (April 2005).
Many states have successfully implemented effective frameworks, and Utah needed to do the same. A "one-size-fits-all" strategy cannot adequately address the specific communication, language, and educational needs of Deaf children. Utah had a crucial opportunity to lead the way in providing tailored educational options that truly benefit these children. It is important to point out that the IDEA 1997 amendment prioritizes the child's language and communication needs, while the IDEA 2004 amendment ensures a continuum of placement options for all Deaf and hard-of-hearing students. Utah must take decisive action to adopt this approach to improve Deaf education.
The National Agenda: Moving Forward on Achieving Educational Equity for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students Handbook
I referenced Special Education Attorney Lawrence M. Siegel's book, "The Human Right to Language: Communication Access for Deaf Children," which discusses specific barriers such as a lack of interpreters and inaccessible communication methods in schools. Siegel offers legal strategies to systematically remove these barriers, ensuring Deaf children can access education equally (Siegel, 2008).
Attorney Siegel argues that the First and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee Deaf children the same access to communication as other children, underscoring the legal obligation to uphold fairness and equality in education.
This legal framework emphasizes the importance of schools adopting inclusive practices that support Deaf children's learning and social development. By collaborating to ensure these students receive appropriate resources and support, educational institutions can create an environment where all children thrive, regardless of their communication needs, fostering a shared commitment to equity.
Attorney Siegel argues that the First and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee Deaf children the same access to communication as other children, underscoring the legal obligation to uphold fairness and equality in education.
- First Amendment: Deaf children are often denied the "free flow of information" when schools fail to provide effective interpreters or access to communication.
- Fourteenth Amendment: Deaf children face discrimination when they are denied programs and communication available to their peers (Siegel, 2005).
This legal framework emphasizes the importance of schools adopting inclusive practices that support Deaf children's learning and social development. By collaborating to ensure these students receive appropriate resources and support, educational institutions can create an environment where all children thrive, regardless of their communication needs, fostering a shared commitment to equity.
Lawrence Siegel, Special Education Attorney. Source: childlawgroup.com
Request for a 360-Degree Evaluation
of USDB Superintendent Steven W. Noyce
of USDB Superintendent Steven W. Noyce
During the USDB Advisory Council meeting on August 25, 2010, the Utah Deaf Education Core Group's advocacy was acknowledged, prompting a discussion of a request for a 360-degree evaluation of Superintendent Noyce. Dr. Menlove informed the Council that they had given Superintendent Noyce a two-year contract and scheduled his evaluation for the spring. After some discussion, the Council collectively decided that conducting a 360-degree evaluation at that time would be premature. Dr. Menlove also noted that it was the Council's role to advise the Utah State Board of Education on the retention of the superintendent. If they believed a 360-degree evaluation was more appropriate than the usual evaluation, further discussions were necessary (USDB Advisory Council Minutes, August 25, 2010).
Since the USDB Advisory Council needed to consider whether to pursue a 360-degree evaluation rather than the standard one, no decision was made to proceed with the assessment requested by the Core Group. Clarifying how the evaluation results will be used and who will have access to them can help foster transparency, making stakeholders feel respected and confident in the process.
During the meeting, Dr. Menlove mentioned that he had conducted a one-on-one evaluation with Superintendent Noyce. However, the Core Group found this evaluation insufficient, as it reflected only Noyce's perspective. Dr. Menlove also indicated that discussions about the 360-degree evaluation would continue in January 2011, providing a clear timeline and process for stakeholders to anticipate further updates and decisions.
Since the USDB Advisory Council needed to consider whether to pursue a 360-degree evaluation rather than the standard one, no decision was made to proceed with the assessment requested by the Core Group. Clarifying how the evaluation results will be used and who will have access to them can help foster transparency, making stakeholders feel respected and confident in the process.
During the meeting, Dr. Menlove mentioned that he had conducted a one-on-one evaluation with Superintendent Noyce. However, the Core Group found this evaluation insufficient, as it reflected only Noyce's perspective. Dr. Menlove also indicated that discussions about the 360-degree evaluation would continue in January 2011, providing a clear timeline and process for stakeholders to anticipate further updates and decisions.
A New Unbiased Parent Infant Program Orientation
is Formed at the Utah School for the Deaf
is Formed at the Utah School for the Deaf
The prevalence of the "Y" system in the two-track program, which favored oral communication, significantly restricted parental choices regarding their Deaf children's education and communication. In the 1970s, Dr. J. Jay Campbell, Deputy Superintendent of the Utah State Board of Education, aimed to provide unbiased information through the Parent Infant Program Orientation but faced opposition from Dr. Grant B. Bitter, an ardent oral advocate. Dr. Bitter argued that total communication did not establish a meaningful relationship between sign and spoken language, labeling it as merely a gestural language. He also questioned the quality of the research supporting Dr. Campbell's claim (Campbell, 1977; Cummins, The Salt Lake Tribune, August 20, 1977; Bluhm, Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987).
The Utah Deaf Education Core Group, a key advocate for the ASL/English bilingual safeguard, condemned this biased approach and demanded unbiased and equitable information for parents. In 2010, USDB Superintendent Steven W. Noyce introduced the revamped Parent-Infant Program Orientation to provide parents with balanced and fair information. However, despite this effort, most Deaf children born to hearing parents still faced an "either/or" choice between ASL/English bilingual education and listening and spoken language options, leading to a rise in the latter. Many families expressed a desire for their children to have access to ASL, but Superintendent Noyce and PIP Director Day Mullings did not accommodate these requests for flexibility. This restriction could negatively impact the child's communication and language development. Hands and Voices' slogan is, "What works for your child is what makes the choice right," which stresses the importance of individualized approaches. It was evident that Superintendent Noyce and PIP Director Mullings prioritized LSL families in the program's management.
When Day Mullings established the orientation committee, she had a specific plan in mind, supported by Superintendent Noyce. However, she chose not to include two representatives for the LSL and ASL communities. Instead, she opted for only one representative, an LSL Deaf adult, despite opposition from half the committee. These members believed that having just one representative would create a misleading impression of what an ideal Deaf adult should be. The formation of the committee revealed conflicts regarding representation and underscored differing opinions on fairness.
Dr. Howell had received prior complaints from families about the insufficient information on communication methods, leading to misunderstandings and poor decisions regarding their children's needs. To address this, she pushed for unbiased options to ensure fair information sharing about language development. As a result, she successfully advocated for the inclusion of two representatives instead of one, a decision that was reluctantly approved by Superintendent Noyce (Jacob Dietz, personal communication, February 16, 2011).
Dr. Howell recognized that every child and family is different. She argued that no single method would satisfactorily meet the needs of every Deaf or hard-of-hearing individual. Families should have access to comprehensive information to determine the best starting point for their child. Understanding all available language and communication options is crucial for families to respond effectively to their child's needs once language-specific services commence. Moreover, families need to grasp their role in aiding their child's language acquisition. There is also a significant need for USD to establish a consistent, transparent process for language choice. The district is dedicated to providing parents with balanced information, enabling them to make informed decisions about language development (Jennifer Howell, personal communication, August 2010).
To address the issue, Dr. Howell developed a balanced orientation initiative that includes both LSL and ASL specialists, providing families with equitable and comprehensive communication options. This initiative aimed to ensure families felt supported and informed. During her observation of the PIP, she identified biases and inappropriate placement decisions made by Superintendent Noyce and PIP Director Mullings. To tackle these problems, Dr. Howell implemented the orientation initiative in December 2010 after consulting with Jeff W. Pollock and me for input.
Lawrence M. Siegel (2000), a special education attorney, notes that "arguments supporting one approach or another should not serve as rationales for a one-dimensional institutional approach to educating Deaf and hard-of-hearing children." He emphasizes that the educational system must become communication-driven for these children and that the Individualized Education Program (IEP) process should reflect this focus. Attorney Siegel points out that Deaf and hard-of-hearing children share a fundamental need for communication.
The purpose of an unbiased orientation is to help families understand how their children learn and which environments best support that learning. This can be achieved by having two orientation specialists—one specializing in LSL and the other in ASL—interview parents and provide a set number of activities in each language before families make their choices. Both LSL and ASL should be equally accessible, with comprehensive information about each program provided to families. Parents of Deaf children have the right to choose their child's educational program based on fair and balanced information, provided they have access to literacy. The dissemination of biased, one-sided information and training is no longer acceptable (Jennifer Howell, personal communication, August 2010).
The Utah School for the Deaf, as a statewide agency, should offer a range of options rather than promoting only the LSL method. Instead of adopting a universal approach, the Utah School for the Deaf should tailor its approach to each child's unique communication, language, and educational needs. Every Deaf and hard-of-hearing child is different, and it is USD's responsibility to promote a range of educational placement options for parents and children. This responsibility was neglected for many years.
Sharelle Goff, Deaf-ASL, became the first ASL Orientation Specialist, while Ann Lovell, Deaf-Oral, became the first LSL Orientation Specialist. These significant changes were finally being implemented in the Parent Infant Program after Dr. Jay J. Campbell recommended in the 1970s that such an orientation be established, a recommendation that Dr. Grant B. Bitter previously rejected. USD's efforts to educate parents about both language options represent a positive step forward.
Today, the Utah School for the Deaf plays a crucial role in offering comprehension communication options, including an unbiased Parent Infant Program Orientation, to support families in making informed choices.
The Utah Deaf Education Core Group, a key advocate for the ASL/English bilingual safeguard, condemned this biased approach and demanded unbiased and equitable information for parents. In 2010, USDB Superintendent Steven W. Noyce introduced the revamped Parent-Infant Program Orientation to provide parents with balanced and fair information. However, despite this effort, most Deaf children born to hearing parents still faced an "either/or" choice between ASL/English bilingual education and listening and spoken language options, leading to a rise in the latter. Many families expressed a desire for their children to have access to ASL, but Superintendent Noyce and PIP Director Day Mullings did not accommodate these requests for flexibility. This restriction could negatively impact the child's communication and language development. Hands and Voices' slogan is, "What works for your child is what makes the choice right," which stresses the importance of individualized approaches. It was evident that Superintendent Noyce and PIP Director Mullings prioritized LSL families in the program's management.
When Day Mullings established the orientation committee, she had a specific plan in mind, supported by Superintendent Noyce. However, she chose not to include two representatives for the LSL and ASL communities. Instead, she opted for only one representative, an LSL Deaf adult, despite opposition from half the committee. These members believed that having just one representative would create a misleading impression of what an ideal Deaf adult should be. The formation of the committee revealed conflicts regarding representation and underscored differing opinions on fairness.
Dr. Howell had received prior complaints from families about the insufficient information on communication methods, leading to misunderstandings and poor decisions regarding their children's needs. To address this, she pushed for unbiased options to ensure fair information sharing about language development. As a result, she successfully advocated for the inclusion of two representatives instead of one, a decision that was reluctantly approved by Superintendent Noyce (Jacob Dietz, personal communication, February 16, 2011).
Dr. Howell recognized that every child and family is different. She argued that no single method would satisfactorily meet the needs of every Deaf or hard-of-hearing individual. Families should have access to comprehensive information to determine the best starting point for their child. Understanding all available language and communication options is crucial for families to respond effectively to their child's needs once language-specific services commence. Moreover, families need to grasp their role in aiding their child's language acquisition. There is also a significant need for USD to establish a consistent, transparent process for language choice. The district is dedicated to providing parents with balanced information, enabling them to make informed decisions about language development (Jennifer Howell, personal communication, August 2010).
To address the issue, Dr. Howell developed a balanced orientation initiative that includes both LSL and ASL specialists, providing families with equitable and comprehensive communication options. This initiative aimed to ensure families felt supported and informed. During her observation of the PIP, she identified biases and inappropriate placement decisions made by Superintendent Noyce and PIP Director Mullings. To tackle these problems, Dr. Howell implemented the orientation initiative in December 2010 after consulting with Jeff W. Pollock and me for input.
Lawrence M. Siegel (2000), a special education attorney, notes that "arguments supporting one approach or another should not serve as rationales for a one-dimensional institutional approach to educating Deaf and hard-of-hearing children." He emphasizes that the educational system must become communication-driven for these children and that the Individualized Education Program (IEP) process should reflect this focus. Attorney Siegel points out that Deaf and hard-of-hearing children share a fundamental need for communication.
The purpose of an unbiased orientation is to help families understand how their children learn and which environments best support that learning. This can be achieved by having two orientation specialists—one specializing in LSL and the other in ASL—interview parents and provide a set number of activities in each language before families make their choices. Both LSL and ASL should be equally accessible, with comprehensive information about each program provided to families. Parents of Deaf children have the right to choose their child's educational program based on fair and balanced information, provided they have access to literacy. The dissemination of biased, one-sided information and training is no longer acceptable (Jennifer Howell, personal communication, August 2010).
The Utah School for the Deaf, as a statewide agency, should offer a range of options rather than promoting only the LSL method. Instead of adopting a universal approach, the Utah School for the Deaf should tailor its approach to each child's unique communication, language, and educational needs. Every Deaf and hard-of-hearing child is different, and it is USD's responsibility to promote a range of educational placement options for parents and children. This responsibility was neglected for many years.
Sharelle Goff, Deaf-ASL, became the first ASL Orientation Specialist, while Ann Lovell, Deaf-Oral, became the first LSL Orientation Specialist. These significant changes were finally being implemented in the Parent Infant Program after Dr. Jay J. Campbell recommended in the 1970s that such an orientation be established, a recommendation that Dr. Grant B. Bitter previously rejected. USD's efforts to educate parents about both language options represent a positive step forward.
Today, the Utah School for the Deaf plays a crucial role in offering comprehension communication options, including an unbiased Parent Infant Program Orientation, to support families in making informed choices.
Sharelle Goff
Did You Know?
Jacob Dietz wrote a blog post responding to an article titled "Schools for the Deaf Grapple with Balancing Two Tracks," which was published on February 21, 2011, in The Salt Lake Tribune, as follows:
*****
"I am happy that there is a new orientation program for PIP. My wife sat on the committee that designed this orientation process. I was, however, shocked to read that Steve Noyce established this and that he was also the one who ensured there were two representatives, one ASL and one LSL. It was shocking to me because this was repeatedly suggested in committee meetings to provide parents with unbiased information. However, Day Mullings made sure to mention that Superintendent Noyce would not allow there to be two; it would only be one, and all of her suggestions were LSL- either specialists or Deaf adults who were LSL. I remember being frustrated, along with my wife, because after the committee meetings were over, this was how it was going to be: One orientation specialist, LSL. Then we met with Jennifer Howell, who was at the time the associate superintendent. She informed us that she had finally gotten it approved for two Deaf adults, one ASL and one LSL. I fail to see how Steve Noyce set up that program the way it is now when he wanted it to be one specialist who was LSL" (Jacob Dietz, personal communication, February 21, 2011).
*****
"I am happy that there is a new orientation program for PIP. My wife sat on the committee that designed this orientation process. I was, however, shocked to read that Steve Noyce established this and that he was also the one who ensured there were two representatives, one ASL and one LSL. It was shocking to me because this was repeatedly suggested in committee meetings to provide parents with unbiased information. However, Day Mullings made sure to mention that Superintendent Noyce would not allow there to be two; it would only be one, and all of her suggestions were LSL- either specialists or Deaf adults who were LSL. I remember being frustrated, along with my wife, because after the committee meetings were over, this was how it was going to be: One orientation specialist, LSL. Then we met with Jennifer Howell, who was at the time the associate superintendent. She informed us that she had finally gotten it approved for two Deaf adults, one ASL and one LSL. I fail to see how Steve Noyce set up that program the way it is now when he wanted it to be one specialist who was LSL" (Jacob Dietz, personal communication, February 21, 2011).
Best Practices for IEPs and IFSPs
Despite the orientation provided by the Parent Infant Program, which aimed to offer new parents balanced information about both IEPs (Individualized Education Programs) and IFSPs (Individualized Family Service Plans), underlying biases continued to influence perceptions and decisions.
The Utah Deaf Education Core Group advocated for best practices in IEPs and IFSPs, emphasizing child-centered approaches and effective communication strategies. IFSPs are designed to be child-driven; during the first five years of a Deaf child's life, the most crucial factor is fostering deep and meaningful communication rather than adhering to a rigid methodology. When Dr. Martell Menlove asked the Core Group two questions—"Are students and parents provided with the information they need to make informed choices?" and "Are IEPs/IFSPs effective?"—they provided two examples in response.
The first example involved multiple stories of parents who had to advocate strongly for their children to be placed in an ASL/English bilingual program, suggesting a struggle to secure placement despite the parents' desires. The second example concerned a family whose three-year-old child was eligible for an IEP. The IEP team suggested placing the child in a mainstream setting, even though she was throwing a tantrum because she was unable to communicate with her mother. When a team member inquired if the mother would like to explore sign language with her child, she was surprised but agreed, revealing that she had not been informed of all available options beforehand.
Since Superintendent Noyce assumed his position, the Utah Deaf community has passionately pursued reforms in Deaf education to steer Deaf children away from traditional teaching methods. Dan Mathis, a member of the Core Group, remarked, "Removing Noyce was like knocking down a wall, but the infrastructure remains largely unchanged, with only a few minor improvements, if any. The Utah Deaf community has struggled with this system for over 40 years. Obstacles have always existed in the journey toward desired outcomes. For instance, when former superintendents Lee Robinson, Linda Rutledge, and Timothy Smith left, their successors followed the same old patterns. Opposition arose Steven Noyce emerged as a finalist and the state ultimately selected him. Dr. Martell Menlove appeared slow to address the community's concerns and frustrations, demonstrating an unwillingness to take decisive action. Doesn't this seem like a cycle coming full circle?" (Dan V. Mathis, personal communication, November 18, 2010). The staff had deeply entrenched practices, primarily due to the training they received from Dr. Grant B. Bitter's oral preparation program at the University of Utah.
The Utah Deaf Education Core Group advocated for best practices in IEPs and IFSPs, emphasizing child-centered approaches and effective communication strategies. IFSPs are designed to be child-driven; during the first five years of a Deaf child's life, the most crucial factor is fostering deep and meaningful communication rather than adhering to a rigid methodology. When Dr. Martell Menlove asked the Core Group two questions—"Are students and parents provided with the information they need to make informed choices?" and "Are IEPs/IFSPs effective?"—they provided two examples in response.
The first example involved multiple stories of parents who had to advocate strongly for their children to be placed in an ASL/English bilingual program, suggesting a struggle to secure placement despite the parents' desires. The second example concerned a family whose three-year-old child was eligible for an IEP. The IEP team suggested placing the child in a mainstream setting, even though she was throwing a tantrum because she was unable to communicate with her mother. When a team member inquired if the mother would like to explore sign language with her child, she was surprised but agreed, revealing that she had not been informed of all available options beforehand.
Since Superintendent Noyce assumed his position, the Utah Deaf community has passionately pursued reforms in Deaf education to steer Deaf children away from traditional teaching methods. Dan Mathis, a member of the Core Group, remarked, "Removing Noyce was like knocking down a wall, but the infrastructure remains largely unchanged, with only a few minor improvements, if any. The Utah Deaf community has struggled with this system for over 40 years. Obstacles have always existed in the journey toward desired outcomes. For instance, when former superintendents Lee Robinson, Linda Rutledge, and Timothy Smith left, their successors followed the same old patterns. Opposition arose Steven Noyce emerged as a finalist and the state ultimately selected him. Dr. Martell Menlove appeared slow to address the community's concerns and frustrations, demonstrating an unwillingness to take decisive action. Doesn't this seem like a cycle coming full circle?" (Dan V. Mathis, personal communication, November 18, 2010). The staff had deeply entrenched practices, primarily due to the training they received from Dr. Grant B. Bitter's oral preparation program at the University of Utah.
Did You Know?
A Deaf individual, Kleda Baker Quigley of Murray, published her letter expressing her concerns about the Utah School for the Deaf Education status in the January 1997 UAD Bulletin as follows:
*****
“I am tired of hearing the same old argument about which methods, programs or services are the best to educate deaf children. It has been that way for over 100 years. I think the present two-tracked educational methods of teaching the deaf in Utah ought to be eliminated because it continues to create bad feelings and fuel the controversy over methodology. In fact, Utah is the only state in the U.S. that has this type of educational system and probably is due for reform, streamlining or improvement. The majority of the deaf prefer to see the two-tracked methods of teaching the deaf be combined as one educational program will all various helpful methods and support groups used according to their needs that will help them achieve their goals to enlarge their vocabularies and to acquire good education background as early as possible” (Quigley, UAD Bulletin, January 1997).
*****
“I am tired of hearing the same old argument about which methods, programs or services are the best to educate deaf children. It has been that way for over 100 years. I think the present two-tracked educational methods of teaching the deaf in Utah ought to be eliminated because it continues to create bad feelings and fuel the controversy over methodology. In fact, Utah is the only state in the U.S. that has this type of educational system and probably is due for reform, streamlining or improvement. The majority of the deaf prefer to see the two-tracked methods of teaching the deaf be combined as one educational program will all various helpful methods and support groups used according to their needs that will help them achieve their goals to enlarge their vocabularies and to acquire good education background as early as possible” (Quigley, UAD Bulletin, January 1997).
The Resignation of Dr. Jennifer Howell,
Associate Superintendent of the Utah School for the Deaf
Associate Superintendent of the Utah School for the Deaf
On January 12, 2011, the shocking news was announced that Dr. Jennifer Howell, the Associate Superintendent of the Utah School for the Deaf, would be resigning from her position, effective January 28, 2011. This news came as a surprise to many within the community (Steven W. Noyce, personal communication, January 12, 2011).
Under Utah Code 53A-25b-202, the superintendent has the authority to serve as the chief executive officer and is responsible for selecting an associate superintendent to oversee the operations of the Utah School for the Deaf. However, concerns had emerged regarding the administrative practices of Superintendent Steven W. Noyce. The Utah Deaf Education Core Group raised alarms about his tendency to overstep his authority, often taking on responsibilities that were meant for Dr. Howell. This ongoing situation may have contributed to her decision to resign (The Utah Deaf Education Core Group's letter, May 19, 2010).
Dr. Howell was recognized for her commitment to fairness and neutrality in education. She worked diligently to provide families with balanced educational options and implemented an orientation process that showcased various communication methods.
With her leaving, the support for the ASL/English bilingual program now rested entirely on Jill Radford on the Salt Lake City campus and Trena Roueche on the Ogden campus. The Core Group expressed deep concern about the future of USD's Deaf programs, including the JMS and the Deaf Mentor Program, and reiterated the importance of providing continued support for these initiatives.
Under Utah Code 53A-25b-202, the superintendent has the authority to serve as the chief executive officer and is responsible for selecting an associate superintendent to oversee the operations of the Utah School for the Deaf. However, concerns had emerged regarding the administrative practices of Superintendent Steven W. Noyce. The Utah Deaf Education Core Group raised alarms about his tendency to overstep his authority, often taking on responsibilities that were meant for Dr. Howell. This ongoing situation may have contributed to her decision to resign (The Utah Deaf Education Core Group's letter, May 19, 2010).
Dr. Howell was recognized for her commitment to fairness and neutrality in education. She worked diligently to provide families with balanced educational options and implemented an orientation process that showcased various communication methods.
With her leaving, the support for the ASL/English bilingual program now rested entirely on Jill Radford on the Salt Lake City campus and Trena Roueche on the Ogden campus. The Core Group expressed deep concern about the future of USD's Deaf programs, including the JMS and the Deaf Mentor Program, and reiterated the importance of providing continued support for these initiatives.
Trena Roueche. Source: Linkedin.com
The Utah Deaf Education Core Group
Submits a Letter Requesting a Hiring Freeze
Submits a Letter Requesting a Hiring Freeze
Following Dr. Jennifer Howell's resignation, the Utah Deaf Education Core Group raised concerns about potential leadership setbacks in Deaf education. There was anxiety surrounding Superintendent Noyce's approach to selecting a new associate superintendent, particularly regarding his impartiality in the hiring process. Observations indicated that he and PIP Director Day Mullings shared similar viewpoints, sparking concern about a potential shift toward the LSL program if an associate superintendent with a similar philosophy were appointed. This situation echoes the historical challenges encountered at the Utah School for the Deaf in 1962.
The departure of several key administrators, including Dr. Howell, Dr. Leah Voorhies, and Liz Parker, was likely in response to Superintendent Noyce's leadership. Most remaining administrators did not support ASL/English bilingual education. Jill Radford, the principal at JMS, found herself increasingly isolated, often fighting to protect her school's interests. Teachers at JMS expressed frustrations regarding the USDB administration's perceived lack of respect and involvement. Dan Mathis recounted how one teacher, Michelle Tanner, described the staff's challenging situation as akin to a small army battling against a bigger army. By the looks of it, Jill Radford still looked like a fighter but also somewhat bruised (Dan Mathis, personal communication, November 18, 2010).
The departure of several key administrators, including Dr. Howell, Dr. Leah Voorhies, and Liz Parker, was likely in response to Superintendent Noyce's leadership. Most remaining administrators did not support ASL/English bilingual education. Jill Radford, the principal at JMS, found herself increasingly isolated, often fighting to protect her school's interests. Teachers at JMS expressed frustrations regarding the USDB administration's perceived lack of respect and involvement. Dan Mathis recounted how one teacher, Michelle Tanner, described the staff's challenging situation as akin to a small army battling against a bigger army. By the looks of it, Jill Radford still looked like a fighter but also somewhat bruised (Dan Mathis, personal communication, November 18, 2010).
Liz Parker. Source: cehs.usu.edu/sound-beginnings/
|
Leah Voorhies. Source: schools.utah.gov
|
The job advertisement for the associate superintendent position was released quickly, but the Core Group stressed the need for transparency. They requested a hiring freeze to allow for a thorough evaluation and survey of Superintendent Noyce's performance. This approach aims to reassure stakeholders that a careful review takes precedence over expedience.
On January 19, 2011, the Core Group reached out to members of the USDB Advisory Council and the Utah State Board of Education to express their concerns about Superintendent Noyce's oversight. This collective effort highlights their shared commitment to responsible leadership and organizational integrity.
The State Board confirmed that a 360-degree evaluation was underway and that hiring was currently on hold, emphasizing the importance of transparent processes. It reinforced the need to postpone any further hiring decisions until the evaluation concludes.
On January 19, 2011, the Core Group reached out to members of the USDB Advisory Council and the Utah State Board of Education to express their concerns about Superintendent Noyce's oversight. This collective effort highlights their shared commitment to responsible leadership and organizational integrity.
The State Board confirmed that a 360-degree evaluation was underway and that hiring was currently on hold, emphasizing the importance of transparent processes. It reinforced the need to postpone any further hiring decisions until the evaluation concludes.
A 360-Degree Evaluation of
USDB Superintendent Steven W. Noyce
USDB Superintendent Steven W. Noyce
During the USDB Advisory Council meeting on January 27, 2011, the team reviewed the 360-degree evaluation process and established a clear timeline. We aimed to foster trust and confidence among stakeholders by demonstrating our shared commitment to a fair and thorough evaluation.
The USDB Entrance Policy and Procedure from 2009 states that Superintendent Noyce's contract was for two years, starting on August 7, 2009, at the request of the Utah State Board of Education. A decision about renewing or terminating his contract will be made in May 2011, based on established evaluation criteria to ensure fairness and objectivity.
Multiple constituent groups, including the USDB Advisory Council, the USDB administration, and the Blind, Deaf, and Deaf-Blind communities, will be invited to participate in the evaluation process. Their involvement emphasized their crucial role in influencing the decision-making process.
The Utah Deaf Education Core Group was planning community engagement efforts to prepare for the potential recommendation to renew Superintendent Noyce's contract. This will involve engaging with parents and the Utah Deaf community through discussions, letter-writing campaigns, and community rallies to make their voices heard.
The USDB Entrance Policy and Procedure from 2009 states that Superintendent Noyce's contract was for two years, starting on August 7, 2009, at the request of the Utah State Board of Education. A decision about renewing or terminating his contract will be made in May 2011, based on established evaluation criteria to ensure fairness and objectivity.
Multiple constituent groups, including the USDB Advisory Council, the USDB administration, and the Blind, Deaf, and Deaf-Blind communities, will be invited to participate in the evaluation process. Their involvement emphasized their crucial role in influencing the decision-making process.
The Utah Deaf Education Core Group was planning community engagement efforts to prepare for the potential recommendation to renew Superintendent Noyce's contract. This will involve engaging with parents and the Utah Deaf community through discussions, letter-writing campaigns, and community rallies to make their voices heard.
The Threat of Utah Schools
for the Deaf and the Blind Closure
for the Deaf and the Blind Closure
During a meeting of the Utah State Board of Education on February 5, 2011, members discussed potential cuts to the state school board budget in an effort to save $20 million. It was announced that 15 board members voted on a proposal—12 in favor and 3 against—supporting the closure of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind. However, this vote was merely part of a brainstorming session on possible budget cuts, should the State Board need to implement reductions. If further cuts become necessary, the closure of the USDB would require local school districts to assume responsibility for providing services to Deaf, Blind, and Deaf-Blind students.
This proposal contradicts a position paper issued by the Conference of Educational Administrators of Schools and Programs for the Deaf (CEASD) put out in February 2007. The paper stresses the importance of offering a full range of alternative educational placements, as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This includes specialized schools, like Deaf schools. CEASD argues that eliminating special schools from the educational continuum is unacceptable and could hinder a child's academic growth, which goes against the intent of IDEA. It is essential for stakeholders focused on educational quality and student outcomes to recognize the potential adverse effects of such closures on students' access to specialized services and their overall development.
This proposal contradicts a position paper issued by the Conference of Educational Administrators of Schools and Programs for the Deaf (CEASD) put out in February 2007. The paper stresses the importance of offering a full range of alternative educational placements, as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This includes specialized schools, like Deaf schools. CEASD argues that eliminating special schools from the educational continuum is unacceptable and could hinder a child's academic growth, which goes against the intent of IDEA. It is essential for stakeholders focused on educational quality and student outcomes to recognize the potential adverse effects of such closures on students' access to specialized services and their overall development.
The USDB Advisory Council Holds an Emergency Meeting
to Discuss the Potential Closure of USDB
to Discuss the Potential Closure of USDB
The USDB Advisory Council convened an emergency meeting to discuss the potential closure of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind (USDB) and its impact on students, services, and the Utah Deaf Community. Community members expressed their concerns about how these changes could affect educational access and support for Deaf students in Utah.
Following a State Board meeting, the USDB Advisory Council met on February 7, 2011, to address concerns about the possible closure of USDB. Participants included parents, staff, former administrators, and community members, all of whom pleaded for the USDB to remain open. Dr. Martell Menlove, who served as a liaison between the Utah State Board of Education and the USDB Advisory Council, informed the Council about the events of the previous week's Utah State Board of Education meeting.
The Utah Deaf Education Core Group discovered three reasons why the USDE proposed to close the USDB:
According to sources close to the State Board, the School Board's decision to close the USDB was largely a political move intended to signal to the Utah Governor's Office and the State Legislature that education had already been severely cut. Any further reductions would directly impact schools for Deaf and Blind students (Jacob Dietz, personal communication, February 16, 2011). This approach, however, resulted in a negative backlash for the State Board.
Superintendent Noyce acknowledged that part of the reason the USBE was willing to cut funding to USDB was his ineffective communication about USDB's services. In a meeting with the Advisory Council, he admitted that he had not effectively communicated the services provided by USDB during his previous appearances before the State Board of Education (Jacob Dietz, personal communication, February 16, 2011). Superintendent Noyce noted that he missed a critical USBE meeting because USDB was not on the agenda and felt he had no reason to attend. Consequently, this oversight allowed the vote to proceed, potentially leading to the end of USDB (Jacob Dietz, personal communication, February 8, 2011). He told the Advisory Council and the audience that during his three public addresses to the USBE, he had apparently failed to clarify the essential services that USDB provides to students in Utah and apologized for this oversight.
Another factor discussed by the State Board regarding the closure of USDB was the response from the Utah Deaf community. Advisory Council members Leslie Castle, who is also a State Board member, and Heather Frost, a parent of a hearing son, noted that many "nasty" and "mean" emails had been sent to the State Board and Advisory Council, primarily from "pro-ASL" Deaf individuals. Another Deaf representative on the Advisory Council, Jeff W. Pollock, addressed several issues but concluded that USDB was not adequately serving the Utah Deaf community. He explained that those voicing concerns via email were frustrated by unmet educational needs and emphasized that the voices of Deaf adults who had navigated the system should be heard but are often ignored.
Internal conflicts within the USDB contributed to the State Board vote, according to numerous sources (Jacob Dietz, personal communication, February 16, 2011). These sources suggested that the Utah Deaf Community, in part, contributed to the situation by sending complaints in a negative tone. Reports also surfaced that the Utah State Board of Education had received numerous emails regarding Superintendent Noyce, many of which were described as very rude and harsh. According to sources who had spoken to several State Board members, they were fed up with USDB and didn't want to deal with them (Jacob Dietz, personal communication, February 8, 2011).
In a blog post titled "Miss Kat's Deaf Journey," Melissa Jensen, a parent of a Deaf child, noted that some oral advocates were observing ongoing conflicts with the superintendent, claiming he was biased and that USDB was broken. This led the State Board to conclude that if USDB was truly as broken as claimed, they could shut it down once and for all (Melissa Jensen, personal communication, February 12, 2011).
The Utah Deaf Education Core Group was astonished to find out that their letters were among the reasons the State Board discussed the possibility of closing the USDB. In fact, only the Core Group and four individuals—Bronwyn O'Hara, Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz, Julio Diaz, and I—requested a freeze on the hiring process. Since the Core Group's letters had been perceived as "nasty and mean," we believed the different perceptions were rooted in cultural differences. They intended to be as "nice" and professional as possible in their correspondence, but it was understood that they were more likely to express their thoughts and feelings directly compared to the general American public. It seemed the State Board was not accustomed to such openness, especially since they had been interacting primarily with one individual, the superintendent, for many years. This directness appeared to complicate their usual business practices, and they may have been uncomfortable with the intrusion, fearing it could lead to negative publicity.
One comment from the USDB Advisory Council regarding the Utah Deaf community was the need for clarification on the proper channels for filing complaints and voicing concerns about the USDB. This includes contacting the USDB Advisory Council, the Utah State Board of Education, the Legislative Coalition of People with Disabilities, and individual legislators to ensure their voices are heard and considered in decision-making.
In this situation, more than a century later—since 1894—Henry C. White unapologetically highlighted the injustice of holding school administrators accountable without directly consulting Deaf adults. He posed a powerful question: "What of the deaf themselves? Do they not have a voice in a matter that means intellectual life and death for them?" (Buchanan, 1850–1950, p. 28). This question underscores the glaring neglect of Deaf perspectives in critical decision-making and signals an undeniable need for transformation. We emerged from a system that has often been flawed, inadequate, and oppressive. It is no wonder we felt frustrated and overlooked. We refused to be silenced and boldly demanded to be heard.
Following a State Board meeting, the USDB Advisory Council met on February 7, 2011, to address concerns about the possible closure of USDB. Participants included parents, staff, former administrators, and community members, all of whom pleaded for the USDB to remain open. Dr. Martell Menlove, who served as a liaison between the Utah State Board of Education and the USDB Advisory Council, informed the Council about the events of the previous week's Utah State Board of Education meeting.
The Utah Deaf Education Core Group discovered three reasons why the USDE proposed to close the USDB:
- Budget cuts by the Utah State Board of Education
- USDB Superintendent Steve Noyce and
- The Utah Deaf community
According to sources close to the State Board, the School Board's decision to close the USDB was largely a political move intended to signal to the Utah Governor's Office and the State Legislature that education had already been severely cut. Any further reductions would directly impact schools for Deaf and Blind students (Jacob Dietz, personal communication, February 16, 2011). This approach, however, resulted in a negative backlash for the State Board.
Superintendent Noyce acknowledged that part of the reason the USBE was willing to cut funding to USDB was his ineffective communication about USDB's services. In a meeting with the Advisory Council, he admitted that he had not effectively communicated the services provided by USDB during his previous appearances before the State Board of Education (Jacob Dietz, personal communication, February 16, 2011). Superintendent Noyce noted that he missed a critical USBE meeting because USDB was not on the agenda and felt he had no reason to attend. Consequently, this oversight allowed the vote to proceed, potentially leading to the end of USDB (Jacob Dietz, personal communication, February 8, 2011). He told the Advisory Council and the audience that during his three public addresses to the USBE, he had apparently failed to clarify the essential services that USDB provides to students in Utah and apologized for this oversight.
Another factor discussed by the State Board regarding the closure of USDB was the response from the Utah Deaf community. Advisory Council members Leslie Castle, who is also a State Board member, and Heather Frost, a parent of a hearing son, noted that many "nasty" and "mean" emails had been sent to the State Board and Advisory Council, primarily from "pro-ASL" Deaf individuals. Another Deaf representative on the Advisory Council, Jeff W. Pollock, addressed several issues but concluded that USDB was not adequately serving the Utah Deaf community. He explained that those voicing concerns via email were frustrated by unmet educational needs and emphasized that the voices of Deaf adults who had navigated the system should be heard but are often ignored.
Internal conflicts within the USDB contributed to the State Board vote, according to numerous sources (Jacob Dietz, personal communication, February 16, 2011). These sources suggested that the Utah Deaf Community, in part, contributed to the situation by sending complaints in a negative tone. Reports also surfaced that the Utah State Board of Education had received numerous emails regarding Superintendent Noyce, many of which were described as very rude and harsh. According to sources who had spoken to several State Board members, they were fed up with USDB and didn't want to deal with them (Jacob Dietz, personal communication, February 8, 2011).
In a blog post titled "Miss Kat's Deaf Journey," Melissa Jensen, a parent of a Deaf child, noted that some oral advocates were observing ongoing conflicts with the superintendent, claiming he was biased and that USDB was broken. This led the State Board to conclude that if USDB was truly as broken as claimed, they could shut it down once and for all (Melissa Jensen, personal communication, February 12, 2011).
The Utah Deaf Education Core Group was astonished to find out that their letters were among the reasons the State Board discussed the possibility of closing the USDB. In fact, only the Core Group and four individuals—Bronwyn O'Hara, Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz, Julio Diaz, and I—requested a freeze on the hiring process. Since the Core Group's letters had been perceived as "nasty and mean," we believed the different perceptions were rooted in cultural differences. They intended to be as "nice" and professional as possible in their correspondence, but it was understood that they were more likely to express their thoughts and feelings directly compared to the general American public. It seemed the State Board was not accustomed to such openness, especially since they had been interacting primarily with one individual, the superintendent, for many years. This directness appeared to complicate their usual business practices, and they may have been uncomfortable with the intrusion, fearing it could lead to negative publicity.
One comment from the USDB Advisory Council regarding the Utah Deaf community was the need for clarification on the proper channels for filing complaints and voicing concerns about the USDB. This includes contacting the USDB Advisory Council, the Utah State Board of Education, the Legislative Coalition of People with Disabilities, and individual legislators to ensure their voices are heard and considered in decision-making.
In this situation, more than a century later—since 1894—Henry C. White unapologetically highlighted the injustice of holding school administrators accountable without directly consulting Deaf adults. He posed a powerful question: "What of the deaf themselves? Do they not have a voice in a matter that means intellectual life and death for them?" (Buchanan, 1850–1950, p. 28). This question underscores the glaring neglect of Deaf perspectives in critical decision-making and signals an undeniable need for transformation. We emerged from a system that has often been flawed, inadequate, and oppressive. It is no wonder we felt frustrated and overlooked. We refused to be silenced and boldly demanded to be heard.
Closing Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind
'Unlikely,' Lawmaker Says
'Unlikely,' Lawmaker Says
On February 8, 2011, a Public Education Appropriations Subcommittee hearing was held at the Utah State Capitol to discuss the budget for the USDB. Members of the Utah Deaf community and parents of Deaf children attended the meeting to emphasize the importance of USDB services that school districts cannot provide. Superintendent Noyce urged attendees to keep the facility open rather than forcing students into regular classrooms. Following the meeting, Senator Lyle Hillyard, R-Logan, stated, "The committee has not cut any funds to the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind and probably won't" (Schencker, The Salt Lake Tribune, February 8, 2011).
Lyle Hillyard. Source: senate.utah.gov
During the hearing, Dr. Shumway, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, deferred to a finance expert from the State Board when asked about potential funding cuts. The expert noted that the State Board was considering these cuts because most of the services offered by USDB were already provided by the school districts, raising questions about the need for a separate entity. However, Mr. Noyce clarified to the subcommittee that this assertion was inaccurate; he explained that USDB provides most of its services through collaboration with the school districts, not the other way around (Jacob Dietz, personal communication, February 16, 2011).
'Closing Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind 'unlikely,' Lawmaker says.' Source: Schencker, The Salt Lake Tribune, February 8, 2011
State Board member Dave Thomas remarked, "The state board does not want to compromise services to the Deaf and Blind community in any way." He added, "The question is, what's the best way to provide those services?" Superintendent Noyce responded that the school, which serves approximately 2,000 students statewide, is effective in its mission. He noted that the school works with children from an early age and successfully mainstreams many students back into their local districts. Additionally, the school provides services to the majority of its students within their local districts (Schencker, The Salt Lake Tribune, February 8, 2011).
Dave Thomas. Source: standard.net
Did You Know?
Shortly before the Public Education Appropriations Subcommittee meeting on February 8, 2011, three Deaf individuals—Julio Diaz, Jr., Stephanie Lowder Mathis, and I—sent an email titled "Seeing USD's Budget in a New Light" to the Public Education Appropriations Subcommittee, the Utah State Board of Education, and the USDB Advisory Council. We were uncertain about the future of the Utah School for the Deaf and wanted to propose a solution. Instead of closing USDB, our email suggested centralizing Outreach Services at two campuses in Ogden and Salt Lake City to save costs. We proposed that those who wish to attend public school could access services through their local school districts, as in all other states.
Unfortunately, the State of Utah was not ready to embrace our suggestions outlined in the "Seeing USDB's Budget in a New Light" letter and expressed opposition to our ideas. Dr. Robert G. Sanderson was indeed correct when he dreamt in July 1992 of a "high-quality day school with proper K-12 grading in a central division location in each of the major cities: Salt Lake City, Ogden, and Provo—where children who are Deaf can interact freely with their peers." However, he acknowledged that some might perceive this vision as more of a nightmare than a dream. How true that is!
Unfortunately, the State of Utah was not ready to embrace our suggestions outlined in the "Seeing USDB's Budget in a New Light" letter and expressed opposition to our ideas. Dr. Robert G. Sanderson was indeed correct when he dreamt in July 1992 of a "high-quality day school with proper K-12 grading in a central division location in each of the major cities: Salt Lake City, Ogden, and Provo—where children who are Deaf can interact freely with their peers." However, he acknowledged that some might perceive this vision as more of a nightmare than a dream. How true that is!
The Utah State Board of Education
Withdraws Its Proposal to Close USDB
Withdraws Its Proposal to Close USDB
The Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind (USDB) will remain open, as the Utah State Board of Education decided to withdraw its proposal to close the schools. Instead, the Board voted to establish a subcommittee to examine the USDB's functions, finances, and responsibilities. A report detailing the findings was anticipated by June 2011 (Schencker, The Salt Lake Tribune, February 12, 2011).
Board members were surprised by Superintendent Noyce's insights during the subcommittee meeting, according to sources close to the State Board. They were largely unaware of the USDB's operational structure or the services it offers. Noyce himself acknowledged that he had not adequately communicated with the Board, admitting that communication between the Board and the USDB had deteriorated significantly during his 18 months in the position (Jacob Dietz, personal communication, February 16, 2011).
The Utah Deaf Education Core Group expressed a desire for reform rather than closure. They believed that Superintendent Noyce was reluctant to disclose the internal ethical and integrity issues at USDB, which adversely affected parents and students. The group was prepared to offer national-level resources and guidelines, should the USD choose to engage with them. They were also strong proponents of Dr. Robert G. Sanderson's vision published in the UAD Bulletin in July 1992, emphasizing that meaningful change requires collaboration and listening to Deaf adults.
On February 10, 2011, the Advisory Council formed its subcommittee in response to the USBE's initial decision to close USDB. Jeff W. Pollock, a member of the Advisory Council, participated in this effort. According to Jeff, Michelle Tanner, a representative of USDB teachers and president of the USDB Educators Association, highlighted numerous reports produced over the years that had been ignored (Jeff W. Pollock, personal communication, February 7, 2011).
Jeff formally requested that the Utah School for the Deaf adopt "The National Agenda: Moving Forward on Achieving Educational Equality for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students." This initiative, he argued, was crucial for addressing biases in philosophy, student placement, communication, and service delivery in Deaf education.
In a follow-up to this request, Jeff urged the Advisory Council to include the Deaf National Agenda in the agenda for an upcoming meeting. With Dr. Jennifer Howell leaving, he advocated forming a new committee to advance this cause. He believed that fully adopting the Deaf National Agenda could alleviate many concerns voiced by Deaf students and their families.
Heather Frost, a member of the Advisory Council, inquired about the Deaf National Agenda's exclusive focus on ASL. He clarified that the agenda aims for inclusivity, promoting a holistic understanding of each child, and advocates for both ASL and LSL. This idea represents a shift away from the outdated "either/or" philosophy currently in use.
Jeff confronted Superintendent Noyce directly, stating that the Utah School for the Deaf had reverted to the ineffective "Y" system used for the past 30–40 years, presenting a choice between oral and sign language. He pointed out that USD was failing to offer both ASL and LSL options to parents who wanted a comprehensive approach. Superintendent Noyce opted not to respond to this critique (Jeff W. Pollock, personal communication, February 7, 2011).
Board members were surprised by Superintendent Noyce's insights during the subcommittee meeting, according to sources close to the State Board. They were largely unaware of the USDB's operational structure or the services it offers. Noyce himself acknowledged that he had not adequately communicated with the Board, admitting that communication between the Board and the USDB had deteriorated significantly during his 18 months in the position (Jacob Dietz, personal communication, February 16, 2011).
The Utah Deaf Education Core Group expressed a desire for reform rather than closure. They believed that Superintendent Noyce was reluctant to disclose the internal ethical and integrity issues at USDB, which adversely affected parents and students. The group was prepared to offer national-level resources and guidelines, should the USD choose to engage with them. They were also strong proponents of Dr. Robert G. Sanderson's vision published in the UAD Bulletin in July 1992, emphasizing that meaningful change requires collaboration and listening to Deaf adults.
On February 10, 2011, the Advisory Council formed its subcommittee in response to the USBE's initial decision to close USDB. Jeff W. Pollock, a member of the Advisory Council, participated in this effort. According to Jeff, Michelle Tanner, a representative of USDB teachers and president of the USDB Educators Association, highlighted numerous reports produced over the years that had been ignored (Jeff W. Pollock, personal communication, February 7, 2011).
Jeff formally requested that the Utah School for the Deaf adopt "The National Agenda: Moving Forward on Achieving Educational Equality for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students." This initiative, he argued, was crucial for addressing biases in philosophy, student placement, communication, and service delivery in Deaf education.
In a follow-up to this request, Jeff urged the Advisory Council to include the Deaf National Agenda in the agenda for an upcoming meeting. With Dr. Jennifer Howell leaving, he advocated forming a new committee to advance this cause. He believed that fully adopting the Deaf National Agenda could alleviate many concerns voiced by Deaf students and their families.
Heather Frost, a member of the Advisory Council, inquired about the Deaf National Agenda's exclusive focus on ASL. He clarified that the agenda aims for inclusivity, promoting a holistic understanding of each child, and advocates for both ASL and LSL. This idea represents a shift away from the outdated "either/or" philosophy currently in use.
Jeff confronted Superintendent Noyce directly, stating that the Utah School for the Deaf had reverted to the ineffective "Y" system used for the past 30–40 years, presenting a choice between oral and sign language. He pointed out that USD was failing to offer both ASL and LSL options to parents who wanted a comprehensive approach. Superintendent Noyce opted not to respond to this critique (Jeff W. Pollock, personal communication, February 7, 2011).
Jeff W. Pollock
The Utah Deaf Education Core Group expressed its appreciation for Jeff's efforts to advance the Deaf National Agenda, hoping it would lead to improved educational services at USD and within school districts.
Thanks to Jeff's determination, the Deaf National Agenda Committee was formed on May 25, 2011, with Christine Timothy, an education specialist from the Utah State Office of Education, serving as chair. The committee included ASL/English bilingual advocates: Dr. J. Freeman King, Dr. Bryan Eldredge, Dr. Debbie Golos Schmitz, Dr. Curtis Radford (Deaf), Jill Radford (Deaf), James Smith (Deaf), Janelle Milano (Deaf), Aimee Breinholt, Ben Platt (Deaf), and me (Deaf). Unfortunately, the initiative faced challenges and ultimately disbanded in 2013 due to insufficient support from some committee members. This experience emphasizes the value of sustained advocacy, as seen in past initiatives such as the Commission on Education of the Deaf (COED) recommendations approved by the USDB Institutional Council and the Utah State Board of Education in 1989, which, regrettably, saw no follow-through. We recognize the hurdles we've faced, but we remain steadfast in our commitment to continue advocating for the needs of the Deaf children.
Thanks to Jeff's determination, the Deaf National Agenda Committee was formed on May 25, 2011, with Christine Timothy, an education specialist from the Utah State Office of Education, serving as chair. The committee included ASL/English bilingual advocates: Dr. J. Freeman King, Dr. Bryan Eldredge, Dr. Debbie Golos Schmitz, Dr. Curtis Radford (Deaf), Jill Radford (Deaf), James Smith (Deaf), Janelle Milano (Deaf), Aimee Breinholt, Ben Platt (Deaf), and me (Deaf). Unfortunately, the initiative faced challenges and ultimately disbanded in 2013 due to insufficient support from some committee members. This experience emphasizes the value of sustained advocacy, as seen in past initiatives such as the Commission on Education of the Deaf (COED) recommendations approved by the USDB Institutional Council and the Utah State Board of Education in 1989, which, regrettably, saw no follow-through. We recognize the hurdles we've faced, but we remain steadfast in our commitment to continue advocating for the needs of the Deaf children.
In Danger: Deaf Education in Utah and Its Impact
on the ASL/English Bilingual Program
on the ASL/English Bilingual Program
Since the emergence of Utah's strong oral tradition, the Deaf community has made major improvements, establishing the Deaf Mentor Program in 1993, the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf (JMS) in 1999, the Academic Bowl in 2004, and the Athletics Program at the Utah School for the Deaf in 2006, along with CEABER and AEBPD training in 2007.
However, under Superintendent Steven W. Noyce, who took office on August 7, 2009, ASL/English bilingual programs at JMS and the North Division have faced a noticeable decline. Enrollment and services at JMS and the Deaf Mentor Program have dwindled, and resources available for ASL users have been significantly reduced. More families are choosing the listening and spoken language (LSL) approach, resulting in a compromised ASL/English bilingual system. Families now have limited options, and despite the Utah Deaf Education Core Group recognizing the biased information influencing parent choices, Superintendent Noyce has consistently proclaimed his support for "parent choice."
Following Superintendent Noyce's appointment, the number of families utilizing Deaf Mentor services sharply declined in early 2010. Parents who opted for LSL could no longer access both LSL training and Deaf Mentor services simultaneously, forcing them to choose between spoken English and ASL. This undermined the philosophical foundation of the ASL/English bilingual program, which had aimed to support both modes of communication under the Parent Infant Program.
Under Superintendent Noyce's leadership, state budget cuts eliminated the Academic Bowl—a significant competition for Deaf high school students initiated by Gallaudet University in 1997—in 2011. This competition not only fostered academic and social development but also boosted participants' self-esteem and aspirations for higher education. The Deaf community opposed its removal, recognizing the value of the educational and social opportunities the Academic Bowl represented, especially considering that other high schools nationwide respected their academic bowls.
Similarly, JMS struggled to secure funding for its athletics program due to the current budget's lack of allocation. This issue originated under former Superintendent Tim Smith, and administrative support for athletics continued to wane under Noyce's leadership until the program was ultimately cut due to budget constraints in 2011. The USD had boasted an athletic program since the early 1900s, which had positive cultural and community impacts until mainstreaming caused its closure in 1987. After a long hiatus, the program returned in 2006, sparking renewed joy and engagement in the Deaf community, particularly with the establishment of the Sanderson Community Center for the Deaf, which became a hub for sports and community gatherings.
In summary, the decline of ASL/English bilingual programs under Superintendent Noyce demonstrated the need for immediate community action and policy support to protect Deaf education in Utah.
In Jean Greenwood Thomas's letter to Dr. Menlove on August 20, 2009, she outlined her hopes as follows:
Unfortunately, due to the absence of Dr. Jennifer Howell, the associate superintendent who was supposed to oversee the Deaf Division and the Parent Infant Program, including the Deaf Mentor Program, Superintendent Noyce overstepped his authority by making decisions about the ASL/English bilingual programs at USD. While the CEO was responsible for making decisions, they should not exercise that authority in a biased manner.
Finally, the Utah Deaf Education Core Group has noted that Superintendent Noyce has alienated the Utah Deaf community, removed options from parents, and mismanaged funding for the USDB. He has also neglected the needs of Blind students.
However, under Superintendent Steven W. Noyce, who took office on August 7, 2009, ASL/English bilingual programs at JMS and the North Division have faced a noticeable decline. Enrollment and services at JMS and the Deaf Mentor Program have dwindled, and resources available for ASL users have been significantly reduced. More families are choosing the listening and spoken language (LSL) approach, resulting in a compromised ASL/English bilingual system. Families now have limited options, and despite the Utah Deaf Education Core Group recognizing the biased information influencing parent choices, Superintendent Noyce has consistently proclaimed his support for "parent choice."
Following Superintendent Noyce's appointment, the number of families utilizing Deaf Mentor services sharply declined in early 2010. Parents who opted for LSL could no longer access both LSL training and Deaf Mentor services simultaneously, forcing them to choose between spoken English and ASL. This undermined the philosophical foundation of the ASL/English bilingual program, which had aimed to support both modes of communication under the Parent Infant Program.
Under Superintendent Noyce's leadership, state budget cuts eliminated the Academic Bowl—a significant competition for Deaf high school students initiated by Gallaudet University in 1997—in 2011. This competition not only fostered academic and social development but also boosted participants' self-esteem and aspirations for higher education. The Deaf community opposed its removal, recognizing the value of the educational and social opportunities the Academic Bowl represented, especially considering that other high schools nationwide respected their academic bowls.
Similarly, JMS struggled to secure funding for its athletics program due to the current budget's lack of allocation. This issue originated under former Superintendent Tim Smith, and administrative support for athletics continued to wane under Noyce's leadership until the program was ultimately cut due to budget constraints in 2011. The USD had boasted an athletic program since the early 1900s, which had positive cultural and community impacts until mainstreaming caused its closure in 1987. After a long hiatus, the program returned in 2006, sparking renewed joy and engagement in the Deaf community, particularly with the establishment of the Sanderson Community Center for the Deaf, which became a hub for sports and community gatherings.
In summary, the decline of ASL/English bilingual programs under Superintendent Noyce demonstrated the need for immediate community action and policy support to protect Deaf education in Utah.
In Jean Greenwood Thomas's letter to Dr. Menlove on August 20, 2009, she outlined her hopes as follows:
- JMS would become independent from decisions made by Superintendent Noyce.
- The Deaf Mentor Program would be directed by a culturally aware Deaf individual who is fully proficient in American Sign Language, with this position receiving full funding.
- The position of Sign Language Specialist would be reinstated and fully funded (the Deaf North Division had this position, but the Director had to give up a teaching position to maintain it).
- Steve Noyce would not have the authority to make decisions regarding any sign language program.
- Strict oversight rules would be enforced across all activities of the newly appointed Superintendent of USDB. Experts from the blind, Deaf-blind, and Deaf communities, along with educators, would be consulted in decision-making for USDB, in addition to those currently on the Institutional Council, such as Freeman King and other experts.
- The Utah State Office of Education (USOE) and Utah State Board of Education (USBE) would reconsider their decision to appoint Steven Noyce and select someone less controversial who would not utilize parents to accomplish a hidden agenda (Jean Greenwood Thomas, personal communication, August 20, 2009).
Unfortunately, due to the absence of Dr. Jennifer Howell, the associate superintendent who was supposed to oversee the Deaf Division and the Parent Infant Program, including the Deaf Mentor Program, Superintendent Noyce overstepped his authority by making decisions about the ASL/English bilingual programs at USD. While the CEO was responsible for making decisions, they should not exercise that authority in a biased manner.
Finally, the Utah Deaf Education Core Group has noted that Superintendent Noyce has alienated the Utah Deaf community, removed options from parents, and mismanaged funding for the USDB. He has also neglected the needs of Blind students.
Steven W. Noyce. Source: Twitter
Utah School for the Deaf Faces a Crisis
After Dr. Jennifer Howell resigned, Bronwyn O'Hara, a hearing parent of three Deaf children, published an article entitled "The Utah School for the Deaf Is in a State of Crisis" in the Salt Lake Tribune on February 12, 2011, as follows:
"The Utah School for the Deaf (USD) is in a state of crisis. As parents of Deaf children and Deaf individuals, we are very concerned about the present state of USDB. We believe our fears are well-founded.
The associate superintendent overseeing the Deaf department of USD recently resigned; she was one of just two or three administrators of the school who openly supported the American Sign Language and English bilingual program. Most of the remaining administrators, including most notably Superintendent Steve Noyce, seem to be ardent supporters of the other option: the oral/aural program.
The morale of teachers of the deaf appears to be at an all-time low due to a perceived fear of punitive measures should they voice disagreement with the superintendent's favored educational options.
Because Noyce's entire Deaf Education training has been in the oral/aural fields, to the exclusion of American Sign Language and Deaf culture classes, we feel he brings too much bias into his job as superintendent of the Utah Schools of the Deaf and the Blind.
We believe that any superintendent, including this one, should champion all divisions of the school equally. This has not appeared to happen in the 18 months he's held the job. To the contrary, it appears he has been hard at work, fortifying divisions within USD which believe Deaf children should be taught only to read lips and be oral. He does this by wielding budget, staff, and student placement. The prevailing thought among the Deaf community is that Noyce doesn't understand the deaf signing segment of the student population well enough to advocate adequately for them.
There is a growing number of parents, staff, and Deaf community members who are watching what's happening at the deaf school with disbelief and alarm, anxiety and concern.
With the associate superintendent no longer employed by USDB, the school will be hard-pressed to find a comparable advocate for the ASL/English bilingual programs. The political environment at USDB appears to be oppressive to any faculty, staff or parents with differing views than those of the superintendent.
There is a need to support ASL/English bilingual programs in the state of Utah. Studies have shown that ASL is conducive to communication and learning and offers the Deaf child an excellent avenue for developing educationally, socially, and emotionally, as well as providing invaluable opportunities for developing an identity.
In fact, ASL is the most easily acquired language for the child who is deaf, because the Deaf child is primarily a visual learner.
The programs within USD that do offer instruction and interaction in ASL effectively utilize pedagogical techniques in the Deaf child's most accessible language.
To empower Deaf students to participate in the hearing world and to assure literacy in English, the English language is taught as a second language with speech therapy in English available to students whose parents wish them to learn spoken English as a valuable tool.
The purely oral/aural method, as seemingly advocated by the superintendent of USDB, is often fraught with debilitating frustration for students, parents, and teachers because of it not being completely accessible as a language for the child who is deaf.
In our opinion, Deaf students who communicate in their native language, ASL, should have the right to be instructed and led by those who understand their needs and are willing to advocate for their interests."
Bronwyn O'Hara is a parent and advocate for Deaf education. Other signatories include Dennis O'Hara, Julio Diaz Jr., Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz, Dan V. Mathis, Stephanie Lowder Mathis, Duane L. Kinner, and myself, all of whom are parents of children in the USD and advocates for Deaf education.
"The Utah School for the Deaf (USD) is in a state of crisis. As parents of Deaf children and Deaf individuals, we are very concerned about the present state of USDB. We believe our fears are well-founded.
The associate superintendent overseeing the Deaf department of USD recently resigned; she was one of just two or three administrators of the school who openly supported the American Sign Language and English bilingual program. Most of the remaining administrators, including most notably Superintendent Steve Noyce, seem to be ardent supporters of the other option: the oral/aural program.
The morale of teachers of the deaf appears to be at an all-time low due to a perceived fear of punitive measures should they voice disagreement with the superintendent's favored educational options.
Because Noyce's entire Deaf Education training has been in the oral/aural fields, to the exclusion of American Sign Language and Deaf culture classes, we feel he brings too much bias into his job as superintendent of the Utah Schools of the Deaf and the Blind.
We believe that any superintendent, including this one, should champion all divisions of the school equally. This has not appeared to happen in the 18 months he's held the job. To the contrary, it appears he has been hard at work, fortifying divisions within USD which believe Deaf children should be taught only to read lips and be oral. He does this by wielding budget, staff, and student placement. The prevailing thought among the Deaf community is that Noyce doesn't understand the deaf signing segment of the student population well enough to advocate adequately for them.
There is a growing number of parents, staff, and Deaf community members who are watching what's happening at the deaf school with disbelief and alarm, anxiety and concern.
With the associate superintendent no longer employed by USDB, the school will be hard-pressed to find a comparable advocate for the ASL/English bilingual programs. The political environment at USDB appears to be oppressive to any faculty, staff or parents with differing views than those of the superintendent.
There is a need to support ASL/English bilingual programs in the state of Utah. Studies have shown that ASL is conducive to communication and learning and offers the Deaf child an excellent avenue for developing educationally, socially, and emotionally, as well as providing invaluable opportunities for developing an identity.
In fact, ASL is the most easily acquired language for the child who is deaf, because the Deaf child is primarily a visual learner.
The programs within USD that do offer instruction and interaction in ASL effectively utilize pedagogical techniques in the Deaf child's most accessible language.
To empower Deaf students to participate in the hearing world and to assure literacy in English, the English language is taught as a second language with speech therapy in English available to students whose parents wish them to learn spoken English as a valuable tool.
The purely oral/aural method, as seemingly advocated by the superintendent of USDB, is often fraught with debilitating frustration for students, parents, and teachers because of it not being completely accessible as a language for the child who is deaf.
In our opinion, Deaf students who communicate in their native language, ASL, should have the right to be instructed and led by those who understand their needs and are willing to advocate for their interests."
Bronwyn O'Hara is a parent and advocate for Deaf education. Other signatories include Dennis O'Hara, Julio Diaz Jr., Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz, Dan V. Mathis, Stephanie Lowder Mathis, Duane L. Kinner, and myself, all of whom are parents of children in the USD and advocates for Deaf education.
Campaign to Educate the Public: Auto-Responder and Website for
Balanced ASL and LSL Options at the Utah School for the Deaf
Balanced ASL and LSL Options at the Utah School for the Deaf
In February 2011, the Utah Deaf Education Core Group launched an auto-responder and website created by JR Goff to educate the public about advanced technology approaches in deaf education. They initiated a letter-writing campaign, gathering letters from parents who had either direct experiences with Superintendent Steven W. Noyce or had encountered biases through the Utah School for the Deaf and/or the Parent Infant Program.
Superintendent Noyce maintained connections with authority figures and parents, while the Utah Deaf Education Core Group felt their voices were not being heard. The purpose of the website and auto-responder is to empower parents and the ASL community, enabling them to advocate confidently for themselves and their children with accurate information.
Stephanie Lowder Mathis, a representative from the Core Group, developed a list of purposes for the website to support advocacy, share information, and provide a platform for community dialogue:
However, Superintendent Noyce continued to defend his views despite opposition, often twisting information to support his perspective. He sent polarizing emails to staff opposing the ASL/English bilingual philosophy, using direct quotes from the website but adding his own slant. This manipulation caused divisions within the community, alienating supporters of bilingual education.
Superintendent Noyce's emails did not portray the Utah Deaf community in a positive light. Several individuals approached JMS staff, questioning why the Utah Deaf community seemed intent on undermining the school.
In light of this situation, the Core Group chose not to send an email, anticipating that Noyce would distort their message. Instead, they posted the following statement on the website on February 12, 2011:
PLEASE READ: The Utah Deaf Education Core Group would like to emphasize to the readers of this site that we are "pro-choice" which means we support the right parents have to make whatever educational choice they feel is best for their Deaf and Hard of Hearing children. We are not trying to discriminate against any members of the Deaf community including parents of Deaf children, the Hard of Hearing individuals and those who wear cochlear implants. We welcome all members of the Deaf Community and hope that we all work together towards equal access to quality education. Our primary concern is to promote fair and unbiased presentations on both of the options offered at USD (Listening and Spoken Language and ASL/English bilingual programs). We are also concerned about the mandate that parents have to choose just one program, instead of being able to choose both if desired. This website is one of the ways we have chosen to bring this information to light: the unfair bias of one program over another that has existed, and exists, at USD.
The Utah Deaf Education group consists of Deaf and hearing parents as well as Deaf individuals who work and thrive in the hearing world because of our ability to converse in BOTH English and ASL. It is our firm desire that all Deaf and hard of hearing children and their families have the CHOICE of learning ASL in addition to spoken language (together, not either/or).
We are aware that Steven Noyce is sending emails to his staff with quotes from our website. To get accurate information on what we mean by our comments, please direct questions to [email protected]. We will respond as soon as possible.
Superintendent Noyce maintained connections with authority figures and parents, while the Utah Deaf Education Core Group felt their voices were not being heard. The purpose of the website and auto-responder is to empower parents and the ASL community, enabling them to advocate confidently for themselves and their children with accurate information.
Stephanie Lowder Mathis, a representative from the Core Group, developed a list of purposes for the website to support advocacy, share information, and provide a platform for community dialogue:
- Advocacy: To support parents of Deaf children in ensuring their children receive the best possible education.
- Information: To share updates on current research and issues in Deaf education in Utah with the community.
- Space: To create a place for the community to share ideas, thoughts, and feelings about Deaf education in Utah.
However, Superintendent Noyce continued to defend his views despite opposition, often twisting information to support his perspective. He sent polarizing emails to staff opposing the ASL/English bilingual philosophy, using direct quotes from the website but adding his own slant. This manipulation caused divisions within the community, alienating supporters of bilingual education.
Superintendent Noyce's emails did not portray the Utah Deaf community in a positive light. Several individuals approached JMS staff, questioning why the Utah Deaf community seemed intent on undermining the school.
In light of this situation, the Core Group chose not to send an email, anticipating that Noyce would distort their message. Instead, they posted the following statement on the website on February 12, 2011:
PLEASE READ: The Utah Deaf Education Core Group would like to emphasize to the readers of this site that we are "pro-choice" which means we support the right parents have to make whatever educational choice they feel is best for their Deaf and Hard of Hearing children. We are not trying to discriminate against any members of the Deaf community including parents of Deaf children, the Hard of Hearing individuals and those who wear cochlear implants. We welcome all members of the Deaf Community and hope that we all work together towards equal access to quality education. Our primary concern is to promote fair and unbiased presentations on both of the options offered at USD (Listening and Spoken Language and ASL/English bilingual programs). We are also concerned about the mandate that parents have to choose just one program, instead of being able to choose both if desired. This website is one of the ways we have chosen to bring this information to light: the unfair bias of one program over another that has existed, and exists, at USD.
The Utah Deaf Education group consists of Deaf and hearing parents as well as Deaf individuals who work and thrive in the hearing world because of our ability to converse in BOTH English and ASL. It is our firm desire that all Deaf and hard of hearing children and their families have the CHOICE of learning ASL in addition to spoken language (together, not either/or).
We are aware that Steven Noyce is sending emails to his staff with quotes from our website. To get accurate information on what we mean by our comments, please direct questions to [email protected]. We will respond as soon as possible.
'PLEASE READ!' Source:Utah Deaf Education Core Group Website
Did You Know?
Soon after the Utah Deaf Education Core Group posted Jacob Dietz's initial letter on their website, Vea Lynn Jarvis, a hearing parent of three Deaf children, sent an email to the Core Group as follows:
*****
"Never thought I would be writing this after 35 years involvement with the Deaf community. I have to agree with Jacob Dietz. Thirty years ago, we had similar experiences when we dealt with Steve Noyce. I was heartsick when I heard that he was the new superintendent of USD. In my opinion, the educational experience for Utah deaf children just took a backward leap of 30 years. Everything I hear from my 35-year connections in the Deaf community supports my feelings. I have six deaf children in my family, three of my own and three who married in. They are highly functional children who have been brought up in a total communication environment, thanks in no small part to Steve.
I hope parents of deaf children in Utah will band together to support the needs of their children over the agenda of a man who has always, in my experience, chosen oralism over ASL or any other method. We need someone in Utah who will bring us forward, not catapult us back to what didn't work then and won't work now! Ask the deaf what they want in their lives. What a novel idea!" (Vea Lynn Jarvis, personal communication, February 22, 2011).
*****
"Never thought I would be writing this after 35 years involvement with the Deaf community. I have to agree with Jacob Dietz. Thirty years ago, we had similar experiences when we dealt with Steve Noyce. I was heartsick when I heard that he was the new superintendent of USD. In my opinion, the educational experience for Utah deaf children just took a backward leap of 30 years. Everything I hear from my 35-year connections in the Deaf community supports my feelings. I have six deaf children in my family, three of my own and three who married in. They are highly functional children who have been brought up in a total communication environment, thanks in no small part to Steve.
I hope parents of deaf children in Utah will band together to support the needs of their children over the agenda of a man who has always, in my experience, chosen oralism over ASL or any other method. We need someone in Utah who will bring us forward, not catapult us back to what didn't work then and won't work now! Ask the deaf what they want in their lives. What a novel idea!" (Vea Lynn Jarvis, personal communication, February 22, 2011).
Vea Lynn Jarvis
The Utah Deaf Education Core Group Declines to Meet with
USDB Superintendent Steven W. Noyce
USDB Superintendent Steven W. Noyce
The Utah Deaf Education Core Group chose not to meet with USDB Superintendent Steven W. Noyce to address ongoing concerns and clarify their position to the community.
On February 16, 2011, Superintendent Noyce requested a meeting with representatives from the Core Group to discuss various issues. However, the Core Group believed that a meeting at this time would not be productive. They expressed appreciation for the ongoing dialogue and remain committed to constructive communication.
The Core Group was surprised to find its decision misrepresented in the March 2011 edition of DeafDigest.
In the publication's "Deaf Apocalypse of the Week," it stated: "And now this, the Utah group refusing to sit down with the superintendent of Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind!"
The Core Group questioned how DeafDigest obtained that information. They felt that the publication did not fully understand the reasons for their decision not to meet with Superintendent Noyce. They suggested that it would have been more appropriate to interview a representative from their group. Rather than engage in self-defense or attempt to manage the narrative, the Core Group chose to let DeafDigest continue its speculation.
On February 16, 2011, Superintendent Noyce requested a meeting with representatives from the Core Group to discuss various issues. However, the Core Group believed that a meeting at this time would not be productive. They expressed appreciation for the ongoing dialogue and remain committed to constructive communication.
The Core Group was surprised to find its decision misrepresented in the March 2011 edition of DeafDigest.
In the publication's "Deaf Apocalypse of the Week," it stated: "And now this, the Utah group refusing to sit down with the superintendent of Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind!"
The Core Group questioned how DeafDigest obtained that information. They felt that the publication did not fully understand the reasons for their decision not to meet with Superintendent Noyce. They suggested that it would have been more appropriate to interview a representative from their group. Rather than engage in self-defense or attempt to manage the narrative, the Core Group chose to let DeafDigest continue its speculation.
Steven W. Noyce's Response to the
Utah Deaf Education Core Group
Utah Deaf Education Core Group
On February 20, 2011, USDB Superintendent Noyce addressed the Utah Deaf Education Core Group, also copying the staff and Advisory Council of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind, including Dr. Martell Menlove. His communication was in response to our urgent note titled "PLEASE READ" posted on our website, as follows:
*****
USDB staff, Advisory Council, and Utah Deaf Education Core Group:
I am pleased that the Utah Deaf Education Core Group is promoting language and communication mode choice for parents of children who are Deaf or hard of hearing in Utah. Everything that I have initiated and promoted as superintendent has been done to support parent and family choice.
The development and staffing of a Parent Infant Program that employs specialists in American Sign Language/English BiBi and Listening and Spoken Language are intended to provide support for strong program options that offer families viable choices.
My direction to Associate Superintendent Howell and Director Day Mullings to create an orientation process that provides families with comprehensive information to make an informed choice is intended to give parents a reasonable opportunity to make an informed choice. I wish we could guarantee that people will not share bias with families. We have been trying that for decades. Because that has failed, we created a process that requires that a strong advocate and example of ASL/English be paired with a strong advocate and example of LSL. Director Mullings developed, with a community team, a process that gives families abundant opportunity to make a choice that is best for each individual family. Associate Superintendent Howell gave input, and I approved the plan. There is no time limitation on families; they are encouraged, however, to make a language choice as early as possible so that the language can be implemented to give the child the best opportunity to establish a first language.
USDB has gone to considerable effort and expense over the past several years to provide professional development to ASL/English teachers. Nearly all ASL/English teachers will have completed the two-year training cycle this year. They are well-versed in the components of Signacy, Numeracy, and Oracy. The Oracy component of ASL/English is the "listening and speech" component of ASL/English. For this reason, families who want "both" signing and speech are encouraged to place their children in the ASL/English program.
Listening and Spoken Language is a life choice, just as LSL/English. Use of sign language is contrary to an LSL approach just as use of English Sign Systems is contrary to an ASL/English approach. The Principles of Auditory Verbal therapy, http://nc.agbell.org/NetCommunity/page.aspx?pid=359, and the Principles of Auditory Verbal Education, http://nc.agbell.org/NetCommunity/page.aspx?pid=356, identify the components of an LSL approach. This by no means that advocates of LSL don't respect or value ASL as a language or as a viable approach for children who are Deaf.
If we are to truly value and respect the choices that families make we need to dialogue and open lines of communication. I have requested that the administrative staff of USD meet with the leadership of the Deaf Education Core. They have declined to meet with USD and specifically with me. I hope they reconsider.
Sincerely,
Steve Noyce, Superintendent
Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind
742 Harrison Blvd.
Ogden, Utah 84404
*****
The Utah Deaf Education Core Group subsequently replied to an email from USDB Superintendent Noyce with the following response:
February 24, 2011
Mr. Noyce,
Thank you for recognizing that we are supportive of family and parental choice at USDB. In our attempt to respond to your letter of February 20, 2011, we developed the document that follows. It explains why, despite procedures and policies that have been put in place to support parental choices, we feel that more needs to be done to reduce the promoting of one program to the detriment of the other.
We understand and respect the desire of families who choose LSL to retain the “life choice” of not using sign language; however, there are families who would like to receive intensive speech training yet want their children to receive exposure to ASL. Conversely, there are families who choose to focus on ASL acquisition for their children, yet want their children exposed to formal oral training at a young age (during PIP). We hope this document answers your questions and helps in understanding our perspective.
(Let us also explain briefly to those copied on this letter, who may not be aware of the reason behind our declining to meet with you and your administrative staff; it was because of the upcoming evaluations and a long history of having ASL/English bilingual issues trivialized. We felt that it wasn’t appropriate to meet at this point.)
[We also need to clarify that the three components of the ASL/English bilingual approach are Signacy, Literacy, and Oracy (not Numeracy as listed in your letter).]
Sincerely,
Utah Deaf Education Core Group
*****
USDB staff, Advisory Council, and Utah Deaf Education Core Group:
I am pleased that the Utah Deaf Education Core Group is promoting language and communication mode choice for parents of children who are Deaf or hard of hearing in Utah. Everything that I have initiated and promoted as superintendent has been done to support parent and family choice.
The development and staffing of a Parent Infant Program that employs specialists in American Sign Language/English BiBi and Listening and Spoken Language are intended to provide support for strong program options that offer families viable choices.
My direction to Associate Superintendent Howell and Director Day Mullings to create an orientation process that provides families with comprehensive information to make an informed choice is intended to give parents a reasonable opportunity to make an informed choice. I wish we could guarantee that people will not share bias with families. We have been trying that for decades. Because that has failed, we created a process that requires that a strong advocate and example of ASL/English be paired with a strong advocate and example of LSL. Director Mullings developed, with a community team, a process that gives families abundant opportunity to make a choice that is best for each individual family. Associate Superintendent Howell gave input, and I approved the plan. There is no time limitation on families; they are encouraged, however, to make a language choice as early as possible so that the language can be implemented to give the child the best opportunity to establish a first language.
USDB has gone to considerable effort and expense over the past several years to provide professional development to ASL/English teachers. Nearly all ASL/English teachers will have completed the two-year training cycle this year. They are well-versed in the components of Signacy, Numeracy, and Oracy. The Oracy component of ASL/English is the "listening and speech" component of ASL/English. For this reason, families who want "both" signing and speech are encouraged to place their children in the ASL/English program.
Listening and Spoken Language is a life choice, just as LSL/English. Use of sign language is contrary to an LSL approach just as use of English Sign Systems is contrary to an ASL/English approach. The Principles of Auditory Verbal therapy, http://nc.agbell.org/NetCommunity/page.aspx?pid=359, and the Principles of Auditory Verbal Education, http://nc.agbell.org/NetCommunity/page.aspx?pid=356, identify the components of an LSL approach. This by no means that advocates of LSL don't respect or value ASL as a language or as a viable approach for children who are Deaf.
If we are to truly value and respect the choices that families make we need to dialogue and open lines of communication. I have requested that the administrative staff of USD meet with the leadership of the Deaf Education Core. They have declined to meet with USD and specifically with me. I hope they reconsider.
Sincerely,
Steve Noyce, Superintendent
Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind
742 Harrison Blvd.
Ogden, Utah 84404
*****
The Utah Deaf Education Core Group subsequently replied to an email from USDB Superintendent Noyce with the following response:
February 24, 2011
Mr. Noyce,
Thank you for recognizing that we are supportive of family and parental choice at USDB. In our attempt to respond to your letter of February 20, 2011, we developed the document that follows. It explains why, despite procedures and policies that have been put in place to support parental choices, we feel that more needs to be done to reduce the promoting of one program to the detriment of the other.
We understand and respect the desire of families who choose LSL to retain the “life choice” of not using sign language; however, there are families who would like to receive intensive speech training yet want their children to receive exposure to ASL. Conversely, there are families who choose to focus on ASL acquisition for their children, yet want their children exposed to formal oral training at a young age (during PIP). We hope this document answers your questions and helps in understanding our perspective.
(Let us also explain briefly to those copied on this letter, who may not be aware of the reason behind our declining to meet with you and your administrative staff; it was because of the upcoming evaluations and a long history of having ASL/English bilingual issues trivialized. We felt that it wasn’t appropriate to meet at this point.)
[We also need to clarify that the three components of the ASL/English bilingual approach are Signacy, Literacy, and Oracy (not Numeracy as listed in your letter).]
Sincerely,
Utah Deaf Education Core Group
Ways the Two Programs at the Utah School for the Deaf
Are Not Receiving Equal Consideration
Are Not Receiving Equal Consideration
The Utah Deaf Education Core Group communicated with USDB Superintendent Noyce and other officials, presenting a letter that outlines five specific examples of how the two programs at the Utah School for the Deaf are not receiving equal consideration for families of Deaf children, as follows:
*****
EXAMPLE ONE: Requiring PIP parents to choose ONLY one of the two options offered at USDB
Under the current system, parents can now only choose one option: either the Listening and Spoken Language (LSL) or the American Sign Language (ASL/English) approach. They are no longer able to choose to receive both speech services and ASL tutoring as they have in the past.
What about parents who want to have their child to receive training in both communication methods, in whatever combination they desire? Where is their choice?
EXAMPLE TWO: Not allowing formal speech services for PIP parents who choose the ASL option or ASL services for parents who choose the LSL option
The ASL/English option provided by PIP does not include formal speech, lipreading, and listening training. We understand that ASL/English specialists working for PIP can work on oracy skills during home visits, but that the families cannot use the clinical speech services offered to LSL families. Speech therapy has been, in fact, taken away from families who were already enjoying the service, who had chosen the ASL/English bilingual option.
It is true that parents who choose the LSL option are similarly not allowed to have a Deaf mentor to teach them ASL. We feel this is a violation of the basic human right to communication and assert that this choice should be available to all parents. In any case, for most hearing parents and people reading this, it does not sound as outrageous and unfair to not to have ASL tutoring as it would be to have formal speech services denied or taken away as has happened.
In this way, parents are receiving subtle messages that if they want their child to receive formal speech training from trained speech therapists, they should enroll them in the LSL program. Otherwise, they would lose the therapists that were already working with their children and obtain speech services from ASL/English specialists that may not be as highly trained to provide this type of service.
EXAMPLE THREE: Using Pathways as the orientation DVD for new PIP parents
Pathways are the name of the thirty-minute DVD that is being used as part of the orientation offered by PIP. The film explains five approaches for communicating with a Deaf child: AVT, ASL/English Bilingual Education, Auditory-Oral, Cued Speech, and Sim-Com. The film also emphasizes that pathways develop in the brain through auditory input but does not state that language also develops through visual input. Another critical piece of information is not shared: that young Deaf brains process ASL in the language center just as young hearing brains process spoken language.
During the five minutes of discussion on ASL samples of ASL users included a child who has Deaf parents, a high school student who is not as academically advanced as could be and a two-year-old, recently-implanted girl who has just started to learn ASL. Of the samples, only the little two-year-old girl represents a possible reality for hearing parents viewing the DVD. The high school student, moreover, does not show the actual vitality and academic success that numerous students who go through ASL/English bilingual programs do have.
In a nutshell, ASL/English bilingualism as a language choice is not accurately represented. The overall tone of the ASL portion of the DVD is that ASL is not a viable approach. Hearing parents are sensitive to subtle inferences like these. The imprecise information regarding the ASL/English bilingual approach can very well convince parents that LSL is the way to go.
In this way, LSL is being promoted to the detriment of the ASL/English bilingual option.
EXAMPLE FOUR: The renovation of a cottage on the Ogden campus for the sole use of LSL families
A significant expense was made towards the complete renovation of a cottage on the Ogden campus into a state-of-the-art facility for LSL families. Families who choose the ASL/English bilingual option are not even allowed to use services provided in this building.
The last time one of us visited the cottage, there were no signs of the advances in technology that have been developed for and by Deaf people, such as flashing doorbells and alarm clocks or the videophone. This omission of important components of Deaf/hard of hearing lives seems to indicate a disregard and lack of respect for visual cues and technology that are available for Deaf/hard of hearing individuals.
This is an example of expense and planning spent on one program (LSL) over the other (ASL/English).
EXAMPLE FIVE: The spreading of negative information about the ASL/English Bilingual programs available at USDB and sign language in general
There has been a history at USD of resistance towards sign language in general. Now that the ASL/English bilingual approach is available to parents under USD, this resistance is also seen towards this program as well. Following are three examples showing this resistance among current USD staff. More examples can be seen in letters posted by parents at www.utahDeafeducation.com.
In the third letter posted on our website, a parent explains that when she decided to choose the sign language option, the USDB Pre-School representative expressed her opinion that the mother was “a horrible mother for allowing [her] children access to sign language.”
In two other examples referenced below, the parents discuss Jean Massieu School, the largest ASL/English bilingual program under the auspices of USDB. However, we are aware that the same is happening for the other ASL/English bilingual programs at USD.
The mother of an eleven-year-old revealed to her ASL instructor at a local community college that, when the total communication program at USD merged with JMS during the fall of 2010, she decided to mainstream her child at a local school rather than enroll her at JMS. She explained that the main reason she did so was that she had received a lot of negative information about JMS from teachers, staff, and administrators at USD. She told the teacher that she "believed them." It is very natural for parents to listen to those in authority.
In our final example, the Utah Deaf Education Core Group summarize an excerpt from the fifth letter on their blog. In this letter, a couple discusses trying to place their normal, high-functioning daughter at JMS. During the IEP re-evaluation, the IEP team expressed their opinion that (and we quote), "the only reason a child should go to JMS is if there are other issues that makes the child unable to hear or if they are low function." The parents mention Mr. Noyce as having been "very strongly opposed" to the desired placement. When the parents declined the IEP recommendation to not place the girl at JMS, (again we quote) "Mr. Noyce made us sign [a paper] that if her education declined, they were not responsible [and] reminded us over and over again that the only children that belonged in JMS were those [who] were falling behind." The parents add that due to the education she received at JMS, the girl is now on the honor roll in a mainstreamed classroom.
These examples are probably just the tip of the iceberg in how the administration and staff at USD are unfairly influencing parents away from signing, in general, and from the ASL/English Bilingual programs, in particular.
As a state agency funded by taxpayers, Utah School for the Deaf needs to ensure that parents do, in fact, receive unbiased information on the two programs. For this to happen, it is imperative that USD staff and administration genuinely feel that the two options are equally feasible and that it is indeed the parents' choice.
Since submitting this letter, there has been no response from Superintendent Noyce or any other authority.
*****
EXAMPLE ONE: Requiring PIP parents to choose ONLY one of the two options offered at USDB
Under the current system, parents can now only choose one option: either the Listening and Spoken Language (LSL) or the American Sign Language (ASL/English) approach. They are no longer able to choose to receive both speech services and ASL tutoring as they have in the past.
What about parents who want to have their child to receive training in both communication methods, in whatever combination they desire? Where is their choice?
EXAMPLE TWO: Not allowing formal speech services for PIP parents who choose the ASL option or ASL services for parents who choose the LSL option
The ASL/English option provided by PIP does not include formal speech, lipreading, and listening training. We understand that ASL/English specialists working for PIP can work on oracy skills during home visits, but that the families cannot use the clinical speech services offered to LSL families. Speech therapy has been, in fact, taken away from families who were already enjoying the service, who had chosen the ASL/English bilingual option.
It is true that parents who choose the LSL option are similarly not allowed to have a Deaf mentor to teach them ASL. We feel this is a violation of the basic human right to communication and assert that this choice should be available to all parents. In any case, for most hearing parents and people reading this, it does not sound as outrageous and unfair to not to have ASL tutoring as it would be to have formal speech services denied or taken away as has happened.
In this way, parents are receiving subtle messages that if they want their child to receive formal speech training from trained speech therapists, they should enroll them in the LSL program. Otherwise, they would lose the therapists that were already working with their children and obtain speech services from ASL/English specialists that may not be as highly trained to provide this type of service.
EXAMPLE THREE: Using Pathways as the orientation DVD for new PIP parents
Pathways are the name of the thirty-minute DVD that is being used as part of the orientation offered by PIP. The film explains five approaches for communicating with a Deaf child: AVT, ASL/English Bilingual Education, Auditory-Oral, Cued Speech, and Sim-Com. The film also emphasizes that pathways develop in the brain through auditory input but does not state that language also develops through visual input. Another critical piece of information is not shared: that young Deaf brains process ASL in the language center just as young hearing brains process spoken language.
During the five minutes of discussion on ASL samples of ASL users included a child who has Deaf parents, a high school student who is not as academically advanced as could be and a two-year-old, recently-implanted girl who has just started to learn ASL. Of the samples, only the little two-year-old girl represents a possible reality for hearing parents viewing the DVD. The high school student, moreover, does not show the actual vitality and academic success that numerous students who go through ASL/English bilingual programs do have.
In a nutshell, ASL/English bilingualism as a language choice is not accurately represented. The overall tone of the ASL portion of the DVD is that ASL is not a viable approach. Hearing parents are sensitive to subtle inferences like these. The imprecise information regarding the ASL/English bilingual approach can very well convince parents that LSL is the way to go.
In this way, LSL is being promoted to the detriment of the ASL/English bilingual option.
EXAMPLE FOUR: The renovation of a cottage on the Ogden campus for the sole use of LSL families
A significant expense was made towards the complete renovation of a cottage on the Ogden campus into a state-of-the-art facility for LSL families. Families who choose the ASL/English bilingual option are not even allowed to use services provided in this building.
The last time one of us visited the cottage, there were no signs of the advances in technology that have been developed for and by Deaf people, such as flashing doorbells and alarm clocks or the videophone. This omission of important components of Deaf/hard of hearing lives seems to indicate a disregard and lack of respect for visual cues and technology that are available for Deaf/hard of hearing individuals.
This is an example of expense and planning spent on one program (LSL) over the other (ASL/English).
EXAMPLE FIVE: The spreading of negative information about the ASL/English Bilingual programs available at USDB and sign language in general
There has been a history at USD of resistance towards sign language in general. Now that the ASL/English bilingual approach is available to parents under USD, this resistance is also seen towards this program as well. Following are three examples showing this resistance among current USD staff. More examples can be seen in letters posted by parents at www.utahDeafeducation.com.
In the third letter posted on our website, a parent explains that when she decided to choose the sign language option, the USDB Pre-School representative expressed her opinion that the mother was “a horrible mother for allowing [her] children access to sign language.”
In two other examples referenced below, the parents discuss Jean Massieu School, the largest ASL/English bilingual program under the auspices of USDB. However, we are aware that the same is happening for the other ASL/English bilingual programs at USD.
The mother of an eleven-year-old revealed to her ASL instructor at a local community college that, when the total communication program at USD merged with JMS during the fall of 2010, she decided to mainstream her child at a local school rather than enroll her at JMS. She explained that the main reason she did so was that she had received a lot of negative information about JMS from teachers, staff, and administrators at USD. She told the teacher that she "believed them." It is very natural for parents to listen to those in authority.
In our final example, the Utah Deaf Education Core Group summarize an excerpt from the fifth letter on their blog. In this letter, a couple discusses trying to place their normal, high-functioning daughter at JMS. During the IEP re-evaluation, the IEP team expressed their opinion that (and we quote), "the only reason a child should go to JMS is if there are other issues that makes the child unable to hear or if they are low function." The parents mention Mr. Noyce as having been "very strongly opposed" to the desired placement. When the parents declined the IEP recommendation to not place the girl at JMS, (again we quote) "Mr. Noyce made us sign [a paper] that if her education declined, they were not responsible [and] reminded us over and over again that the only children that belonged in JMS were those [who] were falling behind." The parents add that due to the education she received at JMS, the girl is now on the honor roll in a mainstreamed classroom.
These examples are probably just the tip of the iceberg in how the administration and staff at USD are unfairly influencing parents away from signing, in general, and from the ASL/English Bilingual programs, in particular.
As a state agency funded by taxpayers, Utah School for the Deaf needs to ensure that parents do, in fact, receive unbiased information on the two programs. For this to happen, it is imperative that USD staff and administration genuinely feel that the two options are equally feasible and that it is indeed the parents' choice.
Since submitting this letter, there has been no response from Superintendent Noyce or any other authority.
Utah School for the Deaf Grapples
with Balancing Two Tracks
with Balancing Two Tracks
Over the years, the Utah Deaf community has demonstrated remarkable resilience in the face of opposition from prominent oral advocates like Dr. Grant B. Bitter, Steven W. Noyce, and Dr. Karl R. White. The Utah Advocates for LSL have consistently praised the Utah School for the Deaf as a national model, emphasizing its dual-track program from the 1960s and 1970s, which includes both LSL and ASL/English bilingual programs. They also highlight the school's outreach services, which aim to promote mainstreaming efforts. However, the Utah Deaf community, guided by the Utah Deaf Education Core Group, recognized the ineffectiveness of this approach and actively fought to protect and promote the ASL/English bilingual program.
Superintendent Noyce promoted a two-track program intended to serve as a model for state schools for the deaf across the country. This promotion was outlined in an article titled "Schools for the Deaf Grapple with Balancing Two Tracks," published in The Salt Lake Tribune on February 21, 2011. The goal of the program was to provide both Listening and Spoken Language (LSL) and ASL/English bilingual tracks, allowing parents the opportunity to choose the best educational path for their Deaf children. However, the Utah Deaf Education Core Group, composed of concerned parents and community members, viewed this initiative as a threat to the ASL/English bilingual program, fearing it would lead to more Deaf and hard-of-hearing students being funneled into the LSL program. This concern was not isolated; other state schools, including the South Dakota School for the Deaf, the Delaware School for the Deaf, and the Indiana School for the Deaf, were experiencing similar challenges in preserving their ASL/English bilingual programs.
For instance, on June 6, 2011, Timothy Chevalier, a former ASL/English Bilingual Specialist, noted that the South Dakota School for the Deaf adopted the two-track program and outreach services model from the Utah School for the Deaf in 2005, after a visit and consultation. The program at SDSD separated students into LSL and ASL/English bilingual programs. LSL students with cochlear implants were prohibited from interacting with those in the ASL/English bilingual program at any time, including during recess and lunch. Furthermore, the school intentionally limited LSL students' exposure to sign language (Timothy Chevalier, personal communication, June 6, 2011).
Superintendent Noyce promoted a two-track program intended to serve as a model for state schools for the deaf across the country. This promotion was outlined in an article titled "Schools for the Deaf Grapple with Balancing Two Tracks," published in The Salt Lake Tribune on February 21, 2011. The goal of the program was to provide both Listening and Spoken Language (LSL) and ASL/English bilingual tracks, allowing parents the opportunity to choose the best educational path for their Deaf children. However, the Utah Deaf Education Core Group, composed of concerned parents and community members, viewed this initiative as a threat to the ASL/English bilingual program, fearing it would lead to more Deaf and hard-of-hearing students being funneled into the LSL program. This concern was not isolated; other state schools, including the South Dakota School for the Deaf, the Delaware School for the Deaf, and the Indiana School for the Deaf, were experiencing similar challenges in preserving their ASL/English bilingual programs.
For instance, on June 6, 2011, Timothy Chevalier, a former ASL/English Bilingual Specialist, noted that the South Dakota School for the Deaf adopted the two-track program and outreach services model from the Utah School for the Deaf in 2005, after a visit and consultation. The program at SDSD separated students into LSL and ASL/English bilingual programs. LSL students with cochlear implants were prohibited from interacting with those in the ASL/English bilingual program at any time, including during recess and lunch. Furthermore, the school intentionally limited LSL students' exposure to sign language (Timothy Chevalier, personal communication, June 6, 2011).
Timothy Chevalier
To promote mainstreaming, the SDSD administration also worked with public schools to integrate Deaf and hard-of-hearing LSL students into the LSL Program with non-Deaf peers, aiming to enhance their listening and speaking skills. In 2007, some South Dakota families advocating for ASL opposed this system but were unsuccessful. As a result, they faced the tough choice of relocating to enroll their Deaf children in other state schools for the deaf. By 2009, the South Dakota School for the Deaf had ceased to operate as a school and transitioned to providing outreach services within the public school system (Timothy Chevalier, personal communication, June 6, 2011).
The situation at the South Dakota School for the Deaf reflects a larger nationwide trend. Theresa Bulger led the Oral Only Option Schools Group (OOOS) in implementing a model similar to that of the Utah School for the Deaf, which included a dual-track approach and outreach services. Their efforts received support from the Alexander Graham Bell Association, which actively promoted the LSL option across various states.
In 2010, Dr. Karl R. White, a prominent advocate of the LSL program in Utah, testified before the California Legislature in favor of Assembly Bill 2072. This bill, from the 2009-2010 legislative session, aimed to provide parents of Deaf or hard-of-hearing newborns with an informational pamphlet about communication and language options. However, it sparked significant controversy within the California Deaf community, which felt it favored specific commercial interests, such as cochlear implants and the LSL approach, at the expense of parent choice. As a result, there was widespread advocacy against the bill. Ultimately, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed it amid considerable opposition from the California Deaf community.
The situation at the South Dakota School for the Deaf reflects a larger nationwide trend. Theresa Bulger led the Oral Only Option Schools Group (OOOS) in implementing a model similar to that of the Utah School for the Deaf, which included a dual-track approach and outreach services. Their efforts received support from the Alexander Graham Bell Association, which actively promoted the LSL option across various states.
In 2010, Dr. Karl R. White, a prominent advocate of the LSL program in Utah, testified before the California Legislature in favor of Assembly Bill 2072. This bill, from the 2009-2010 legislative session, aimed to provide parents of Deaf or hard-of-hearing newborns with an informational pamphlet about communication and language options. However, it sparked significant controversy within the California Deaf community, which felt it favored specific commercial interests, such as cochlear implants and the LSL approach, at the expense of parent choice. As a result, there was widespread advocacy against the bill. Ultimately, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed it amid considerable opposition from the California Deaf community.
Arnold Schwarzenegger Source: governors.library.ca.gov
In 2011, Delaware and Indiana, like South Dakota, worked to make LSL a legal option for Deaf children in their state schools for the deaf. Indiana successfully implemented this change, with Superintendent Noyce sharing at a meeting that Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels sought guidance on their two-track program and outreach services modeled after those from the Utah School for the Deaf, especially during protests from the Indiana Deaf community. Additionally, the Illinois and New Jersey Schools for the Deaf were planning to follow Indiana's lead by adopting the service delivery model of the Utah School for the Deaf (Steven W. Noyce, personal communication, March 12, 2010).
Meanwhile, the Delaware School for the Deaf, which offers ASL/English bilingual education, faced pressure from the LSL-advocating group CHOICES Delaware, established in 2009, to provide the LSL option. Fortunately, on September 10, 2010, Delaware Governor Jack Markell signed House Bill 283, called the "Delaware Hard of Hearing Children's Bill of Rights," which aims to protect ASL/English bilingual education. Texas, Colorado, and California have also enacted similar laws (www.christina.k12.de.us/DSPDHH/DHHBillofRights.htm).
On July 12, 2011, the CHOICES Delaware organization attempted to establish an LSL program at the Delaware School for the Deaf and at Statewide Programs for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing. This initiative was not successful, as highlighted in the CHOICES Delaware Position Paper. Ursula Schultz, a former employee at the Delaware School for the Deaf, shared that CHOICES Delaware was advocating for the adoption of educational practices centered on LSL, aligned with AGBell's principles, especially for early childhood classes. The organization maintained the belief that children with hearing aids or cochlear implants should primarily focus on LSL. They have been actively lobbying state officials to promote these changes (Ursula Schultz, personal communication, February 12, 2012).
Meanwhile, the Delaware School for the Deaf, which offers ASL/English bilingual education, faced pressure from the LSL-advocating group CHOICES Delaware, established in 2009, to provide the LSL option. Fortunately, on September 10, 2010, Delaware Governor Jack Markell signed House Bill 283, called the "Delaware Hard of Hearing Children's Bill of Rights," which aims to protect ASL/English bilingual education. Texas, Colorado, and California have also enacted similar laws (www.christina.k12.de.us/DSPDHH/DHHBillofRights.htm).
On July 12, 2011, the CHOICES Delaware organization attempted to establish an LSL program at the Delaware School for the Deaf and at Statewide Programs for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing. This initiative was not successful, as highlighted in the CHOICES Delaware Position Paper. Ursula Schultz, a former employee at the Delaware School for the Deaf, shared that CHOICES Delaware was advocating for the adoption of educational practices centered on LSL, aligned with AGBell's principles, especially for early childhood classes. The organization maintained the belief that children with hearing aids or cochlear implants should primarily focus on LSL. They have been actively lobbying state officials to promote these changes (Ursula Schultz, personal communication, February 12, 2012).
Ursula Schultz. Source: https://mssd.gallaudet.edu
The CHOICES Delaware organization pushed for speech and auditory therapy services specifically for Deaf and hard-of-hearing students, especially those with hearing parents. They emphasized that these services were crucial for the students' overall growth and development. Although they acknowledged the benefits of ASL/English bilingual educational programs for Deaf children of Deaf parents, they noted that not all hearing families accessed speech and auditory services, underscoring the need for their advocacy (Ursula Schultz, personal communication, February 12, 2012).
While the administration of the Delaware School for the Deaf supported the ASL/English bilingual program, this stance conflicted with CHOICES Delaware's stance (Ursula Schultz, personal communication, February 12, 2012). Seeking broader support, they looked to Utah, where then-USDB Superintendent Noyce had made significant improvements in expanding the LSL Program at the Utah School for the Deaf, presenting it as a valuable educational model. To highlight the two-track program and its outreach services, CHOICES Delaware invited Superintendent Noyce to serve as a keynote speaker at the Delaware Conference on Deaf Education, held on June 11, 2011 (Jacob Dietz, personal communication, April 21, 2011).
Over the past decade, the CHOICES Delaware organization worked diligently to introduce the LSL option at the Delaware School for the Deaf. Unfortunately, their attempts were unsuccessful, leading the American Civil Liberties Union of Delaware (ACLU-DE) to file a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights. The complaint raised issues regarding the denial of access to LSL therapy and the over-referrals to the Delaware School for the Deaf.
In response to feedback from the Deaf community, the ACLU-Delaware published a position statement on December 27, 2023, indicating they were reviewing their stance. Meanwhile, Sara Nović, a Deaf professor and novelist, initiated a Change.org petition calling on the ACLU-DE to withdraw its case, which garnered over 30,000 signatures. Sara argued that creating a forced choice between English and ASL could result in language deprivation syndrome, potentially limiting Deaf children's access to language during critical developmental years (Deaf and Hard of Hearing Education, ACLU-Delaware, December 27, 2023).
ACLU-Delaware's collaboration with CHOICES Delaware sparked significant opposition from the Deaf community and professionals in Deaf education. As a result of this backlash, the ACLU-Delaware later removed its position post from its website (Abenchuchan, The Daily Moth: Deaf News, January 10, 2024).
While the administration of the Delaware School for the Deaf supported the ASL/English bilingual program, this stance conflicted with CHOICES Delaware's stance (Ursula Schultz, personal communication, February 12, 2012). Seeking broader support, they looked to Utah, where then-USDB Superintendent Noyce had made significant improvements in expanding the LSL Program at the Utah School for the Deaf, presenting it as a valuable educational model. To highlight the two-track program and its outreach services, CHOICES Delaware invited Superintendent Noyce to serve as a keynote speaker at the Delaware Conference on Deaf Education, held on June 11, 2011 (Jacob Dietz, personal communication, April 21, 2011).
Over the past decade, the CHOICES Delaware organization worked diligently to introduce the LSL option at the Delaware School for the Deaf. Unfortunately, their attempts were unsuccessful, leading the American Civil Liberties Union of Delaware (ACLU-DE) to file a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights. The complaint raised issues regarding the denial of access to LSL therapy and the over-referrals to the Delaware School for the Deaf.
In response to feedback from the Deaf community, the ACLU-Delaware published a position statement on December 27, 2023, indicating they were reviewing their stance. Meanwhile, Sara Nović, a Deaf professor and novelist, initiated a Change.org petition calling on the ACLU-DE to withdraw its case, which garnered over 30,000 signatures. Sara argued that creating a forced choice between English and ASL could result in language deprivation syndrome, potentially limiting Deaf children's access to language during critical developmental years (Deaf and Hard of Hearing Education, ACLU-Delaware, December 27, 2023).
ACLU-Delaware's collaboration with CHOICES Delaware sparked significant opposition from the Deaf community and professionals in Deaf education. As a result of this backlash, the ACLU-Delaware later removed its position post from its website (Abenchuchan, The Daily Moth: Deaf News, January 10, 2024).
Sara Nović. Source: NewJersey Monthly. Photo: Alan Caras
Sara Nović's Change.org petition to stop ACLU's language lawsuit from harming Deaf children in Delaware
On May 17, 2011, just three days after the CHOICES Delaware conference, Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana appointed two new members to the board governing the Indiana School for the Deaf (ISD). The school is well-regarded for its leadership in bilingual education for Deaf and hard-of-hearing students. However, there was significant backlash regarding the new appointees, as many were concerned that they lacked a background in ASL/English bilingual education (6News, May 19, 2011).
Adding to the controversy, both new members were parents of Deaf children who did not attend ISD. Of the six board members, only one was Deaf, while the other five were hearing. Parents reacted strongly to these appointments, fearing they indicated an effort to undermine ASL and shift the school's focus back toward oralism. Many expressed confusion and anxiety about potential changes to the school's academic program (6News, May 19, 2011).
Marvin T. Miller, president of the Indiana Association of the Deaf and a Deaf parent of four, called for the ISD School Board to ensure equal representation for the Deaf community. Despite this, Governor Daniels did not change the board selections. In response, parents and the Indiana Deaf community, in collaboration with the Indiana Association of the Deaf and the Parent Teacher Counselor Organization, organized a rally on June 7, 2011 (Marvin T. Miller, personal communication, July 15, 2011).
Adding to the controversy, both new members were parents of Deaf children who did not attend ISD. Of the six board members, only one was Deaf, while the other five were hearing. Parents reacted strongly to these appointments, fearing they indicated an effort to undermine ASL and shift the school's focus back toward oralism. Many expressed confusion and anxiety about potential changes to the school's academic program (6News, May 19, 2011).
Marvin T. Miller, president of the Indiana Association of the Deaf and a Deaf parent of four, called for the ISD School Board to ensure equal representation for the Deaf community. Despite this, Governor Daniels did not change the board selections. In response, parents and the Indiana Deaf community, in collaboration with the Indiana Association of the Deaf and the Parent Teacher Counselor Organization, organized a rally on June 7, 2011 (Marvin T. Miller, personal communication, July 15, 2011).
Marvin T. Miller. Source: researchgate.net
At the rally, Howard Rosenblum, CEO of the National Association of the Deaf, raised concerns about the new board members of the Indiana School for the Deaf, questioning their commitment to the school's mission because they had chosen other schools for their children. The board was embroiled in a long-standing debate over integrating Deaf individuals into hearing society. Opinions were divided: some advocated for Deaf children to use sign language and attend state schools for the Deaf, while others favored mainstreaming into hearing classrooms, especially with the advent of cochlear implants (6News, June 7, 2011). Additionally, the Utah Deaf Education Core Group expressed concern that the two new Indiana LSL board members might try to implement a model similar to the two-track system used in Utah.
Howard Rosenblum. Source: www.nad.org
Superintendent Noyce made noticeable changes to the Parent Infant Program (PIP) at the Utah School for the Deaf. This program supported Deaf and hard-of-hearing children from birth to age 3, along with their parents. Traditionally, parents waited until their child was ready for preschool before deciding on either a signing or a speaking method. His approach urged parents to make a decision about using ASL/English or LSL much earlier, emphasizing the importance of these formative years for language development. According to Winters in The Salt Lake Tribune, he believed that these early years were "a critical period for language development."
As Superintendent Noyce restructured the PIP staff, all specialists received training in either LSL or ASL/English. As of February 2011, 74% of the parents in the program had chosen LSL, 15% had selected ASL, and the remainder were undecided. There were 170 infants and toddlers enrolled in the program, and the number of trained LSL specialists was twice that of ASL specialists. This decision was made to meet the parental demand for speech and auditory services (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, February 21, 2011).According to Jacob Dietz, since becoming superintendent in 2009, Steven Noyce has aimed to establish the Utah School for the Deaf as one of the top state-run oral programs in the nation. Meanwhile, Dr. White advocated for the passage of HB 1367 in the Indiana Legislature, despite opposition from the Indiana Deaf community, with significant implications for Deaf education.
Many advocates for bilingual education expressed concerns that Superintendent Noyce, with a background in oral education, might prioritize the LSL program at the expense of traditional Deaf education in ASL. They argued that ASL is more accessible to visual learners, strengthens the Deaf community, and supports a Deaf identity. (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, February 21, 2011). Launched in the spring of 2010, the Utah Deaf Education Core Group, made up of parents and members of the Utah Deaf community, noted that while Superintendent Noyce claims to support family choice, his actions have limited options. For example, if parents in the PIP program opt for ASL, speech services are removed; conversely, choosing LSL means losing signing services. Many parents, however, expressed a desire for both LSL and ASL options.
It was surprising to read this information in the Tribune article: "Noyce said ASL teachers in the infant program—like those in the preschool and K-12--are trained to teach 'oracy,' along with sign language and English literacy. Oracy includes listening, speaking, and reading lips." (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, February 21, 2011). Little did parents know that oracy was part of the ASL/English bilingual program. No one at the school had made that clear. The parent thought they had to pick one or the other, and many hearing parents were persuaded by USD staff to choose the LSL program so their child could receive speech services.
Superintendent Noyce expressed support for both ASL and LSL advocates, stating, "I don't have any problem with people being an advocate for American Sign Language. I wish those who advocate for ASL wouldn't have a problem with those who advocate for listening-and-spoken language. My role is to support very strongly both programs equally." However, the Core Group argued that he lacks a sufficient understanding of the Deaf signing community to advocate effectively for their needs, highlighting a disconnect in his approach.
Jacob Dietz, a hearing father of two Deaf children, also reacted to the same statement made by Superintendent Noyce. In his blog post dated February 21, 2011, Jacob wrote as follows:
*****
"[The Salt Lake Tribune article] has some interesting comments from Steve Noyce in it. He says: "I don't have any problem with people being an advocate for American Sign Language" and “I wish those who advocate for ASL wouldn't have a problem with those who advocate for listening-and-spoken language. My role is to support very strongly both programs equally." First of all, I think this statement clearly shows that he considers himself someone who is advocating for the LSL path. The last part is true that his role is to support both equally, but, since he wishes those who advocate for ASL did not have such a problem with those who advocate LSL (Steve Noyce), he does not strongly support both. This is all I have been asking for from the beginning, is someone who is more moderate [than] our [current] superintendent. He or she should not have strong feelings one-way or the other but instead should truly support the choices for parents. Steve Noyce also says that he hopes that the two tracks will empower parents, but in reality, they take that power away from parents. I can't speak for everyone, but I sure felt empowered as I was told by USDB after we chose ASL that we would no longer receive the auditory and speech therapy Eliza needed. I felt even more empowered as I heard from USDB employees that because we had chosen ASL for our daughter, she would not be considered a candidate for a cochlear implant. You're right, Noyce, this two-track system is very empowering. What was the most empowering was how I sent emails to Noyce and Day Mullings [Director of PIP] and got no responses. Made me feel like king of the world. Let's be honest, if you are choosing LSL, the new two-track system is very empowering, but if you want a bilingual-bicultural approach, the new system is anything but empowering. I support any plan where all parents are truly empowered” (Jacob Dietz, personal communication, February 21, 2010).
Over the past decade, listening-and-spoken language education has become increasingly popular, largely due to the advancements in cochlear implants and digital hearing aids. These technologies have enabled many to improve or restore their hearing. Mr. Noyce, a proponent of this shift, remarked, "Cochlear implants changed everything. Kids can identify sounds 20 feet away. Some of these kids can hear whispers. I think it's miraculous what technology has done" (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, February 21, 2011).
However, the Core Group observed concerns regarding Superintendent Noyce's assertion that such technology "restores hearing." Dr. J. Freeman King, a professor of Deaf Education at Utah State University, pointed out that while technological aids can be beneficial, they do not fully meet the expectations set by Noyce. Specifically, Dr. King emphasized that children with cochlear implants or hearing aids are, at best, still considered hard of hearing, rather than fully hearing.
Additionally, there are restrictions on the effective use of these devices. This misconception can lead families, educators, and society to treat affected individuals as though they experience normal hearing, which can create challenges. Dr. King advocated for sign language as a beneficial alternative, noting that it can be introduced early, even before children are fitted with audiological devices. He highlighted that sign language allows for immediate communication needs to be met, whereas spoken language can be hindered by technological constraints and environmental factors (UAD PowerPoint, p. 3–4).
As Superintendent Noyce restructured the PIP staff, all specialists received training in either LSL or ASL/English. As of February 2011, 74% of the parents in the program had chosen LSL, 15% had selected ASL, and the remainder were undecided. There were 170 infants and toddlers enrolled in the program, and the number of trained LSL specialists was twice that of ASL specialists. This decision was made to meet the parental demand for speech and auditory services (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, February 21, 2011).
Jacob Dietz was surprised by a statistic he encountered in a Salt Lake Tribune article. In his blog, he shared his thoughts on the data, noting that 74% of infants in PIP are on the LSL path, 15% on the ASL path, and 10% are undecided. He expressed a desire to speak with parents who chose the oral route to understand their decision-making process, particularly regarding the lack of a true bilingual/bicultural option. Jacob emphasized that he respected their choices but questioned whether some parents felt pressured to select the LSL path due to fears about accessing speech services and concerns about communicating with their Deaf or hard-of-hearing children. He reflected on how challenging it would be to feel cut off from his child if he were told that choosing ASL would limit their ability to communicate vocally. He recognized that under such circumstances, he might have made the same choice as those parents, especially with a limited timeframe (Jacob Dietz, personal communication, February 21, 2011).
Advocates for ASL/English bilingual education argue that infants and toddlers should have ample time to explore their skills in both signing and speaking. This approach allows parents to make informed choices based on their child's strengths as either a visual or auditory learner. For example, Jill Radford, a Deaf individual and principal of the Jean Massieu School, posed an important question to reporter Rosemary Winters via email: "How do parents know which language the child needs?" While Jill supports parental choice, she emphasizes that ultimately, it should reflect the child's needs. She points out that families often choose the communication method that is most convenient for them—typically listening and spoken language (LSL)—rather than what might be best for the child. These choices can result in a lack of alignment with the child's innate communication style (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, February 21, 2011).
Before the PIP was split into two tracks, parents had the flexibility to select services individually, accessing support from both speech therapists and Deaf mentors, as noted by Jacob Dietz, a hearing parent of two young children with hearing loss. After the changes were implemented when Steven Noyce became superintendent in 2009, Jacob observed that parents at the USD were forced to choose between two predetermined options. He expressed frustration, stating, "It's not individualized at all" (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, February 21, 2011).
The school emphasized the urgency of making early choices, which limited parents' options, particularly those who wanted their children to learn both ASL and speech. Additionally, discussions with parents, including Jocab Dietz, revealed a concerning trend: when parents opted for ASL during the orientation, they often found that their speech services were removed. The move felt punitive, as it seemed that there was a bias towards LSL under Superintendent Noyce, making Jocab's experience a clear example of this issue.
Superintendent Noyce refuted accusations that his financial decisions were biased toward listening-and-spoken-language (LSL) students, noting that their educational costs were significantly lower. On average, the cost of an LSL education from infancy to graduation is $121,000, compared to $288,000 for an ASL/English bilingual education. This discrepancy is mainly because the LSL program aims to reintegrate students into mainstream public schools as soon as they meet grade-level listening and speaking skills. Additionally, the LSL program leverages free classroom space in existing public schools to provide education for these students (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, February 21, 2011).
The Core Group believed that a February 2011 article by Rosemary Winters painted Superintendent Noyce as a misunderstood victim. However, they felt that he couldn't move past his background as an oral educator for the deaf. They collectively agreed that if PIP had informed parents about the availability of speech services, many would have opted for the ASL/English bilingual program. There was pervasive distrust of Superintendent Noyce, with the group suspecting that he intentionally removed speech services to push families toward the LSL program, which undermined confidence in leadership.
The Core Group expressed ongoing concerns about the implementation of dual-track and two-track educational programs at the Utah School for the Deaf. This continuing dialogue recalls past controversies dating back to 1962, when the Utah State Board of Education adopted a similar framework for Deaf education. Superintendent Noyce's recent restructuring of the PIP appears to favor the LSL approach, which echoes the ineffective "Y" system of the 1960s and 1970s. The Core Group believed that the restrictions on educational services from 2009 to 2011 were harmful to children, leading to significant challenges for both parents and the Utah Deaf community.
By 2011, the Utah School for the Deaf was offering LSL methods alongside an ASL/English bilingual program. However, the Core Group highlighted a recurring theme: the dilemma of teaching Deaf children to communicate orally versus providing them with their native language and culture for a meaningful educational experience. Although Superintendent Noyce took pride in USD's unique positioning of offering both program types, the Core Group argued that many state schools rely on research to guide their programs. They stressed that an exclusive focus on speech is inadequate for a comprehensive education and advocated balanced, research-informed approaches.
The Core Group viewed oral Deaf schools nationwide as predominantly private institutions and raised concerns about whether a state-funded school like USD should offer both educational pathways. They suggested that public neighborhood schools could effectively accommodate Deaf and hard-of-hearing students seeking purely oral therapies. However, the Core Group emphasized that both options at USD should be equally represented and recommended following "The National Agenda: Moving Forward on Achieving Educational Equality for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students," a document from April 2005 that aims to fix unfairness in how schools handle education, placement, communication, and services for these students. They expressed particular concern over Superintendent Noyce's gradual reduction in funding for the ASL/English bilingual program, especially as support for the LSL program increased.
Ultimately, the Core Group identified Superintendent Noyce, who had previously been a student in Dr. Grant B. Bitter's oral training program, as an obstacle to the future development of the ASL/English bilingual program at the Utah School for the Deaf. They expressed a desire for a successor who would support continued progress without reverting to previous methods, promoting a more inclusive educational approach.
As Superintendent Noyce restructured the PIP staff, all specialists received training in either LSL or ASL/English. As of February 2011, 74% of the parents in the program had chosen LSL, 15% had selected ASL, and the remainder were undecided. There were 170 infants and toddlers enrolled in the program, and the number of trained LSL specialists was twice that of ASL specialists. This decision was made to meet the parental demand for speech and auditory services (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, February 21, 2011).According to Jacob Dietz, since becoming superintendent in 2009, Steven Noyce has aimed to establish the Utah School for the Deaf as one of the top state-run oral programs in the nation. Meanwhile, Dr. White advocated for the passage of HB 1367 in the Indiana Legislature, despite opposition from the Indiana Deaf community, with significant implications for Deaf education.
Many advocates for bilingual education expressed concerns that Superintendent Noyce, with a background in oral education, might prioritize the LSL program at the expense of traditional Deaf education in ASL. They argued that ASL is more accessible to visual learners, strengthens the Deaf community, and supports a Deaf identity. (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, February 21, 2011). Launched in the spring of 2010, the Utah Deaf Education Core Group, made up of parents and members of the Utah Deaf community, noted that while Superintendent Noyce claims to support family choice, his actions have limited options. For example, if parents in the PIP program opt for ASL, speech services are removed; conversely, choosing LSL means losing signing services. Many parents, however, expressed a desire for both LSL and ASL options.
It was surprising to read this information in the Tribune article: "Noyce said ASL teachers in the infant program—like those in the preschool and K-12--are trained to teach 'oracy,' along with sign language and English literacy. Oracy includes listening, speaking, and reading lips." (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, February 21, 2011). Little did parents know that oracy was part of the ASL/English bilingual program. No one at the school had made that clear. The parent thought they had to pick one or the other, and many hearing parents were persuaded by USD staff to choose the LSL program so their child could receive speech services.
Superintendent Noyce expressed support for both ASL and LSL advocates, stating, "I don't have any problem with people being an advocate for American Sign Language. I wish those who advocate for ASL wouldn't have a problem with those who advocate for listening-and-spoken language. My role is to support very strongly both programs equally." However, the Core Group argued that he lacks a sufficient understanding of the Deaf signing community to advocate effectively for their needs, highlighting a disconnect in his approach.
Jacob Dietz, a hearing father of two Deaf children, also reacted to the same statement made by Superintendent Noyce. In his blog post dated February 21, 2011, Jacob wrote as follows:
*****
"[The Salt Lake Tribune article] has some interesting comments from Steve Noyce in it. He says: "I don't have any problem with people being an advocate for American Sign Language" and “I wish those who advocate for ASL wouldn't have a problem with those who advocate for listening-and-spoken language. My role is to support very strongly both programs equally." First of all, I think this statement clearly shows that he considers himself someone who is advocating for the LSL path. The last part is true that his role is to support both equally, but, since he wishes those who advocate for ASL did not have such a problem with those who advocate LSL (Steve Noyce), he does not strongly support both. This is all I have been asking for from the beginning, is someone who is more moderate [than] our [current] superintendent. He or she should not have strong feelings one-way or the other but instead should truly support the choices for parents. Steve Noyce also says that he hopes that the two tracks will empower parents, but in reality, they take that power away from parents. I can't speak for everyone, but I sure felt empowered as I was told by USDB after we chose ASL that we would no longer receive the auditory and speech therapy Eliza needed. I felt even more empowered as I heard from USDB employees that because we had chosen ASL for our daughter, she would not be considered a candidate for a cochlear implant. You're right, Noyce, this two-track system is very empowering. What was the most empowering was how I sent emails to Noyce and Day Mullings [Director of PIP] and got no responses. Made me feel like king of the world. Let's be honest, if you are choosing LSL, the new two-track system is very empowering, but if you want a bilingual-bicultural approach, the new system is anything but empowering. I support any plan where all parents are truly empowered” (Jacob Dietz, personal communication, February 21, 2010).
Over the past decade, listening-and-spoken language education has become increasingly popular, largely due to the advancements in cochlear implants and digital hearing aids. These technologies have enabled many to improve or restore their hearing. Mr. Noyce, a proponent of this shift, remarked, "Cochlear implants changed everything. Kids can identify sounds 20 feet away. Some of these kids can hear whispers. I think it's miraculous what technology has done" (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, February 21, 2011).
However, the Core Group observed concerns regarding Superintendent Noyce's assertion that such technology "restores hearing." Dr. J. Freeman King, a professor of Deaf Education at Utah State University, pointed out that while technological aids can be beneficial, they do not fully meet the expectations set by Noyce. Specifically, Dr. King emphasized that children with cochlear implants or hearing aids are, at best, still considered hard of hearing, rather than fully hearing.
Additionally, there are restrictions on the effective use of these devices. This misconception can lead families, educators, and society to treat affected individuals as though they experience normal hearing, which can create challenges. Dr. King advocated for sign language as a beneficial alternative, noting that it can be introduced early, even before children are fitted with audiological devices. He highlighted that sign language allows for immediate communication needs to be met, whereas spoken language can be hindered by technological constraints and environmental factors (UAD PowerPoint, p. 3–4).
As Superintendent Noyce restructured the PIP staff, all specialists received training in either LSL or ASL/English. As of February 2011, 74% of the parents in the program had chosen LSL, 15% had selected ASL, and the remainder were undecided. There were 170 infants and toddlers enrolled in the program, and the number of trained LSL specialists was twice that of ASL specialists. This decision was made to meet the parental demand for speech and auditory services (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, February 21, 2011).
Jacob Dietz was surprised by a statistic he encountered in a Salt Lake Tribune article. In his blog, he shared his thoughts on the data, noting that 74% of infants in PIP are on the LSL path, 15% on the ASL path, and 10% are undecided. He expressed a desire to speak with parents who chose the oral route to understand their decision-making process, particularly regarding the lack of a true bilingual/bicultural option. Jacob emphasized that he respected their choices but questioned whether some parents felt pressured to select the LSL path due to fears about accessing speech services and concerns about communicating with their Deaf or hard-of-hearing children. He reflected on how challenging it would be to feel cut off from his child if he were told that choosing ASL would limit their ability to communicate vocally. He recognized that under such circumstances, he might have made the same choice as those parents, especially with a limited timeframe (Jacob Dietz, personal communication, February 21, 2011).
Advocates for ASL/English bilingual education argue that infants and toddlers should have ample time to explore their skills in both signing and speaking. This approach allows parents to make informed choices based on their child's strengths as either a visual or auditory learner. For example, Jill Radford, a Deaf individual and principal of the Jean Massieu School, posed an important question to reporter Rosemary Winters via email: "How do parents know which language the child needs?" While Jill supports parental choice, she emphasizes that ultimately, it should reflect the child's needs. She points out that families often choose the communication method that is most convenient for them—typically listening and spoken language (LSL)—rather than what might be best for the child. These choices can result in a lack of alignment with the child's innate communication style (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, February 21, 2011).
Before the PIP was split into two tracks, parents had the flexibility to select services individually, accessing support from both speech therapists and Deaf mentors, as noted by Jacob Dietz, a hearing parent of two young children with hearing loss. After the changes were implemented when Steven Noyce became superintendent in 2009, Jacob observed that parents at the USD were forced to choose between two predetermined options. He expressed frustration, stating, "It's not individualized at all" (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, February 21, 2011).
The school emphasized the urgency of making early choices, which limited parents' options, particularly those who wanted their children to learn both ASL and speech. Additionally, discussions with parents, including Jocab Dietz, revealed a concerning trend: when parents opted for ASL during the orientation, they often found that their speech services were removed. The move felt punitive, as it seemed that there was a bias towards LSL under Superintendent Noyce, making Jocab's experience a clear example of this issue.
Superintendent Noyce refuted accusations that his financial decisions were biased toward listening-and-spoken-language (LSL) students, noting that their educational costs were significantly lower. On average, the cost of an LSL education from infancy to graduation is $121,000, compared to $288,000 for an ASL/English bilingual education. This discrepancy is mainly because the LSL program aims to reintegrate students into mainstream public schools as soon as they meet grade-level listening and speaking skills. Additionally, the LSL program leverages free classroom space in existing public schools to provide education for these students (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, February 21, 2011).
The Core Group believed that a February 2011 article by Rosemary Winters painted Superintendent Noyce as a misunderstood victim. However, they felt that he couldn't move past his background as an oral educator for the deaf. They collectively agreed that if PIP had informed parents about the availability of speech services, many would have opted for the ASL/English bilingual program. There was pervasive distrust of Superintendent Noyce, with the group suspecting that he intentionally removed speech services to push families toward the LSL program, which undermined confidence in leadership.
The Core Group expressed ongoing concerns about the implementation of dual-track and two-track educational programs at the Utah School for the Deaf. This continuing dialogue recalls past controversies dating back to 1962, when the Utah State Board of Education adopted a similar framework for Deaf education. Superintendent Noyce's recent restructuring of the PIP appears to favor the LSL approach, which echoes the ineffective "Y" system of the 1960s and 1970s. The Core Group believed that the restrictions on educational services from 2009 to 2011 were harmful to children, leading to significant challenges for both parents and the Utah Deaf community.
By 2011, the Utah School for the Deaf was offering LSL methods alongside an ASL/English bilingual program. However, the Core Group highlighted a recurring theme: the dilemma of teaching Deaf children to communicate orally versus providing them with their native language and culture for a meaningful educational experience. Although Superintendent Noyce took pride in USD's unique positioning of offering both program types, the Core Group argued that many state schools rely on research to guide their programs. They stressed that an exclusive focus on speech is inadequate for a comprehensive education and advocated balanced, research-informed approaches.
The Core Group viewed oral Deaf schools nationwide as predominantly private institutions and raised concerns about whether a state-funded school like USD should offer both educational pathways. They suggested that public neighborhood schools could effectively accommodate Deaf and hard-of-hearing students seeking purely oral therapies. However, the Core Group emphasized that both options at USD should be equally represented and recommended following "The National Agenda: Moving Forward on Achieving Educational Equality for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students," a document from April 2005 that aims to fix unfairness in how schools handle education, placement, communication, and services for these students. They expressed particular concern over Superintendent Noyce's gradual reduction in funding for the ASL/English bilingual program, especially as support for the LSL program increased.
Ultimately, the Core Group identified Superintendent Noyce, who had previously been a student in Dr. Grant B. Bitter's oral training program, as an obstacle to the future development of the ASL/English bilingual program at the Utah School for the Deaf. They expressed a desire for a successor who would support continued progress without reverting to previous methods, promoting a more inclusive educational approach.
Did You Know?
Marvin T. Miller is a well-known leader in the Deaf community. He was best friends and roommates with a Utah native, Don Cochran, at the Model Secondary School for the Deaf in Washington, D.C. In 2004, Marvin aimed to fulfill his vision of creating a "signing town" called Laurent in South Dakota, inspired by the historical community in Martha's Vineyard. This town was intended to cater specifically to Deaf individuals and ASL users, was named after the famous Deaf educator Laurent Clerc.
While the project aimed to have its first residents move in by 2008, it encountered significant opposition from the Alexander Graham Bell Association and some residents, who opposed the idea of a separate Deaf community, arguing that integration into the broader society was more beneficial. Additionally, resident's concerns were raised regarding the project's feasibility and economic impact, complicating Marvin's efforts.
Following the unsuccessful attempt to establish Laurent Town and the closure of the South Dakota School for the Deaf, Marvin relocated to Indiana to seek better educational opportunities for his four Deaf children. Despite these setbacks, he remains committed to his dream of creating a signing town, exemplifying his resilience and commitment to fostering community among Deaf individuals.
While the project aimed to have its first residents move in by 2008, it encountered significant opposition from the Alexander Graham Bell Association and some residents, who opposed the idea of a separate Deaf community, arguing that integration into the broader society was more beneficial. Additionally, resident's concerns were raised regarding the project's feasibility and economic impact, complicating Marvin's efforts.
Following the unsuccessful attempt to establish Laurent Town and the closure of the South Dakota School for the Deaf, Marvin relocated to Indiana to seek better educational opportunities for his four Deaf children. Despite these setbacks, he remains committed to his dream of creating a signing town, exemplifying his resilience and commitment to fostering community among Deaf individuals.
Signing Town. Laurent, South Dakota. An overview by Marvin T. Miller
Completion of the 360-Degree Evaluation of
USDB Superintendent Steven W. Noyce
USDB Superintendent Steven W. Noyce
Following the USDB Advisory Council meeting on March 31, 2011, the 360-degree evaluation of Superintendent Steven W. Noyce was completed, with data collected from 147 out of 233 respondents, representing a 63% response rate. The Advisory Council reviewed the data and comments and presented its findings to the Utah State Board of Education on April 28, 2011. The State Board planned to make a final decision on May 5, 2011, to ensure all stakeholders understood the process and timeline involved in these decisions.
At the March Advisory Council meeting, Dr. Martell Menlove reported that 38 of 44 teachers responded to the survey, but the Advisory Council approved only 20 for evaluation. Michelle Tanner believed she had approached the selection of teachers fairly to avoid bias in the responses, and she was surprised by the unapproved addition of 24 teachers. She contacted Dave Rodemack to clarify the origin of the extra 24 teachers and received the list of 44 teachers' names (USBE Minutes/Meeting Recorder, April 1, 2011).
At the March Advisory Council meeting, Dr. Martell Menlove reported that 38 of 44 teachers responded to the survey, but the Advisory Council approved only 20 for evaluation. Michelle Tanner believed she had approached the selection of teachers fairly to avoid bias in the responses, and she was surprised by the unapproved addition of 24 teachers. She contacted Dave Rodemack to clarify the origin of the additional 24 teachers and received a list of 44 teacher names.
During the USBE meeting, Dave discussed a new category called "other stakeholders," which included individuals who did not fit into existing survey categories but were eager to contribute. Notably, a board member pointed out the disproportionate number of names associated with Utah State University (USU) compared to other institutions. Dave clarified that this result was largely due to the partnership between the Utah School for the Deaf and the Sound Beginnings program at USU.
To give some background, in 2008, the Utah State Legislature granted ongoing funding to Sound Beginnings to collaborate with the Utah School for the Deaf. This funding aimed to train educators and clinicians in developing LSL programs for children who are deaf or hard of hearing. The formal partnership between USU and the Utah School for the Deaf began in July 2010 and was highlighted in a presentation on April 28, 2011. This partnership led to USDB contributing $440,000 to Sound Beginnings and providing strong support to keep Mr. Noyce on the team.
Members of the Utah Deaf Education Core Group were amazed at how smoothly the partnership between Utah State University and the Utah Schools for the Deaf was established. Unlike the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf, which required extensive lobbying, this collaboration was developed with state funding and without the same level of difficulty.
This situation underscores the imbalance in resources allocated to Sound Beginnings compared to those allocated to the Jean Massieu School. Securing funding for Sound Beginnings was relatively straightforward. Superintendent Noyce granted $444,000 for Sound Beginnings, even as the Utah Schools for the Deaf faced a budget deficit. However, he did not allocate any funds for an ASL/English bilingual program or for the necessary playground for the students. Following 2015, this funding was discontinued to better enhance educational resources at the Utah School for the Deaf, which operates within the Cache School District and the Logan City School District, as further discussed in Part IV.
At the March Advisory Council meeting, Dr. Martell Menlove reported that 38 of 44 teachers responded to the survey, but the Advisory Council approved only 20 for evaluation. Michelle Tanner believed she had approached the selection of teachers fairly to avoid bias in the responses, and she was surprised by the unapproved addition of 24 teachers. She contacted Dave Rodemack to clarify the origin of the extra 24 teachers and received the list of 44 teachers' names (USBE Minutes/Meeting Recorder, April 1, 2011).
At the March Advisory Council meeting, Dr. Martell Menlove reported that 38 of 44 teachers responded to the survey, but the Advisory Council approved only 20 for evaluation. Michelle Tanner believed she had approached the selection of teachers fairly to avoid bias in the responses, and she was surprised by the unapproved addition of 24 teachers. She contacted Dave Rodemack to clarify the origin of the additional 24 teachers and received a list of 44 teacher names.
During the USBE meeting, Dave discussed a new category called "other stakeholders," which included individuals who did not fit into existing survey categories but were eager to contribute. Notably, a board member pointed out the disproportionate number of names associated with Utah State University (USU) compared to other institutions. Dave clarified that this result was largely due to the partnership between the Utah School for the Deaf and the Sound Beginnings program at USU.
To give some background, in 2008, the Utah State Legislature granted ongoing funding to Sound Beginnings to collaborate with the Utah School for the Deaf. This funding aimed to train educators and clinicians in developing LSL programs for children who are deaf or hard of hearing. The formal partnership between USU and the Utah School for the Deaf began in July 2010 and was highlighted in a presentation on April 28, 2011. This partnership led to USDB contributing $440,000 to Sound Beginnings and providing strong support to keep Mr. Noyce on the team.
Members of the Utah Deaf Education Core Group were amazed at how smoothly the partnership between Utah State University and the Utah Schools for the Deaf was established. Unlike the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf, which required extensive lobbying, this collaboration was developed with state funding and without the same level of difficulty.
This situation underscores the imbalance in resources allocated to Sound Beginnings compared to those allocated to the Jean Massieu School. Securing funding for Sound Beginnings was relatively straightforward. Superintendent Noyce granted $444,000 for Sound Beginnings, even as the Utah Schools for the Deaf faced a budget deficit. However, he did not allocate any funds for an ASL/English bilingual program or for the necessary playground for the students. Following 2015, this funding was discontinued to better enhance educational resources at the Utah School for the Deaf, which operates within the Cache School District and the Logan City School District, as further discussed in Part IV.
Sound Beginning PowerPoint, April 28, 2011
Advocacy Efforts from a Group
of Bilingual ASL/English Supporters
of Bilingual ASL/English Supporters
On April 28, 2011, the USDB Advisory Council was set to decide on Superintendent Steven Noyce's contract based on the 360-degree evaluation. A group of ASL/English bilingual teachers, parents, and members of the Deaf community attended the meeting to voice their opposition to the renewal of Superintendent Noyce's contract. The decision was made during an executive session, and the outcome was not disclosed due to personnel protection.
*****
After the Advisory Council meeting, Anissa Wardell posted the following letter on her blog:
Dear Advisory Council,
I am interested to hear what talks and decisions went on behind closed doors last Thursday; the public meeting notes do not share that information. As a parent of two hard of hearing/deaf children, I feel that the board is grossly under-represented for the LSL/Oral side. I am making a recommendation to USOE as well as USBE to add more representation. The fact that the A.C. is less than ten people (that vote) and most of them do not represent the needs of my children is very concerning. The Advisory Council's true motives are highly questionable and seem politically motivated.
It's also my opinion and the opinion of many LSL parents that our voices are not being heard when it comes to matters concerning USDB in regard to Superintendent Noyce (the 360 Review), Transportation, Furlough Days, etc. LSL parents represent 79% of USDB, yet the vocal 21% (the fat kids) are those who are influencing all the decisions. As parents, we all want the best for our children, and it seems that because many of us have been happy with the changes made in the last two years and haven't said anything that the vocal 21% (who are unhappy just in case you didn't know) are getting everything they want. The 21% get their brand new school, own bus for field trips, etc., new playground and just about anything they want.
There are just over 700 children in the outreach program, there are children in Sound Beginnings, USDB North, Central and South and all these parents will be contacted to hear what they have not been a part of, to hear that less than 1/4 of the schools population is determining what happens to the rest of us. I have been vocal for my children and the children in surrounding areas when it came to transportation a few years ago; I did not sit by idly waiting for things to happen. I will not sit idly by this time either. Many of the LSL parents have been contacted about recent issues, and we will be contacting them once again to stand and fight for what our children are in need of, and that is leadership and services.
I have gone to Senators and Legislators and all Utah media outlets in the past. I am prepared to do the same now. I highly suggest that the A.C. open up for more public comment…in fact, most parents do not know that this council even exists, I highly suggest that all students that are affected by this council have a letter sent home to inform parents of what this groups purpose is and what issues you currently have on the table. Allow us to ALL share with you, not just the vocal few.
Thank you!
Anissa Wardell (Anissa Wardell, personal communication, May 2, 2011).
*****
Anissa's comment about the majority versus minority echoes the views expressed by Margaret Heinrich in her article published in the Deseret News on June 16, 1970. In her article, Margaret noted that a small minority of parents in Salt Lake City disagreed with the majority who supported oral education. She hoped that both the USDB Governor's Advisory Council and the State Advisory Committee for the Handicapped would acknowledge the large majority of parents who favored the current approach to their children's education (Heinrich, Deseret News, June 16, 1970). Despite widespread parental support for Superintendent Noyce, a small group of advocates for ASL/English bilingual education continued to voice their concerns.
*****
After the Advisory Council meeting, Anissa Wardell posted the following letter on her blog:
Dear Advisory Council,
I am interested to hear what talks and decisions went on behind closed doors last Thursday; the public meeting notes do not share that information. As a parent of two hard of hearing/deaf children, I feel that the board is grossly under-represented for the LSL/Oral side. I am making a recommendation to USOE as well as USBE to add more representation. The fact that the A.C. is less than ten people (that vote) and most of them do not represent the needs of my children is very concerning. The Advisory Council's true motives are highly questionable and seem politically motivated.
It's also my opinion and the opinion of many LSL parents that our voices are not being heard when it comes to matters concerning USDB in regard to Superintendent Noyce (the 360 Review), Transportation, Furlough Days, etc. LSL parents represent 79% of USDB, yet the vocal 21% (the fat kids) are those who are influencing all the decisions. As parents, we all want the best for our children, and it seems that because many of us have been happy with the changes made in the last two years and haven't said anything that the vocal 21% (who are unhappy just in case you didn't know) are getting everything they want. The 21% get their brand new school, own bus for field trips, etc., new playground and just about anything they want.
There are just over 700 children in the outreach program, there are children in Sound Beginnings, USDB North, Central and South and all these parents will be contacted to hear what they have not been a part of, to hear that less than 1/4 of the schools population is determining what happens to the rest of us. I have been vocal for my children and the children in surrounding areas when it came to transportation a few years ago; I did not sit by idly waiting for things to happen. I will not sit idly by this time either. Many of the LSL parents have been contacted about recent issues, and we will be contacting them once again to stand and fight for what our children are in need of, and that is leadership and services.
I have gone to Senators and Legislators and all Utah media outlets in the past. I am prepared to do the same now. I highly suggest that the A.C. open up for more public comment…in fact, most parents do not know that this council even exists, I highly suggest that all students that are affected by this council have a letter sent home to inform parents of what this groups purpose is and what issues you currently have on the table. Allow us to ALL share with you, not just the vocal few.
Thank you!
Anissa Wardell (Anissa Wardell, personal communication, May 2, 2011).
*****
Anissa's comment about the majority versus minority echoes the views expressed by Margaret Heinrich in her article published in the Deseret News on June 16, 1970. In her article, Margaret noted that a small minority of parents in Salt Lake City disagreed with the majority who supported oral education. She hoped that both the USDB Governor's Advisory Council and the State Advisory Committee for the Handicapped would acknowledge the large majority of parents who favored the current approach to their children's education (Heinrich, Deseret News, June 16, 1970). Despite widespread parental support for Superintendent Noyce, a small group of advocates for ASL/English bilingual education continued to voice their concerns.
The Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind Implement
Furloughs to Recover Financial Losses
Furloughs to Recover Financial Losses
In 2011, USDB faced a $600,000 budget shortfall due to misallocations, compounded by furloughs and lapses in oversight. Superintendent Noyce failed to collect the mandated 3% funding from school districts for USDB services (Farmer, The Salt Lake Tribune, April 19, 2011; Rolly, The Salt Lake Tribune, June 7, 2011). As a result, when the school districts did not meet their financial obligations, the $600,000 shortfall was deducted from USDB's budget at the end of the legislative session on March 10. Furloughs also forced the USDB teachers to take three days off. Representative Karen Morgan, D-Cottonwood Heights, who had previously assisted in funding a playground for Jean Massieu School, was taken aback upon discovering the missing funds. She was surprised by the absence of these funds, and no clear explanation was provided, raising concerns about oversight and accountability (Rolly, The Salt Lake Tribune, June 7, 2011).
Several members of the USDB Advisory Council expressed their belief that more transparent oversight could have prevented this situation. They also questioned certain expenditures, such as the $440,000 allocated to Sound Beginnings in the Logan area, raising concerns about transparency in spending. Some Advisory Council members suggested that Utah State University should cover those costs instead of USDB (Jeff W. Pollock, personal communication, April 1, 2011). Notably, Superintendent Noyce did not deny the claim that USDB funded Sound Beginnings.
Several members of the USDB Advisory Council expressed their belief that more transparent oversight could have prevented this situation. They also questioned certain expenditures, such as the $440,000 allocated to Sound Beginnings in the Logan area, raising concerns about transparency in spending. Some Advisory Council members suggested that Utah State University should cover those costs instead of USDB (Jeff W. Pollock, personal communication, April 1, 2011). Notably, Superintendent Noyce did not deny the claim that USDB funded Sound Beginnings.
Jacob Dietz's Letter to
the USDB Advisory Council
the USDB Advisory Council
When the Utah Deaf Education Core Group addressed Mr. Noyce's job performance as superintendent, he alienated many, including members of the Utah Deaf community. His actions incited further infighting by raising contentious issues regarding the Listening and Spoken Language and American Sign Language/English bilingual programs—more than any other superintendent has done so far. Jacob Dietz effectively summarized these concerns in a concise letter to the USDB Advisory Council. His letter served as a firm rebuttal, identifying numerous problems caused by Noyce, such as biases and fiscal irresponsibility during his administration.
*****
Dear Members of the Advisory Council, April 21, 2011
I would like to take some time as a concerned parent to discuss what Steve Noyce has accomplished over the last year and a half as our Superintendent. I hope this letter finds you at this critical time as you review his recent 360 surveys.
In the time that Steve Noyce has been Superintendent at USDB, he has developed our school into one of the premier state-run oral programs in the nation. This can be evidenced by the fact that he has been invited to numerous events throughout the country to talk about the LSL program in our state. I believe he has one more to Delaware where he will be the keynote speaker on this subject. There is no doubt that the oral program has flourished under Steve Noyce. He has spared no expense here, by building a new therapy center in Ogden for the LSL pip kids and parents to come to, as well as bringing some top professionals in the oral field, like Day Mullings, who is the director of the Deaf PIP. She also has been recognized as one of the best in her field.
But what about the blind kids? To Steve Noyce's own admission, the blind kids remain in deplorable conditions in some of their classrooms. He points out that it could very well be a fire hazard to have all of their needed walkers and other mobility equipment in the halls of their little portable classroom. If their conditions are so bad, why is it that the LSL kids are getting some new center in Ogden where they and their parents can come and see what life is like for them, but we have done nothing to improve things for the blind kids?
As Steve Noyce continues to promote himself and his model LSL program throughout the country, how are things going home? Since Steve Noyce has been Superintendent, relations between USDB and the Deaf community have never been worse. When asked about this, Steve seems to have the attitude that he doesn't really care what they think and that his community is out to get him. He dismisses their concerns as it being none of their business because they don't have kids in the program. This wrong. There are many in the Deaf community who do have kids in USDB. In addition to that, those I have had contact within the Deaf community are concerned because they don't want this generation to have the same struggles as they did. They understand that a quality education is a key to a successful and bright future for any child. They fight for all Deaf children because they see them as their future. It is their business, yet Steve Noyce continues to try to distance himself from them.
Since Steve Noyce has been our Superintendent, we have seen outside attacks on USDB, the most recent being the vote by the State Board of Education to possibly close down USDB. This was fought by the community, and the notion was taken off the table, but I wonder, under what other Superintendents has this option been presented? Under what other Superintendents, has it ever happened that they have voted to close the school?
Since Steve Noyce has been Superintendent, USDB has had to face a major budget shortfall. Over half a million dollars. This has affected staffing and budgets throughout the program. This was a result of a rule the State Board passed in 2009, that went retroactive and charged some districts for services provided by USDB, and then by USDB not being able to collect those funds, thus creating the shortfall. If this rule was nonexistent before that time, and the school districts were not planning on being billed for their services, then why did Steve Noyce include this in the budget, to begin with?
Now, not only is USDB short staffed as a result, but our kids will now suffer, almost all of them will miss three days of school because of the furloughs. Not to mention how this will affect the teachers and other staff at USDB. I wonder if we had not planned on this money coming in because it never had before, would we have ended up with a surplus, that could have been used to help with new facilities for the blind kids?
Since Steve Noyce has been the Superintendent, we have seen numerous staff changes at USDB. Many people have been laid off. This does have more to do with the current economic situation than with Steve Noyce. However, there have also been numerous members of USDB staff who have left, or who are contemplating leaving because of Steve Noyce. I believe this shows a solid track record of not working well with those who do not agree with him. I think it shows a lack of leadership and management skills.
In short, since Steve Noyce has been Superintendent at USDB, I, as a parent, have only seen a track record of mismanagement and blunders. Other than the booming success of the LSL program, I do not see vast improvements anywhere else. Yes, JMS is in a new school, but that process was already started and finalized before Steve Noyce came in. The relations with the school board have worsened to the point that they almost closed us down, relations with the Deaf community have worsened to the point that either side cannot talk with the other. There has been numerous and large budget and money issues. This does not look to me like quality work.
Thank you for your time for reading this letter.
Sincerely
Jacob Dietz (Jacob Dietz, personal communication, April 25, 2011).
*****
Dear Members of the Advisory Council, April 21, 2011
I would like to take some time as a concerned parent to discuss what Steve Noyce has accomplished over the last year and a half as our Superintendent. I hope this letter finds you at this critical time as you review his recent 360 surveys.
In the time that Steve Noyce has been Superintendent at USDB, he has developed our school into one of the premier state-run oral programs in the nation. This can be evidenced by the fact that he has been invited to numerous events throughout the country to talk about the LSL program in our state. I believe he has one more to Delaware where he will be the keynote speaker on this subject. There is no doubt that the oral program has flourished under Steve Noyce. He has spared no expense here, by building a new therapy center in Ogden for the LSL pip kids and parents to come to, as well as bringing some top professionals in the oral field, like Day Mullings, who is the director of the Deaf PIP. She also has been recognized as one of the best in her field.
But what about the blind kids? To Steve Noyce's own admission, the blind kids remain in deplorable conditions in some of their classrooms. He points out that it could very well be a fire hazard to have all of their needed walkers and other mobility equipment in the halls of their little portable classroom. If their conditions are so bad, why is it that the LSL kids are getting some new center in Ogden where they and their parents can come and see what life is like for them, but we have done nothing to improve things for the blind kids?
As Steve Noyce continues to promote himself and his model LSL program throughout the country, how are things going home? Since Steve Noyce has been Superintendent, relations between USDB and the Deaf community have never been worse. When asked about this, Steve seems to have the attitude that he doesn't really care what they think and that his community is out to get him. He dismisses their concerns as it being none of their business because they don't have kids in the program. This wrong. There are many in the Deaf community who do have kids in USDB. In addition to that, those I have had contact within the Deaf community are concerned because they don't want this generation to have the same struggles as they did. They understand that a quality education is a key to a successful and bright future for any child. They fight for all Deaf children because they see them as their future. It is their business, yet Steve Noyce continues to try to distance himself from them.
Since Steve Noyce has been our Superintendent, we have seen outside attacks on USDB, the most recent being the vote by the State Board of Education to possibly close down USDB. This was fought by the community, and the notion was taken off the table, but I wonder, under what other Superintendents has this option been presented? Under what other Superintendents, has it ever happened that they have voted to close the school?
Since Steve Noyce has been Superintendent, USDB has had to face a major budget shortfall. Over half a million dollars. This has affected staffing and budgets throughout the program. This was a result of a rule the State Board passed in 2009, that went retroactive and charged some districts for services provided by USDB, and then by USDB not being able to collect those funds, thus creating the shortfall. If this rule was nonexistent before that time, and the school districts were not planning on being billed for their services, then why did Steve Noyce include this in the budget, to begin with?
Now, not only is USDB short staffed as a result, but our kids will now suffer, almost all of them will miss three days of school because of the furloughs. Not to mention how this will affect the teachers and other staff at USDB. I wonder if we had not planned on this money coming in because it never had before, would we have ended up with a surplus, that could have been used to help with new facilities for the blind kids?
Since Steve Noyce has been the Superintendent, we have seen numerous staff changes at USDB. Many people have been laid off. This does have more to do with the current economic situation than with Steve Noyce. However, there have also been numerous members of USDB staff who have left, or who are contemplating leaving because of Steve Noyce. I believe this shows a solid track record of not working well with those who do not agree with him. I think it shows a lack of leadership and management skills.
In short, since Steve Noyce has been Superintendent at USDB, I, as a parent, have only seen a track record of mismanagement and blunders. Other than the booming success of the LSL program, I do not see vast improvements anywhere else. Yes, JMS is in a new school, but that process was already started and finalized before Steve Noyce came in. The relations with the school board have worsened to the point that they almost closed us down, relations with the Deaf community have worsened to the point that either side cannot talk with the other. There has been numerous and large budget and money issues. This does not look to me like quality work.
Thank you for your time for reading this letter.
Sincerely
Jacob Dietz (Jacob Dietz, personal communication, April 25, 2011).
A Vigil to Oust the USDB
Superintendent Steven W. Noyce
Superintendent Steven W. Noyce
On May 5, 2011, the Utah Deaf community and parents united in concern about Superintendent Noyce's contract renewal, showing their collective commitment to Deaf education. Approximately 50 parents from the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf organized a peaceful vigil outside the board meeting, expressing their hope for equality in Deaf education at the Utah School for the Deaf. This vigil called for the removal of USDB Superintendent Noyce, who had been appointed in August 2009 with a minimum tenure of two years. At the request of Deaf education activists, the State Board conducted a comprehensive 360-degree evaluation of his job performance, including feedback from both staff and parents, to assess his effectiveness as a leader (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, May 5, 2011).
The Utah School for the Deaf faced tensions between its two educational programs: ASL, which teaches English as a second language, and LSL, which uses new technologies to help Deaf children listen and speak without signing. These differing educational philosophies created a divide, with some advocating for the traditional ASL approach and others supporting the innovative LSL program (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, May 5, 2011).
Supporters of the ASL/English bilingual program gathered at the State Board to demand the removal of Superintendent Noyce for favoring and promoting the LSL program. They argued that the ASL approach was more inclusive and effective in Deaf education. Meanwhile, parents supporting the LSL approach gathered 395 signatures in a petition supporting Superintendent Noyce. These parents claimed that the LSL program was an innovative method that enabled their children to communicate more effectively (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, May 5, 2011).
On May 4th, 2011, Anissa Wardell posted a petition developed by the LSL community on her blog, as follows:
*****
To the Utah State Board of Education & Utah Office of Education: A Petition
We, the parents and supporters of LSL (Listening & Spoken Language), are aware that the Utah Deaf Education Core Group is planning to stage a protest at the Utah State Office of Education on Thursday, May 5, 2011, beginning at 2:30, and the press has been invited. The intent of the vigil, according to their announcement, is to share with the State Board of Education their firm belief that the state of Utah "… is not keeping up with current 'best practices' in teaching deaf children' and that many parents, as well as deaf education professionals, are unhappy with Utah's current programs.
As parents & supporters of LSL children, promote the use of the latest hearing technologies and the development of spoken language as the deaf child's primary means of communication. However, recognizing that no one communication methodology works for all deaf children, the LSL Parent Support Group strongly supports parent choice. We believe that selection of the communication system used by a family is a personal one based on both the desires of parents and needs of the child. It should be noted that approximately 95% of children with hearing loss are born to hearing and speaking families.
The Utah Deaf Education Core group advocates the use of American Sign Language (ASL) for all deaf children regardless of the severity of hearing loss, and the development of English Bilingualism.
The majority of deaf children in Utah are educated in programs provided by Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind (USDB). USDB provides a dual track system, supporting both American Sign Language (ASL) and Listening and Spoken Language (LSL) programs. According to USDB's Annual Report to the Legislative Interim Committee November 2010, 79% of all students served by USD are using Listening and Spoken Language, 14% of all students served by USD are using ASL. The ASL group is in the minority.
USDB Superintendent Steve Noyce's stated goal is to provide exemplary, research-based, 'best practice' programs for both ASL and LSL students. The Deaf Core Group's major contention is that Superintendent Noyce, because of his educational background, is biased in favor of Listening and Spoken Language (LSL), and thereby incapable of providing best practice programs for ASL.
We believe Steve Noyce works tirelessly in his efforts to reach his stated goal and provides equal support to both programs. We believe that the Deaf Community, represented by the UDEC will never be happy with USDB's educational programs unless all deaf children use ASL. We, as parents and supporters of LSL, have chosen for our children to be part of the mainstream community. We do NOT want our rights as parents to choose a Listening and Spoken Language option for our children, and the rights of our children to speak for themselves, diminished or eliminated by this militant group.
Anissa Wardell, LSL Parent Support Group. As a community, we offer our support to our superintendent and ask that our voices be heard on this matter (Anissa Wardell, personal communication, May 4, 2011).
*****
Jennifer Jackson, whose ninth-grade son, Bryce, attended JMS, participated in a protest carrying a bright pink sign that read, "Permanent furlough for Steve Noyce." This sign referred to three furlough days that Noyce had recently announced to address a $600,000 budget shortfall for the Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, May 5, 2011). Jennifer expressed her worries about Bryce's future at JMS, saying he had "flourished" during his 11 years there, but now he was "scared to death that he is not going to have a school" (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, May 5, 2011).
Jennifer feared that Superintendent Noyce was discouraging parents from the American Sign Language (ASL) program and that JMS might eventually close due to declining enrollment. Over 70 percent of parents had opted for Listening and Spoken Language (LSL) approaches for their children, many of whom had cochlear implants. Although Noyce claimed to have supported the school and noted an increase in enrollment during the 2010-2011 school year—after adding high school grades, which parents had requested for years—enrollment has not increased since then (Jill Radford, personal communication, July 8, 2011).
Additionally, Superintendent Noyce stated, "The purpose of the protesters is to demonstrate that ASL should be part of the program for every child with a hearing loss. I can't support that; it needs to be an option for every family. But I don't think every family should have to choose that as their only option" (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, May 5, 2011).
The Utah School for the Deaf faced tensions between its two educational programs: ASL, which teaches English as a second language, and LSL, which uses new technologies to help Deaf children listen and speak without signing. These differing educational philosophies created a divide, with some advocating for the traditional ASL approach and others supporting the innovative LSL program (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, May 5, 2011).
Supporters of the ASL/English bilingual program gathered at the State Board to demand the removal of Superintendent Noyce for favoring and promoting the LSL program. They argued that the ASL approach was more inclusive and effective in Deaf education. Meanwhile, parents supporting the LSL approach gathered 395 signatures in a petition supporting Superintendent Noyce. These parents claimed that the LSL program was an innovative method that enabled their children to communicate more effectively (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, May 5, 2011).
On May 4th, 2011, Anissa Wardell posted a petition developed by the LSL community on her blog, as follows:
*****
To the Utah State Board of Education & Utah Office of Education: A Petition
We, the parents and supporters of LSL (Listening & Spoken Language), are aware that the Utah Deaf Education Core Group is planning to stage a protest at the Utah State Office of Education on Thursday, May 5, 2011, beginning at 2:30, and the press has been invited. The intent of the vigil, according to their announcement, is to share with the State Board of Education their firm belief that the state of Utah "… is not keeping up with current 'best practices' in teaching deaf children' and that many parents, as well as deaf education professionals, are unhappy with Utah's current programs.
As parents & supporters of LSL children, promote the use of the latest hearing technologies and the development of spoken language as the deaf child's primary means of communication. However, recognizing that no one communication methodology works for all deaf children, the LSL Parent Support Group strongly supports parent choice. We believe that selection of the communication system used by a family is a personal one based on both the desires of parents and needs of the child. It should be noted that approximately 95% of children with hearing loss are born to hearing and speaking families.
The Utah Deaf Education Core group advocates the use of American Sign Language (ASL) for all deaf children regardless of the severity of hearing loss, and the development of English Bilingualism.
The majority of deaf children in Utah are educated in programs provided by Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind (USDB). USDB provides a dual track system, supporting both American Sign Language (ASL) and Listening and Spoken Language (LSL) programs. According to USDB's Annual Report to the Legislative Interim Committee November 2010, 79% of all students served by USD are using Listening and Spoken Language, 14% of all students served by USD are using ASL. The ASL group is in the minority.
USDB Superintendent Steve Noyce's stated goal is to provide exemplary, research-based, 'best practice' programs for both ASL and LSL students. The Deaf Core Group's major contention is that Superintendent Noyce, because of his educational background, is biased in favor of Listening and Spoken Language (LSL), and thereby incapable of providing best practice programs for ASL.
We believe Steve Noyce works tirelessly in his efforts to reach his stated goal and provides equal support to both programs. We believe that the Deaf Community, represented by the UDEC will never be happy with USDB's educational programs unless all deaf children use ASL. We, as parents and supporters of LSL, have chosen for our children to be part of the mainstream community. We do NOT want our rights as parents to choose a Listening and Spoken Language option for our children, and the rights of our children to speak for themselves, diminished or eliminated by this militant group.
Anissa Wardell, LSL Parent Support Group. As a community, we offer our support to our superintendent and ask that our voices be heard on this matter (Anissa Wardell, personal communication, May 4, 2011).
*****
Jennifer Jackson, whose ninth-grade son, Bryce, attended JMS, participated in a protest carrying a bright pink sign that read, "Permanent furlough for Steve Noyce." This sign referred to three furlough days that Noyce had recently announced to address a $600,000 budget shortfall for the Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, May 5, 2011). Jennifer expressed her worries about Bryce's future at JMS, saying he had "flourished" during his 11 years there, but now he was "scared to death that he is not going to have a school" (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, May 5, 2011).
Jennifer feared that Superintendent Noyce was discouraging parents from the American Sign Language (ASL) program and that JMS might eventually close due to declining enrollment. Over 70 percent of parents had opted for Listening and Spoken Language (LSL) approaches for their children, many of whom had cochlear implants. Although Noyce claimed to have supported the school and noted an increase in enrollment during the 2010-2011 school year—after adding high school grades, which parents had requested for years—enrollment has not increased since then (Jill Radford, personal communication, July 8, 2011).
Additionally, Superintendent Noyce stated, "The purpose of the protesters is to demonstrate that ASL should be part of the program for every child with a hearing loss. I can't support that; it needs to be an option for every family. But I don't think every family should have to choose that as their only option" (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, May 5, 2011).
Jennifer Jackson and April Wallace
However, the State Board did not make a decision regarding Mr. Noyce's contract. Anissa Wardell viewed it as a victory when she posted a message on her website, specialneedskidslosetheirrights.com, on May 5th, 2011.
*****
A Temporary Win For LSL Parents In Utah
"USBE did not mention USDB in their Actions today (after their Executive session, which is behind closed doors). This is good news. We stopped USBE and made them reflect on their decision regarding Superintendent Steve Noyce, which ultimately affects our children. Also, the future of the LSL program. With 395 signatures for the petition and letters of support. We showed how powerful we are when we come together. We are not only fighting for our children, but for the deaf kid who comes into our program five years from now. Mark at USOE says he would call this a Victory for LSL families! I TOTALLY Agree!
We will be putting together our following actions to ensure our voices are heard as LSL families, and we will email that to you. We are not out of the woods yet, but we have some time to really share with USBE that we care about our school and how it is run! If you have a letter of support for Superintendent Noyce or the LSL program, we will continue collecting them. We will also add the names of anyone who may not have signed the petition.
Thank you for all your help and support! We couldn't have done this without you!
Anissa Wardell (Anissa Wardell, personal communication, May 5, 2011).
*****
*****
A Temporary Win For LSL Parents In Utah
"USBE did not mention USDB in their Actions today (after their Executive session, which is behind closed doors). This is good news. We stopped USBE and made them reflect on their decision regarding Superintendent Steve Noyce, which ultimately affects our children. Also, the future of the LSL program. With 395 signatures for the petition and letters of support. We showed how powerful we are when we come together. We are not only fighting for our children, but for the deaf kid who comes into our program five years from now. Mark at USOE says he would call this a Victory for LSL families! I TOTALLY Agree!
We will be putting together our following actions to ensure our voices are heard as LSL families, and we will email that to you. We are not out of the woods yet, but we have some time to really share with USBE that we care about our school and how it is run! If you have a letter of support for Superintendent Noyce or the LSL program, we will continue collecting them. We will also add the names of anyone who may not have signed the petition.
Thank you for all your help and support! We couldn't have done this without you!
Anissa Wardell (Anissa Wardell, personal communication, May 5, 2011).
*****
'A Temporary Win For LSL Parents in Utah.' Source: Anissa Wardell's Blog
After the board meeting, Trenton Marsh, a member of the Utah Deaf community and the son-in-law of retired Deaf teacher Barbara Schell Bass, and I entered to observe the board members' reactions. Many of them appeared dismayed and disgusted, shaking their heads in disapproval.
When we inquired about the board's decision on Noyce's contract, Dr. Martell Menlove, Utah's Deputy State Superintendent of Public Instruction, informed us that no decision had yet been made. At that time, we were unaware that Annissa had gathered a 395-signature petition in support of Superintendent Noyce's contract renewal for the years 2011 to 2013. As the weight of the situation settled in, it became clear that the petition might influence the board's perspective.
When we inquired about the board's decision on Noyce's contract, Dr. Martell Menlove, Utah's Deputy State Superintendent of Public Instruction, informed us that no decision had yet been made. At that time, we were unaware that Annissa had gathered a 395-signature petition in support of Superintendent Noyce's contract renewal for the years 2011 to 2013. As the weight of the situation settled in, it became clear that the petition might influence the board's perspective.
Trenton March. Source: StreetLeverage
After Jacob Dietz attended the vigil, an individual, possibly an LSL advocate, posted an upsetting message on his blog. He assumed that this person believed the message was intended for the Utah Deaf Education Core Group. Among other things, this individual expressed frustration with the Core Group's interference with the State Board. He stated,
*****
"The very group that is supposed to be offering support for the next generation of ASL/Deaf and Hard of Hearing children is making that the language options will be gone in the state of Utah. Shame on the Deaf Community/ASL advocates. You should have found other ways to make changes in the deaf language options. Making the Utah Office of Education tired of listening is not the way to make changes. It is the way to get all language options taken away from our children. I hope it goes down in history that the Deaf Community itself, ruined the future of deaf children in the state of Utah. You need to wake up and really look at what you are doing. I am sure that this letter will not be posted on your site because I know of parents that have tried to post a positive letter about their services from USDB and you have not posted them."
*****
Jacob Dietz responded by saying,
"When you mention that they should have found another way to address their concerns, what way were you thinking? They wrote to the officials that have been elected or appointed to make decisions regarding their concerns, which had to do with what is happening at USDB. They wrote letters to these officials. This is similar to writing to a member of Congress when one is displeased with law. They were following proper procedure when they did it, and beyond that, in this country, it is their right to do so. If they are concerned with an issue, then they should contact that governing body. That is what they did. I think it would be very un-American to think that they should not have done this. It was their right to do it, and I applaud anyone who would have the guts to write their leaders and let them know what they think" (Jacob Dietz, personal communication, May 10, 2011).
*****
The Core Group observed that Superintendent Noyce was an effective communicator, much like Dr. Grant B. Bitter, and often utilized a victim narrative to gain sympathy and support. Similar to Tony Christopolus, the then-USD dual-track coordinator who had access to parents' contact information, Superintendent Noyce used that access to influence parents' opinions. This approach mirrored Christopolus's tactics from the 1960s and 1970s, which encouraged parents to question those who truly understood the importance of strong natural language communication skills (Jean Thomas, personal communication, March 1, 2011). Over the years, Steven Noyce learned from these methods and adopted similar strategies to oppose ASL-English bilingual education.
The Core Group believed that the superintendent should treat all programs equally within the Utah School for the Deaf. They advocated for equity in Deaf Education, emphasizing that each child has individual needs and that both LSL and ASL/English programs can benefit different students.
Additionally, the Utah Deaf Education Core Group and the Utah Deaf community felt that Rosemary Winters, a reporter for the Salt Lake Tribune, did not adequately cover the issues in her article. She portrayed Superintendent Noyce in a warm, caring light but failed to include key insights into the Deaf experience. Once again, Superintendent Noyce appeared to manipulate the media by adopting a victim narrative.
*****
"The very group that is supposed to be offering support for the next generation of ASL/Deaf and Hard of Hearing children is making that the language options will be gone in the state of Utah. Shame on the Deaf Community/ASL advocates. You should have found other ways to make changes in the deaf language options. Making the Utah Office of Education tired of listening is not the way to make changes. It is the way to get all language options taken away from our children. I hope it goes down in history that the Deaf Community itself, ruined the future of deaf children in the state of Utah. You need to wake up and really look at what you are doing. I am sure that this letter will not be posted on your site because I know of parents that have tried to post a positive letter about their services from USDB and you have not posted them."
*****
Jacob Dietz responded by saying,
"When you mention that they should have found another way to address their concerns, what way were you thinking? They wrote to the officials that have been elected or appointed to make decisions regarding their concerns, which had to do with what is happening at USDB. They wrote letters to these officials. This is similar to writing to a member of Congress when one is displeased with law. They were following proper procedure when they did it, and beyond that, in this country, it is their right to do so. If they are concerned with an issue, then they should contact that governing body. That is what they did. I think it would be very un-American to think that they should not have done this. It was their right to do it, and I applaud anyone who would have the guts to write their leaders and let them know what they think" (Jacob Dietz, personal communication, May 10, 2011).
*****
The Core Group observed that Superintendent Noyce was an effective communicator, much like Dr. Grant B. Bitter, and often utilized a victim narrative to gain sympathy and support. Similar to Tony Christopolus, the then-USD dual-track coordinator who had access to parents' contact information, Superintendent Noyce used that access to influence parents' opinions. This approach mirrored Christopolus's tactics from the 1960s and 1970s, which encouraged parents to question those who truly understood the importance of strong natural language communication skills (Jean Thomas, personal communication, March 1, 2011). Over the years, Steven Noyce learned from these methods and adopted similar strategies to oppose ASL-English bilingual education.
The Core Group believed that the superintendent should treat all programs equally within the Utah School for the Deaf. They advocated for equity in Deaf Education, emphasizing that each child has individual needs and that both LSL and ASL/English programs can benefit different students.
Additionally, the Utah Deaf Education Core Group and the Utah Deaf community felt that Rosemary Winters, a reporter for the Salt Lake Tribune, did not adequately cover the issues in her article. She portrayed Superintendent Noyce in a warm, caring light but failed to include key insights into the Deaf experience. Once again, Superintendent Noyce appeared to manipulate the media by adopting a victim narrative.
Tony Christopolus
Did You Know?
During the 2010-2011 school year, the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf lost 21 out of approximately 100 students to state schools for the deaf and mainstream settings.
According to JMS principal Jill Radford, the data on students who left the JMS program is as follows:
The claim that Noyce expanded JMS's enrollment was based on the addition of the high school. In the 2009-2010 school year, JMS had a total of 75 students in grades pre-K through 9. After the high school was added, enrollment grew to 96 students across grades pre-K-12, an increase of 21 high school students. However, for the upcoming school year, enrollment was expected to decrease to 91 students across grades pre-K-12, indicating no growth (Jill Radford, personal communication, July 8, 2011).
Additionally, JMS experienced a loss of many talented students to mainstream programs and other state schools for the deaf, contributing to a continuous cycle of decline. Consequently, the Utah Code (HB 296) was overlooked. While JMS struggled to transfer students to mainstream programs, USD thrived by embracing integration and maintaining a negative attitude toward JMS.
According to JMS principal Jill Radford, the data on students who left the JMS program is as follows:
- Total number of students who left during the 2010-2011 school year: 21
- Total number of students who exited the school (including graduating seniors and placement changes for the 2011-2012 school year): 33
- Total number of students who graduated in the 2010-2011 school year: 5
- Total number of students who left the state to attend another school for the deaf: 8
- Total number of students who left and are currently or will be mainstreamed in district settings: 15
- Total number of students who left and are enrolled in the program under the Utah School for the Deaf (USD): 3
- Total number of unknown placements for students who left JMS: 2
The claim that Noyce expanded JMS's enrollment was based on the addition of the high school. In the 2009-2010 school year, JMS had a total of 75 students in grades pre-K through 9. After the high school was added, enrollment grew to 96 students across grades pre-K-12, an increase of 21 high school students. However, for the upcoming school year, enrollment was expected to decrease to 91 students across grades pre-K-12, indicating no growth (Jill Radford, personal communication, July 8, 2011).
Additionally, JMS experienced a loss of many talented students to mainstream programs and other state schools for the deaf, contributing to a continuous cycle of decline. Consequently, the Utah Code (HB 296) was overlooked. While JMS struggled to transfer students to mainstream programs, USD thrived by embracing integration and maintaining a negative attitude toward JMS.
Utah Deaf Education Core Group's Response to the
Comments Section of the Salt Lake Tribune Article
Comments Section of the Salt Lake Tribune Article
On May 5, 2011, The Salt Lake Tribune published an article titled "Parents Rally to get Boss of Schools for Deaf, Blind Ousted," which sparked a significant debate over Deaf education methods in Utah. The article brought to light ongoing tensions between advocates of ASL/English bilingual education and supporters of Listening and Spoken Language (LSL) approaches. The controversy escalated when USDB Superintendent Steven Noyce misrepresented the goals of ASL campaigners, underscoring the need to understand the diverse perspectives within Utah's Deaf education community.
Parents supporting LSL backed Superintendent Noyce, voicing fears that the Deaf community in Utah might try to revoke their right to use LSL. The Utah Deaf Education Core Group was criticized for portraying the dispute as a "war" between ASL and LSL. LSL parents defended Superintendent Noyce, attributing USDB's financial problems to the 3% rule, the USDB Financial Director, and the State Board—even though the 3% rule predated Superintendent Noyce's administration.
The May 5, 2011, article reported that the Utah Deaf community aimed to influence policies about sign language use for Deaf and hard-of-hearing children. On the Core Group’s website and blog, ASL parents and members did not seek to abolish the LSL program or directly accuse LSL parents. Although the Core Group recognized instances of misrepresenting Superintendent Noyce, they avoided personal attacks, reflecting the complexity of the controversy and its effects on community relations.
The LSL Blog condemned the Core Group, while Superintendent Noyce misled LSL parents by suggesting that the Core Group sought to eliminate the LSL option—a claim frequently repeated in comments by LSL parents. Many Core Group members were raised by hearing parents and attended public schools; some learned ASL from an early age, while others did not. Many were also Deaf parents themselves. As Robert G. Sanderson stated in his 1963 letter to D'On Reese, they believed their firsthand experience with Deaf education gave them a constitutional right to advocate for change in Utah.
The central issue revolved around Superintendent Noyce’s unequal funding of USD programs, which fueled conflicts between ASL and LSL advocates. The Core Group believed he should have supported both approaches equally, empowering parents to choose their preferred educational method without bias. While the Core Group acknowledged that most parents chose LSL and that funding was distributed accordingly, they also understood Superintendent Noyce’s motivations for favoring certain groups, highlighting the complex stakeholder dynamics at play.
Parents supporting LSL backed Superintendent Noyce, voicing fears that the Deaf community in Utah might try to revoke their right to use LSL. The Utah Deaf Education Core Group was criticized for portraying the dispute as a "war" between ASL and LSL. LSL parents defended Superintendent Noyce, attributing USDB's financial problems to the 3% rule, the USDB Financial Director, and the State Board—even though the 3% rule predated Superintendent Noyce's administration.
The May 5, 2011, article reported that the Utah Deaf community aimed to influence policies about sign language use for Deaf and hard-of-hearing children. On the Core Group’s website and blog, ASL parents and members did not seek to abolish the LSL program or directly accuse LSL parents. Although the Core Group recognized instances of misrepresenting Superintendent Noyce, they avoided personal attacks, reflecting the complexity of the controversy and its effects on community relations.
The LSL Blog condemned the Core Group, while Superintendent Noyce misled LSL parents by suggesting that the Core Group sought to eliminate the LSL option—a claim frequently repeated in comments by LSL parents. Many Core Group members were raised by hearing parents and attended public schools; some learned ASL from an early age, while others did not. Many were also Deaf parents themselves. As Robert G. Sanderson stated in his 1963 letter to D'On Reese, they believed their firsthand experience with Deaf education gave them a constitutional right to advocate for change in Utah.
The central issue revolved around Superintendent Noyce’s unequal funding of USD programs, which fueled conflicts between ASL and LSL advocates. The Core Group believed he should have supported both approaches equally, empowering parents to choose their preferred educational method without bias. While the Core Group acknowledged that most parents chose LSL and that funding was distributed accordingly, they also understood Superintendent Noyce’s motivations for favoring certain groups, highlighting the complex stakeholder dynamics at play.
'Parents rally to get boss of schools for deaf, blind ousted.' Source: The Salt Lake Tribune, May 5, 2011
Michelle4LSL, a Listening and Spoken
Language Advocate Criticizes the American
Sign Language Community
Language Advocate Criticizes the American
Sign Language Community
One of Michelle4LSL's comments under the article titled "Parents Rally to Oust Boss of Schools for Deaf and Blind" sheds light on the ongoing debate between advocates of ASL and those supporting LSL. Acknowledging this debate is essential, as it shows that the Utah Deaf community's concerns are valid and deserve attention. This conflict is not just a coincidence; it reflects the persistent tensions within the Utah Deaf community.
Interestingly, there is a parallel between Michelle4LSL's 2011 comment and D'On Reese's 1963 perspective, both of which critique the ASL community. Be sure to check out Michelle4LSL's comment in the section below.
*****
To All The ASL or ASL/E
What you all don't seem to get is that the Utah School Board of Education is FED UP WITH YOU!! They are so tired of your constant complaining. Before Total Communication or TC was taken away, you had battles for other things, it really doesn't matter what is done in your behalf...they give you stuff to shut you up! But you just keep coming back with your hands and mouths open... someone, I don't know who...coined the term Fat Kids for your group....for the very simple reason that no matter how much you are given, you are NEVER satisfied!
Because of all the tirades and rallies and exhaustive amount of tantrums the ASL (not all of you...) community has put the school board through, they have been discussing for months any possible actions they can take to get rid of you as well as the other groups like the blind and LSL. They are so tired of it all that they will do just about anything to pawn us all of on someone else.
In pawning us all off, they will effectively take the rights and services of all the children away. They wrongly assume that our students can get interpreters, speech therapists, (any and all of the Related Services), etc. through the school districts who will have to pick up the slack. First off, the school districts are not equipped to help us...none of us, like we need. Second, for those parents who are ill informed or who are shy and don't have the strength to stand up for their child's rights...they will be left in the dust.
Many of us LSL parents are getting involved and are upset with the ASL group because you are endangering our children's future whether you believe it or not. You can say that the school board cannot do those things, but if you personally talk to members of the board and they are honest with you, they will tell you. The other reason we are involved is because we now understand how much you are all getting, and how little the rest of the kids are getting.
We are not fighting just for our kids...we are fighting for the blind kids. Other than a select few, we have not seen parents from the blind come forth to really fight (for whatever reason that may be...we are not picking on them here, we want to do what we can to help).
We feel that we should all be able to get along...the meanness comes out when your group is essentially screwing the rest of us over because you cannot get enough. We don't believe in your way of teaching, and that is our right...our decision, leave it alone. We have left you alone to do what you want in teaching, don't try to take our rights away.
If you really need or want something, try going back to being a charter school or try asking in a different manner...quit being bullies! Michelle4LSL
Interestingly, there is a parallel between Michelle4LSL's 2011 comment and D'On Reese's 1963 perspective, both of which critique the ASL community. Be sure to check out Michelle4LSL's comment in the section below.
*****
To All The ASL or ASL/E
What you all don't seem to get is that the Utah School Board of Education is FED UP WITH YOU!! They are so tired of your constant complaining. Before Total Communication or TC was taken away, you had battles for other things, it really doesn't matter what is done in your behalf...they give you stuff to shut you up! But you just keep coming back with your hands and mouths open... someone, I don't know who...coined the term Fat Kids for your group....for the very simple reason that no matter how much you are given, you are NEVER satisfied!
Because of all the tirades and rallies and exhaustive amount of tantrums the ASL (not all of you...) community has put the school board through, they have been discussing for months any possible actions they can take to get rid of you as well as the other groups like the blind and LSL. They are so tired of it all that they will do just about anything to pawn us all of on someone else.
In pawning us all off, they will effectively take the rights and services of all the children away. They wrongly assume that our students can get interpreters, speech therapists, (any and all of the Related Services), etc. through the school districts who will have to pick up the slack. First off, the school districts are not equipped to help us...none of us, like we need. Second, for those parents who are ill informed or who are shy and don't have the strength to stand up for their child's rights...they will be left in the dust.
Many of us LSL parents are getting involved and are upset with the ASL group because you are endangering our children's future whether you believe it or not. You can say that the school board cannot do those things, but if you personally talk to members of the board and they are honest with you, they will tell you. The other reason we are involved is because we now understand how much you are all getting, and how little the rest of the kids are getting.
We are not fighting just for our kids...we are fighting for the blind kids. Other than a select few, we have not seen parents from the blind come forth to really fight (for whatever reason that may be...we are not picking on them here, we want to do what we can to help).
We feel that we should all be able to get along...the meanness comes out when your group is essentially screwing the rest of us over because you cannot get enough. We don't believe in your way of teaching, and that is our right...our decision, leave it alone. We have left you alone to do what you want in teaching, don't try to take our rights away.
If you really need or want something, try going back to being a charter school or try asking in a different manner...quit being bullies! Michelle4LSL
The Utah Deaf Education Core Group
Responds to Michelle4LSL's & Other Comments
Responds to Michelle4LSL's & Other Comments
In response to comments from Michelle4LS and LSL advocates on the Salt Lake Tribune article "Parents Rally to Get Boss of Schools for Deaf, Blind Ousted" (May 5, 2011), the Utah Deaf Education Core Group issued a letter clarifying its objectives regarding USDB Superintendent Noyce. This approach paralleled the action of former Utah Association for the Deaf President Robert G. Sanderson, who in 1963 responded to D'On Reese, as described in Part III. The Core Group’s letter contributed to resolving the debate and was later published on its website. Their response appears below.
*****
We are NOT fighting to get LSL removed from the Deaf division of USDB. We respect parents' right to choose LSL if they feel that it would work for their children. This is NOT an ASL versus LSL battle. We have never said that our goal was to have USD be an ASL-only school. We only ask for fair, unbiased options for all families and students, and for families to be able to choose both options if they so desire.
Let it be known that in 2007, elementary teachers in the Central Deaf Division of USDB who taught in the Total Communication program asked to be merged with JMS. Later, in 2009, when Steven W. Noyce revamped Parent Infant Program, he removed what was called the Total Communication option (which included both sign and speech) and restructured the program so that it offers either LSL or ASL, which upset many parents who wanted both options. Mr. Noyce also announced the phasing out of the USDB Total Communication program at Churchill. The Deaf community had no part of this change.
The Total Communication program utilized signing and speaking simultaneously and was ineffective for a number of reasons, one of which is that ASL and English are two distinct languages. Advocates of ASL/English bilingualism support the utilization of both ASL and written/spoken English in the instruction of deaf and hard of hearing children, with the understanding that one or the other language is used as appropriate and not simultaneously. A thorough explanation of this, however, is beyond the scope of this report.
Our first concern is for parents who WANT to learn ASL in addition to obtaining the intensive speech therapy that's provided to LSL parents and their children. We understand that parents who choose the ASL/English bilingual approach do receive oracy training, but that for some parents, oracy is not enough. Parents who want LSL training should be allowed to learn ASL as well if they want it. Along these lines, let it be understood that we support the concept of ASL/English AND LSL, rather than ASL/English OR LSL (AND, not OR). As discussed above, PIP has been restructured so that parents can only choose one option or the other. We feel there should be a way parents can choose both.
Our second concern is the apparent favoritism of one program over the other, particularly in the Deaf division. In one example, speech therapists have been TAKEN AWAY from parents who had already had speech therapists from USDB working with their children, but who then chose the ASL/English path. Another example is the lack of a playgroup for ASL/English children. In fact, ASL/English parents who were attending the LSL playgroup were asked to stop attending. A final example is an allocation of $440,000 to the Sound Beginnings, an oral program in Logan, without an equivalent allocation to an ASL/English program.
It has been said that the ASL/English program in SLC is receiving funds that other programs aren't and the playground has been listed as an example. The fact is that funds for the playground have come from the PTA and, to many people's surprise, the legislature - brought up by an interested senator. USDB has NOT allocated ANY funds towards the playground. Furthermore, the playground has been designed to accommodate ALL disabilities, including those with visual impairments. It has ALSO been designed to be safe for children with cochlear implants. All deaf/hard of hearing, blind, and deaf-blind children are welcome to play on this playground once it is set up.
Likewise, the building that's occupied by students in the ASL/English bilingual program in SLC was obtained after years of struggle. There are 100 students in this program, and rooms/teachers are needed for these 100 students. Parents and teachers of LSL students tend to want their children to be housed in local public schools so that the kids are exposed to other hearing children, which is their right. Parents of ASL/English students want them to be educated together. Can we have the building for that?
As a side note, while it is true that the ASL/English program was expanded with high school classes, a predicted enrollment of 30 additional students to the elementary and middle school classes for Fall 2010 mysteriously ended up being zero. It was eventually discovered that negative information was circulating around USDB regarding the ASL/English bilingual programs available at USD and about sign language in general, causing parents to NOT want to enroll their children at JMS.
Furthermore, there is actually a policy that there would never be any separate "hard money" funding for special education charter schools in Utah. Mr. Noyce and a few others lobbied for this policy, and it made the future possibility of JMS to be a charter school again impossible. This legislation made permanent the placement of JMS under the direction of USDB.
Our final concern is the termination of the two-year contract for Steven W. Noyce, USDB Superintendent, due to his 1. Favoring one program over the other programs, 2. Unwillingness to offer parents the option of choosing BOTH LSL and ASL/English bilingualism, 3. Unbalanced funding of USD programs, and 4. Bungling of the school's fiscal-management.
Parents who want the ASL option aren’t getting much support here in Utah, particularly not from Mr. Noyce. We need a superintendent who provides fair, unbiased options to all families and students.
Finally and importantly, we, ASL parents and community have the constitutional right to voice our concerns to the Utah State Board of Education, and it is their job to listen to us. We feel that it is important for them to hear our concerns to make effective decisions for USDB.
Also, all of the information included on our website can be verified by minutes from various meetings held by the Advisory Council and other organizations. All of the letters from parents were written by real parents who went through the experiences that are recorded in the letters. The information is real, not lies like one of the comments to the article states.
FYI, we as a group have declined to meet with Mr. Noyce face to face regarding these issues as we feel that such a meeting would probably not be productive because of a long history of his trivializing ASL/English bilingual issues.
*****
We are NOT fighting to get LSL removed from the Deaf division of USDB. We respect parents' right to choose LSL if they feel that it would work for their children. This is NOT an ASL versus LSL battle. We have never said that our goal was to have USD be an ASL-only school. We only ask for fair, unbiased options for all families and students, and for families to be able to choose both options if they so desire.
Let it be known that in 2007, elementary teachers in the Central Deaf Division of USDB who taught in the Total Communication program asked to be merged with JMS. Later, in 2009, when Steven W. Noyce revamped Parent Infant Program, he removed what was called the Total Communication option (which included both sign and speech) and restructured the program so that it offers either LSL or ASL, which upset many parents who wanted both options. Mr. Noyce also announced the phasing out of the USDB Total Communication program at Churchill. The Deaf community had no part of this change.
The Total Communication program utilized signing and speaking simultaneously and was ineffective for a number of reasons, one of which is that ASL and English are two distinct languages. Advocates of ASL/English bilingualism support the utilization of both ASL and written/spoken English in the instruction of deaf and hard of hearing children, with the understanding that one or the other language is used as appropriate and not simultaneously. A thorough explanation of this, however, is beyond the scope of this report.
Our first concern is for parents who WANT to learn ASL in addition to obtaining the intensive speech therapy that's provided to LSL parents and their children. We understand that parents who choose the ASL/English bilingual approach do receive oracy training, but that for some parents, oracy is not enough. Parents who want LSL training should be allowed to learn ASL as well if they want it. Along these lines, let it be understood that we support the concept of ASL/English AND LSL, rather than ASL/English OR LSL (AND, not OR). As discussed above, PIP has been restructured so that parents can only choose one option or the other. We feel there should be a way parents can choose both.
Our second concern is the apparent favoritism of one program over the other, particularly in the Deaf division. In one example, speech therapists have been TAKEN AWAY from parents who had already had speech therapists from USDB working with their children, but who then chose the ASL/English path. Another example is the lack of a playgroup for ASL/English children. In fact, ASL/English parents who were attending the LSL playgroup were asked to stop attending. A final example is an allocation of $440,000 to the Sound Beginnings, an oral program in Logan, without an equivalent allocation to an ASL/English program.
It has been said that the ASL/English program in SLC is receiving funds that other programs aren't and the playground has been listed as an example. The fact is that funds for the playground have come from the PTA and, to many people's surprise, the legislature - brought up by an interested senator. USDB has NOT allocated ANY funds towards the playground. Furthermore, the playground has been designed to accommodate ALL disabilities, including those with visual impairments. It has ALSO been designed to be safe for children with cochlear implants. All deaf/hard of hearing, blind, and deaf-blind children are welcome to play on this playground once it is set up.
Likewise, the building that's occupied by students in the ASL/English bilingual program in SLC was obtained after years of struggle. There are 100 students in this program, and rooms/teachers are needed for these 100 students. Parents and teachers of LSL students tend to want their children to be housed in local public schools so that the kids are exposed to other hearing children, which is their right. Parents of ASL/English students want them to be educated together. Can we have the building for that?
As a side note, while it is true that the ASL/English program was expanded with high school classes, a predicted enrollment of 30 additional students to the elementary and middle school classes for Fall 2010 mysteriously ended up being zero. It was eventually discovered that negative information was circulating around USDB regarding the ASL/English bilingual programs available at USD and about sign language in general, causing parents to NOT want to enroll their children at JMS.
Furthermore, there is actually a policy that there would never be any separate "hard money" funding for special education charter schools in Utah. Mr. Noyce and a few others lobbied for this policy, and it made the future possibility of JMS to be a charter school again impossible. This legislation made permanent the placement of JMS under the direction of USDB.
Our final concern is the termination of the two-year contract for Steven W. Noyce, USDB Superintendent, due to his 1. Favoring one program over the other programs, 2. Unwillingness to offer parents the option of choosing BOTH LSL and ASL/English bilingualism, 3. Unbalanced funding of USD programs, and 4. Bungling of the school's fiscal-management.
Parents who want the ASL option aren’t getting much support here in Utah, particularly not from Mr. Noyce. We need a superintendent who provides fair, unbiased options to all families and students.
Finally and importantly, we, ASL parents and community have the constitutional right to voice our concerns to the Utah State Board of Education, and it is their job to listen to us. We feel that it is important for them to hear our concerns to make effective decisions for USDB.
Also, all of the information included on our website can be verified by minutes from various meetings held by the Advisory Council and other organizations. All of the letters from parents were written by real parents who went through the experiences that are recorded in the letters. The information is real, not lies like one of the comments to the article states.
FYI, we as a group have declined to meet with Mr. Noyce face to face regarding these issues as we feel that such a meeting would probably not be productive because of a long history of his trivializing ASL/English bilingual issues.
Did You Know?
After two years of dedicated effort, the JMS PTA triumphantly raised $55,000 for the playground. Representative Karen Morgan, a Democrat from Cottonwood Heights, generously contributed $100,000 to bring the playground to life at the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf, located on the school's campus. This remarkable contribution showcases the power of community support.
On August 22, 2011, the playground at JMS was officially unveiled with a ribbon-cutting ceremony, celebrating a proud milestone for both our community and the school.
On August 22, 2011, the playground at JMS was officially unveiled with a ribbon-cutting ceremony, celebrating a proud milestone for both our community and the school.
Karen Morgan. Source: UoU: The College of Education
|
The invitation to the ribbon-cutting of the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf's new playground
L-R: Trena Roueche', Steven W. Noyce, and Ronald C. Burdett
|
Crystal Hess, JMS PTA President, Presents Dr. Martell Menlove,
Deputy State Superintendent, with a Letter and a Petition
Deputy State Superintendent, with a Letter and a Petition
Shortly before the Utah State Board of Education's meeting on May 5, 2011, Crystal Hess, President of the JMS PTA, presented Dr. Martell Menlove, Deputy State Superintendent, with a letter and a petition signed by 1,215 individuals requesting the termination of USDB Superintendent Noyce’s two-year contract.
*****
Petition for Equality in Deaf Education
“Education is simply the soul of society as it passes from one generation to another.” — Gilbert K. Chesterton
Petition Summary and Background
Oral? Auditory-Verbal? Manual? Total Communication (TC)? Signed Exact English (SEE)? Bilingual-Bicultural (Bi-Bi)? Cued Speech? Despite more than 350 years of organized Deaf education, no single approach works for every child. Every child—hearing, Deaf, Blind, or DeafBlind—possesses limitless potential. When funding favors one program over others, it introduces bias. This bias restricts the resources available to parents, impedes informed decision-making, and hinders our children’s potential.
Recent evidence of a $440,000 debt has highlighted Superintendent Noyce’s tendency to favor one program above all others. One of the state superintendent’s core responsibilities is to ensure equitable distribution of funds. We believe Mr. Noyce has compromised this duty through favoritism.
The issue is not a conflict between American Sign Language (ASL) and Listening and Spoken Language (LSL). Parents seeking the ASL option are not receiving adequate support in Utah, especially from Mr. Noyce.
We need a superintendent who will offer fair, unbiased options to all families and students.
Thank you for your support in signing this petition.
Call to Action:
As concerned taxpayers and citizens, we urge the Utah State Board of Education to take immediate action and not renew Steven W. Noyce’s two-year contract as Superintendent of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind, a state agency funded by Utah taxpayers.
*****
Dr. Menlove posed five questions to Crystal to clarify her intentions. Crystal, along with Melissa Miller, vice president of the JMS PTA, responded thoroughly, addressing all aspects of their concerns about inequality in Deaf education in Utah, as follows:
*****
Dr. Menlove, May 5, 2011
I have collaborated with Utah Deaf Education Core Group and other parents of deaf children to provide you the following answers. If there is anything further, I can do to clarify our petition; please let me know. I'm exceedingly grateful for your response, inquiry, and interest.
The petition was signed by parents, current & former USDB/JMS students, and members of the ASL community at large. We have also taken this opportunity to speak on these issues as well as issues regarding Deaf Education in general, with the hearing community. Our petition was discussed at school activities, PTA meetings, and other community events.
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide you more detail with regards to the allegation of inequality. First, I would like to share my own experience and struggle to incorporate ASL into my son's education. Although my experience seemed like a struggle at the time, in comparison to the experience of every other hearing parent I've spoken to, I consider myself lucky. Following my account, Melissa Miller, our 2011-2012 PTA Vice President, has shared her own experience and comments. The struggle parents are having in asking for ASL is obvious evidence that ASL is not being treated "fairly," that it is being considered something subpar to the LSL path. Lastly, Utah Deaf Education Core Group has supplied hard facts and data in support of the same.
Crystal Hess
*****
Crystal Hess and Melissa Miller shared the following experiences from their time in the Parent Infant Program at the Utah School for the Deaf. Crystal sent their letter to Dr. Menlove:
*****
Crystal Hess’ Experience:
It is my understanding that the PIP Program has recently been reorganized and the early intervention experience is now quite different from what mine was. Although there are published orientation documents indicating that parents are provided a plethora of experience and information on both ASL/English and LSL, through my involvement in the PTA and with the LDS Deaf Branch I've learned this is not the case or practice. I was taken on tours of preschools and exposed firsthand to ASL and LSL. I was invited to the AG Bell Conference, participated in Hands and Voices all while observing our PIP Advisor teach my son both ASL and English. Nicky picked up ASL first. I was so desperate for words; I wanted so badly to communicate with my son. However, my decision was based on more than desperation. First, that it would obviously be easier for me to learn ASL than it would be for him to learn English, and second, English can be acquired later.
Shortly after making the decision I sat in my first IEP meeting. Before enrolling Nicky into Preschool, I had to sit before a committee and hope they agreed with my decision. I felt three feet tall as women who had never sat with Nicky, never seen his tears of frustration or his smile, they've never seen the light in his eyes with his "I love you" hands, they had never heard his giggle, they "knew" him from a collaboration of words on paper. All but one of these women would pity me. These women were sure they knew what was best for my son. They implied that I would be disabling my son by putting him in the ASL/English program.
I've never met a parent afforded the same unbiased information I was exposed to. Most stories mirror the IEP Committee experience I had, filled with judgment, fear, and insecurity. Every parent I've spoken to had been informed that ASL would limit their child's potential. Few parents knew about the Bi-Bi program offered at JMS. One parent told me she avoided JMS after being informed that her child would be ostracized for having hearing aids or an implant. I've never met a parent who had the same ASL/oral PIP experience. They had to make an uninformed decision before receiving services.
From the moment you are told your child is deaf, you are surrounded by medical professionals, audiologists, ENT, rheumatologist and geneticists, all dedicated to “Fixing” or “Normalizing” your child.
Learning ASL appears an archaic option when compared to digitized hearing aides, cochlear implants and aggressive speech therapy. Every day, I fail to find words to express the gratitude I have for the language we share with Nicky. That is until I had a teacher share his word for it: "treasure."
Is ASL superior to English? Where my son, and many deaf children, are unable to speak clearly and comfortably, ASL is priceless. Is Spanish more valuable than French? It's all language. It's the ability to communicate needs, wants, thoughts, ideas, feelings, and emotions. Why, in a time inundated with children's shows, language immersion programs, books, classes and computer programs all provided, purchased and utilized with the intent of obtaining the admirable and profitable skill of being bilingual, does ASL/LSL need to be a clear-cut choice for deaf children? Steven Noyce states, without validity, education or experience that; the "Use of sign language is contrary to an LSL approach just as the use of English Sign Systems is contrary to an ASL/English approach."
Melissa Miller's Experience:
“When I was first introduced to Deaf Education, my PIP Advisor told me nothing about JMS, only the LSL preschool. At that time, there was nothing more we wanted than for my son to be "normal." It was not until we moved and received a new PIP Advisor that I was introduced to the ASL community. It was then that we learned about the Total Communication class, as well as ALL the other preschool programs available through USDB. The Total communication (TC) program, was a two-year program that would afford our son the opportunity to learn both ASL and spoken language. After two years, we would decide on a more permanent education plan. The TC program seemed to be such a great option as we wanted my son to be bi-lingual. I can't imagine what parent would not want that for their child. What I came to find is that teachers, staff, and students didn't actually use ASL all day. They used spoken language and only if the child appeared to be struggling would they use a sign. Their main focus was to get these kids to speak, rather than to provide them with the basic fundamentals of preschool. The main reason we did not consider JMS as an option was that we were told that should we enroll him in JMS, he would not receive "speech services". (This is false) We were also told that "even if the teacher could hear, they refuse to use their voice." (This is also false, if the teacher is hearing and they can see a benefit to voicing, they will use it as a second option when possible.) Because our ultimate goal was for our son to be bilingual, and JMS appeared to be exclusively ASL, JMS seemed to not be the best fit. As his second year of preschool approached, we were told that my son was not paying attention in class, or developing language. They had diagnosed him with a "learning processing disorder." The IEP committee determined that all we could do was enroll him in JMS. My son's test results indicated that he had the same number of signs as he did spoken language. JMS was represented as a second-rate school for kids who had learning disabilities or failed to meet their spoken language educational standards. Being upset I refused to consider JMS and told them they were wrong and a learning processing disorder could not be properly diagnosed until he had reached a much older age. With a spoken language vocabulary insufficient to enroll him in the LSL program, and a limited ASL vocabulary, we had run out of options. After the dark and frightening representation we had been given of JMS, we were pleasantly surprised that sending him to JMS turned out to be the best decision we made through this whole journey!
It turned out my son does not have a learning processing disorder, he simply needed his native language, ASL. It also turned out that when you pair a sign with speech, rather than speech with sign, my son's vocabulary, both ASL and spoken grew exponentially. Now he soars academically, far surpassing his peers. Instead of the primary focus being developing spoken language, my son has had a real education. I do feel that speech services are limited at JMS, but not as a result of language bias as the LSL programs would have you believe. Speech services are limited because JMS' resources are limited. My son is denied additional speech services because we choose ASL as his main language. He has a full potential for spoken language yet he is punished because ASL is his first language. He is denied it, not because the school refuses to give it to him, but because the school does not have the funds or means to provide it and it is Mr. Noyce's intent that these kids should be provided only ASL because we picked that forbidden path.
Having answered your questions in this regard, I would ask the board to consider the following questions... Why not give these kids every opportunity available to them? If the potential is there, why are they not able to get the services necessary to nurture that potential? Why is Mr. Noyce dictating how my son is educated when he has never met him, sat in his class, or read his IEP and test scores? Why did the LSL program represent JMS to be a second rate school for kids with disabilities? If JMS had the means to offer more than 20 minutes per week, per student of speech services, how many parents would opt to enroll their children? Would this school have more students if they were given the just credibility they deserve?
Here is another example for you that the LSL program is "advertised" and the ASL is not. (please see attached link) https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=VbhDtZICsxU
Where is the ASL video? Also please note, they did not even consider taking the time to include closed captioning in a video intended to provide information in “Educating the Deaf.”
Although the petition clearly states “This is not an ASL vs. LSL battle”, multiple signers of the petitions indicate that ASL is superior, best, greater than, and so on. LSL. Again, can you help me understand this? Are any of the signatures from individual or families of individuals who have chosen an LSL program?
We, as the 2011-2012 JMS PTA have no control over the signatures’ comments. We understand that they have the right to express their feelings and thoughts from their experiences as well as their perspectives. Many of them are unhappy with the Utah School for the Deaf’s system and are aware of Mr. Noyce’s history and reputation. They wanted to sign it.
The petition does focus on ending Mr. Noyce’s two-year contract. The reason we clarified that this is not ASL vs. LSL is because we are aware that Mr. Noyce has provided untrue information about us, the ASL community.
We did not ask the LSL families for signatures. Since this petition basically requests for removal of Mr. Noyce, they already sent in their own petition last month.
While we did not approach the LSL Community regarding our petition, we have reached out to them under the reality of our circumstance, which is; LSL or ASL, USDB is our school. It is not the school of the deaf using spoken language, or the school of the deaf using ASL, it is the same. In doing so, we learned that the LSL community had been clearly miss-informed by LSL program administrators and staff as well as Mr. Noyce of our intent in rallying support. I would like to refer you to Ms. Wardell's blog. Ms. Wardell is the president of the LSL Parent Support Group. The JMS PTA has tried time and again to reiterate that we do not intend to take anything away from the LSL program. We never have. We simply want equality in funding, support, and information. It is this ignorance on behalf of the LSL program that implies an ASL/LSL battle. (Please see attached links)
http://specialneedskidslosetheirrights.com/children-rights/i-find-myself-fighting-for-my-childs-rights-once-again/
http://specialneedskidslosetheirrights.com/children-rights/a-temporary-win-for-lsl-parents-in-utah/ (those two links were no longer valid)
Your letter indicates that the petitions are "clearly indicating where that equality is lacking" and "is sufficient proof of the effect of neglect, misappropriation, and bias." Again, can you help me understand? Is more money per student being spent on ASL or LSL programs? Are ASL students being denied services LSL students are receiving? Are ASL teachers more qualified than LSL teachers? Are ASL IEPs being implemented differently than LSL IEPs? The facilities for ASL students of a different quality that the facilities for LSL students?
We have listed the following examples of Mr. Noyce's neglect, misappropriation, and bias:
The problem is, like we said earlier, not an ASL vs. LSL battle. The problem is the inequality in the support from the superintendent for the two programs. It is the frustration parents who choose the ASL option feel when their choices are belittled, discouraged and/or ignored. It is our observation that the frustration and negative energy would be resolved with neutral, appropriate leadership that focuses on educational equality and language access for deaf children. We agree with the Utah Deaf Education Core Group that parents who want the ASL option aren’t getting much support here in Utah, particularly not from Mr. Noyce. We need a superintendent who provides fair, unbiased options to all families and students. This is not happening with the administration of Mr. Noyce.
We like what Dr. Robert G. Sanderson’s dream (1992) posted at utahDeafeducation.com states, "That each child will be carefully evaluated by unbiased professionals who have the best interests of the child at heart, rather than their personal philosophies." We don't feel that Mr. Noyce has that quality in him. Additionally, it is our fear, that because morale is so low, which is a result of Mr. Noyce's administration, some of the ASL/English bilingual teachers may quit if he remains as superintendent.
We have noticed that since Mr. Noyce became superintendent, many families have moved out of the state where their children get better education, co-curricular activities, and peers.
The year I planned to enroll my son in JMS, parents were rallying legislators and representatives for a permanent school building. Success!!! Grateful for a building in poor economic times, we began fund raising for a playground. We went to great lengths to make clear that we were not complaining about the absence of a playground on our campus. We realize the harsh reality of budget cuts all of Utah Schools face and we had a beautiful, refurbished and permanent building for the first time in ten years. Our attempts were in vain as again, false information spread rapidly, and we appeared ungrateful and dissatisfied.
After two years, our small student body raised $55,000. A feat deemed impossible by many! A proper playground costs upwards of three times that, but Senator Morgan lobbied in the last legislative session for funds to build a playground at USDB's Salt Lake Campus, JMS. USDB received a $100,000 allotment from the State School Building Fund. We will finally have our playground! Before we could celebrate, we were at risk of losing our school altogether. I've been fighting for equality for our school, from before day one.
I was among those parents, and family members gathered outside of USOE on May 5th. After more than three hours, we were informed that a decision had not been reached and would not be reached shortly. One woman who had been involved with this school for much longer than I, said, with despair, that Mr. Noyce's renewal was imminent. Defeat and exhaustion lead me to sleepless nights of crying. My knee-jerk reaction was for my family to leave Utah, for my husband to transfer to Oregon. I will not put my son in a classroom that views him as disabled, and I will not let him grow up in a school that has been labeled as the "un-teachable" school. The school where my child is deemed less for having failed to obtain the necessary fluency required for oral education. There is no doubt in my mind that Mr. Noyce views JMS in any other manner.
My faith and gratitude is and has been in our teachers, who, despite the threat of closure and retention of Steve Noyce, have continued to put everything into their students. I've seen these teachers working until 10 pm preparing and organizing. Despite unpleasant newspaper articles, rumors and low morale, they are family. The teachers and students at JMS are the families that 80% of these kids don't have. 90% of deaf children have hearing parents, 80% of those parents will not learn sign language. It makes me physically ill that they as teachers are so underappreciated, and they as a family are at serious risk of unfavorable re-organization or closure.
This battle is of immeasurable importance, not just for my son, or Ms. Miller's son, but for all of Utah's present and future deaf children. This battle is not an ASL/LSL Battle. It is a battle for resources, support and the means to provide more than an “adequate” education for our children.
Thank you again, for everything!
Crystal Hess
*****
Dr. Menlove responded as follows:
I hope you understand that there are various viewpoints in almost all situations. I appreciate and applaud the passion of parents concerning the education of their children.
I am committed to providing the very best education possible for children in Utah. I am also committed to parental involvement in the education of their children and the rights of parents to make informed choices.
Although I may not always agree, I respect the process. I also encourage and support parents in their rights as parents and their rights as parents of students with disabilities. If parents feel their students are being treated unfairly, I always encourage them to exercise their due process rights.
I support JMS. I am not aware of any serious conversations among decision makers that indicate the closure of JMS. I have heard those comments and continually dispel them as I am now. That is simply not part of any plan that I am aware of. I have also never heard Steve Noyce say anything that is not positive and praising of the programs offered at JMS.
I invite you and others with your energy and passion to join me in providing quality programs to all.
Martell Menlove
The Utah Deaf Education Core Group believed Superintendent Noyce viewed JMS primarily as a fallback option for students who did not succeed in listening and spoken language education.
*****
Petition for Equality in Deaf Education
“Education is simply the soul of society as it passes from one generation to another.” — Gilbert K. Chesterton
Petition Summary and Background
Oral? Auditory-Verbal? Manual? Total Communication (TC)? Signed Exact English (SEE)? Bilingual-Bicultural (Bi-Bi)? Cued Speech? Despite more than 350 years of organized Deaf education, no single approach works for every child. Every child—hearing, Deaf, Blind, or DeafBlind—possesses limitless potential. When funding favors one program over others, it introduces bias. This bias restricts the resources available to parents, impedes informed decision-making, and hinders our children’s potential.
Recent evidence of a $440,000 debt has highlighted Superintendent Noyce’s tendency to favor one program above all others. One of the state superintendent’s core responsibilities is to ensure equitable distribution of funds. We believe Mr. Noyce has compromised this duty through favoritism.
The issue is not a conflict between American Sign Language (ASL) and Listening and Spoken Language (LSL). Parents seeking the ASL option are not receiving adequate support in Utah, especially from Mr. Noyce.
We need a superintendent who will offer fair, unbiased options to all families and students.
Thank you for your support in signing this petition.
Call to Action:
As concerned taxpayers and citizens, we urge the Utah State Board of Education to take immediate action and not renew Steven W. Noyce’s two-year contract as Superintendent of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind, a state agency funded by Utah taxpayers.
*****
Dr. Menlove posed five questions to Crystal to clarify her intentions. Crystal, along with Melissa Miller, vice president of the JMS PTA, responded thoroughly, addressing all aspects of their concerns about inequality in Deaf education in Utah, as follows:
*****
Dr. Menlove, May 5, 2011
I have collaborated with Utah Deaf Education Core Group and other parents of deaf children to provide you the following answers. If there is anything further, I can do to clarify our petition; please let me know. I'm exceedingly grateful for your response, inquiry, and interest.
- I am unable to ascertain who the individuals who have signed the petitions are. Are these the parents of students who are deaf? Are they students who are deaf.
The petition was signed by parents, current & former USDB/JMS students, and members of the ASL community at large. We have also taken this opportunity to speak on these issues as well as issues regarding Deaf Education in general, with the hearing community. Our petition was discussed at school activities, PTA meetings, and other community events.
- It is clear that the petitions speak to the renewal/non-renewal of Superintendent Noyce’s contract. Thanks for that feedback. What is not clear is the apparent allegation that ASL is not treated fairly. Can you help me better understand this?
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide you more detail with regards to the allegation of inequality. First, I would like to share my own experience and struggle to incorporate ASL into my son's education. Although my experience seemed like a struggle at the time, in comparison to the experience of every other hearing parent I've spoken to, I consider myself lucky. Following my account, Melissa Miller, our 2011-2012 PTA Vice President, has shared her own experience and comments. The struggle parents are having in asking for ASL is obvious evidence that ASL is not being treated "fairly," that it is being considered something subpar to the LSL path. Lastly, Utah Deaf Education Core Group has supplied hard facts and data in support of the same.
Crystal Hess
*****
Crystal Hess and Melissa Miller shared the following experiences from their time in the Parent Infant Program at the Utah School for the Deaf. Crystal sent their letter to Dr. Menlove:
*****
Crystal Hess’ Experience:
It is my understanding that the PIP Program has recently been reorganized and the early intervention experience is now quite different from what mine was. Although there are published orientation documents indicating that parents are provided a plethora of experience and information on both ASL/English and LSL, through my involvement in the PTA and with the LDS Deaf Branch I've learned this is not the case or practice. I was taken on tours of preschools and exposed firsthand to ASL and LSL. I was invited to the AG Bell Conference, participated in Hands and Voices all while observing our PIP Advisor teach my son both ASL and English. Nicky picked up ASL first. I was so desperate for words; I wanted so badly to communicate with my son. However, my decision was based on more than desperation. First, that it would obviously be easier for me to learn ASL than it would be for him to learn English, and second, English can be acquired later.
Shortly after making the decision I sat in my first IEP meeting. Before enrolling Nicky into Preschool, I had to sit before a committee and hope they agreed with my decision. I felt three feet tall as women who had never sat with Nicky, never seen his tears of frustration or his smile, they've never seen the light in his eyes with his "I love you" hands, they had never heard his giggle, they "knew" him from a collaboration of words on paper. All but one of these women would pity me. These women were sure they knew what was best for my son. They implied that I would be disabling my son by putting him in the ASL/English program.
I've never met a parent afforded the same unbiased information I was exposed to. Most stories mirror the IEP Committee experience I had, filled with judgment, fear, and insecurity. Every parent I've spoken to had been informed that ASL would limit their child's potential. Few parents knew about the Bi-Bi program offered at JMS. One parent told me she avoided JMS after being informed that her child would be ostracized for having hearing aids or an implant. I've never met a parent who had the same ASL/oral PIP experience. They had to make an uninformed decision before receiving services.
From the moment you are told your child is deaf, you are surrounded by medical professionals, audiologists, ENT, rheumatologist and geneticists, all dedicated to “Fixing” or “Normalizing” your child.
Learning ASL appears an archaic option when compared to digitized hearing aides, cochlear implants and aggressive speech therapy. Every day, I fail to find words to express the gratitude I have for the language we share with Nicky. That is until I had a teacher share his word for it: "treasure."
Is ASL superior to English? Where my son, and many deaf children, are unable to speak clearly and comfortably, ASL is priceless. Is Spanish more valuable than French? It's all language. It's the ability to communicate needs, wants, thoughts, ideas, feelings, and emotions. Why, in a time inundated with children's shows, language immersion programs, books, classes and computer programs all provided, purchased and utilized with the intent of obtaining the admirable and profitable skill of being bilingual, does ASL/LSL need to be a clear-cut choice for deaf children? Steven Noyce states, without validity, education or experience that; the "Use of sign language is contrary to an LSL approach just as the use of English Sign Systems is contrary to an ASL/English approach."
Melissa Miller's Experience:
“When I was first introduced to Deaf Education, my PIP Advisor told me nothing about JMS, only the LSL preschool. At that time, there was nothing more we wanted than for my son to be "normal." It was not until we moved and received a new PIP Advisor that I was introduced to the ASL community. It was then that we learned about the Total Communication class, as well as ALL the other preschool programs available through USDB. The Total communication (TC) program, was a two-year program that would afford our son the opportunity to learn both ASL and spoken language. After two years, we would decide on a more permanent education plan. The TC program seemed to be such a great option as we wanted my son to be bi-lingual. I can't imagine what parent would not want that for their child. What I came to find is that teachers, staff, and students didn't actually use ASL all day. They used spoken language and only if the child appeared to be struggling would they use a sign. Their main focus was to get these kids to speak, rather than to provide them with the basic fundamentals of preschool. The main reason we did not consider JMS as an option was that we were told that should we enroll him in JMS, he would not receive "speech services". (This is false) We were also told that "even if the teacher could hear, they refuse to use their voice." (This is also false, if the teacher is hearing and they can see a benefit to voicing, they will use it as a second option when possible.) Because our ultimate goal was for our son to be bilingual, and JMS appeared to be exclusively ASL, JMS seemed to not be the best fit. As his second year of preschool approached, we were told that my son was not paying attention in class, or developing language. They had diagnosed him with a "learning processing disorder." The IEP committee determined that all we could do was enroll him in JMS. My son's test results indicated that he had the same number of signs as he did spoken language. JMS was represented as a second-rate school for kids who had learning disabilities or failed to meet their spoken language educational standards. Being upset I refused to consider JMS and told them they were wrong and a learning processing disorder could not be properly diagnosed until he had reached a much older age. With a spoken language vocabulary insufficient to enroll him in the LSL program, and a limited ASL vocabulary, we had run out of options. After the dark and frightening representation we had been given of JMS, we were pleasantly surprised that sending him to JMS turned out to be the best decision we made through this whole journey!
It turned out my son does not have a learning processing disorder, he simply needed his native language, ASL. It also turned out that when you pair a sign with speech, rather than speech with sign, my son's vocabulary, both ASL and spoken grew exponentially. Now he soars academically, far surpassing his peers. Instead of the primary focus being developing spoken language, my son has had a real education. I do feel that speech services are limited at JMS, but not as a result of language bias as the LSL programs would have you believe. Speech services are limited because JMS' resources are limited. My son is denied additional speech services because we choose ASL as his main language. He has a full potential for spoken language yet he is punished because ASL is his first language. He is denied it, not because the school refuses to give it to him, but because the school does not have the funds or means to provide it and it is Mr. Noyce's intent that these kids should be provided only ASL because we picked that forbidden path.
Having answered your questions in this regard, I would ask the board to consider the following questions... Why not give these kids every opportunity available to them? If the potential is there, why are they not able to get the services necessary to nurture that potential? Why is Mr. Noyce dictating how my son is educated when he has never met him, sat in his class, or read his IEP and test scores? Why did the LSL program represent JMS to be a second rate school for kids with disabilities? If JMS had the means to offer more than 20 minutes per week, per student of speech services, how many parents would opt to enroll their children? Would this school have more students if they were given the just credibility they deserve?
Here is another example for you that the LSL program is "advertised" and the ASL is not. (please see attached link) https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=VbhDtZICsxU
Where is the ASL video? Also please note, they did not even consider taking the time to include closed captioning in a video intended to provide information in “Educating the Deaf.”
Although the petition clearly states “This is not an ASL vs. LSL battle”, multiple signers of the petitions indicate that ASL is superior, best, greater than, and so on. LSL. Again, can you help me understand this? Are any of the signatures from individual or families of individuals who have chosen an LSL program?
We, as the 2011-2012 JMS PTA have no control over the signatures’ comments. We understand that they have the right to express their feelings and thoughts from their experiences as well as their perspectives. Many of them are unhappy with the Utah School for the Deaf’s system and are aware of Mr. Noyce’s history and reputation. They wanted to sign it.
The petition does focus on ending Mr. Noyce’s two-year contract. The reason we clarified that this is not ASL vs. LSL is because we are aware that Mr. Noyce has provided untrue information about us, the ASL community.
We did not ask the LSL families for signatures. Since this petition basically requests for removal of Mr. Noyce, they already sent in their own petition last month.
While we did not approach the LSL Community regarding our petition, we have reached out to them under the reality of our circumstance, which is; LSL or ASL, USDB is our school. It is not the school of the deaf using spoken language, or the school of the deaf using ASL, it is the same. In doing so, we learned that the LSL community had been clearly miss-informed by LSL program administrators and staff as well as Mr. Noyce of our intent in rallying support. I would like to refer you to Ms. Wardell's blog. Ms. Wardell is the president of the LSL Parent Support Group. The JMS PTA has tried time and again to reiterate that we do not intend to take anything away from the LSL program. We never have. We simply want equality in funding, support, and information. It is this ignorance on behalf of the LSL program that implies an ASL/LSL battle. (Please see attached links)
http://specialneedskidslosetheirrights.com/children-rights/i-find-myself-fighting-for-my-childs-rights-once-again/
http://specialneedskidslosetheirrights.com/children-rights/a-temporary-win-for-lsl-parents-in-utah/ (those two links were no longer valid)
Your letter indicates that the petitions are "clearly indicating where that equality is lacking" and "is sufficient proof of the effect of neglect, misappropriation, and bias." Again, can you help me understand? Is more money per student being spent on ASL or LSL programs? Are ASL students being denied services LSL students are receiving? Are ASL teachers more qualified than LSL teachers? Are ASL IEPs being implemented differently than LSL IEPs? The facilities for ASL students of a different quality that the facilities for LSL students?
We have listed the following examples of Mr. Noyce's neglect, misappropriation, and bias:
- Failed to provide funding for the JMS playground while Mr. Noyce managed to fund $440,000 for Sound Beginnings when the budget of USDB is minus 0. Additional, LSL students have a playground at their public school.
- Failure to fund sports that allow social skills, physical activity, and interaction, like their peers have in their public schools. (LSL students have the opportunity to participate in sports in their public school.)
- Failed to provide equal options for parents as many of them are unaware of JMS’ option and are pushed into the LSL program/mainstream setting.
- Failed to provide an equal amount of training for both Parent Infant Program LSL and ASL Specialists; more training and funding have been spent on the LSL program.
- Mr. Noyce has taken away speech services or ASL services (Deaf Mentor, for instance) from those Parent Infant Program parents who pick ASL option and vice versa for parents who pick LSL option.
- Plans to halt speech services for JMS students after 3rd grade. (It was later clarified that Mr. Noyce does not plan to cut the Speech and Language Pathologist (SLP) services at 3rd grade as stated in this letter to Dr. Menlove. This was not decided. The SLP services were determined based on individual needs. USD/JMS did have to look at the service plan that is in place to make sure it is appropriate for our students’ needs).
- Offers JMS as an alternative placement for oral failures after 3rd grade. Education thus becomes subpar because now JMS has to deal with students who are now struggling with their education as a result of having been placed in and pushed through the LSL program without proper early and routine assessment.
- It is my opinion that services for all USDB students could be improved if the current energy expended in sustaining the ASL vs. LSL friction were channeled to programs for students. Do you have any suggestions as to how this might be accomplished?
The problem is, like we said earlier, not an ASL vs. LSL battle. The problem is the inequality in the support from the superintendent for the two programs. It is the frustration parents who choose the ASL option feel when their choices are belittled, discouraged and/or ignored. It is our observation that the frustration and negative energy would be resolved with neutral, appropriate leadership that focuses on educational equality and language access for deaf children. We agree with the Utah Deaf Education Core Group that parents who want the ASL option aren’t getting much support here in Utah, particularly not from Mr. Noyce. We need a superintendent who provides fair, unbiased options to all families and students. This is not happening with the administration of Mr. Noyce.
We like what Dr. Robert G. Sanderson’s dream (1992) posted at utahDeafeducation.com states, "That each child will be carefully evaluated by unbiased professionals who have the best interests of the child at heart, rather than their personal philosophies." We don't feel that Mr. Noyce has that quality in him. Additionally, it is our fear, that because morale is so low, which is a result of Mr. Noyce's administration, some of the ASL/English bilingual teachers may quit if he remains as superintendent.
We have noticed that since Mr. Noyce became superintendent, many families have moved out of the state where their children get better education, co-curricular activities, and peers.
The year I planned to enroll my son in JMS, parents were rallying legislators and representatives for a permanent school building. Success!!! Grateful for a building in poor economic times, we began fund raising for a playground. We went to great lengths to make clear that we were not complaining about the absence of a playground on our campus. We realize the harsh reality of budget cuts all of Utah Schools face and we had a beautiful, refurbished and permanent building for the first time in ten years. Our attempts were in vain as again, false information spread rapidly, and we appeared ungrateful and dissatisfied.
After two years, our small student body raised $55,000. A feat deemed impossible by many! A proper playground costs upwards of three times that, but Senator Morgan lobbied in the last legislative session for funds to build a playground at USDB's Salt Lake Campus, JMS. USDB received a $100,000 allotment from the State School Building Fund. We will finally have our playground! Before we could celebrate, we were at risk of losing our school altogether. I've been fighting for equality for our school, from before day one.
I was among those parents, and family members gathered outside of USOE on May 5th. After more than three hours, we were informed that a decision had not been reached and would not be reached shortly. One woman who had been involved with this school for much longer than I, said, with despair, that Mr. Noyce's renewal was imminent. Defeat and exhaustion lead me to sleepless nights of crying. My knee-jerk reaction was for my family to leave Utah, for my husband to transfer to Oregon. I will not put my son in a classroom that views him as disabled, and I will not let him grow up in a school that has been labeled as the "un-teachable" school. The school where my child is deemed less for having failed to obtain the necessary fluency required for oral education. There is no doubt in my mind that Mr. Noyce views JMS in any other manner.
My faith and gratitude is and has been in our teachers, who, despite the threat of closure and retention of Steve Noyce, have continued to put everything into their students. I've seen these teachers working until 10 pm preparing and organizing. Despite unpleasant newspaper articles, rumors and low morale, they are family. The teachers and students at JMS are the families that 80% of these kids don't have. 90% of deaf children have hearing parents, 80% of those parents will not learn sign language. It makes me physically ill that they as teachers are so underappreciated, and they as a family are at serious risk of unfavorable re-organization or closure.
This battle is of immeasurable importance, not just for my son, or Ms. Miller's son, but for all of Utah's present and future deaf children. This battle is not an ASL/LSL Battle. It is a battle for resources, support and the means to provide more than an “adequate” education for our children.
Thank you again, for everything!
Crystal Hess
*****
Dr. Menlove responded as follows:
I hope you understand that there are various viewpoints in almost all situations. I appreciate and applaud the passion of parents concerning the education of their children.
I am committed to providing the very best education possible for children in Utah. I am also committed to parental involvement in the education of their children and the rights of parents to make informed choices.
Although I may not always agree, I respect the process. I also encourage and support parents in their rights as parents and their rights as parents of students with disabilities. If parents feel their students are being treated unfairly, I always encourage them to exercise their due process rights.
I support JMS. I am not aware of any serious conversations among decision makers that indicate the closure of JMS. I have heard those comments and continually dispel them as I am now. That is simply not part of any plan that I am aware of. I have also never heard Steve Noyce say anything that is not positive and praising of the programs offered at JMS.
I invite you and others with your energy and passion to join me in providing quality programs to all.
Martell Menlove
The Utah Deaf Education Core Group believed Superintendent Noyce viewed JMS primarily as a fallback option for students who did not succeed in listening and spoken language education.
Melissa Miller, Representative Karen Morgan and Crystal Hess at the JMS playground
The The Utah State Board of Education Forms a Task Force
to Study Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind
to Study Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind
The Utah State Board of Education established a task force composed of legislative representatives, board members, and Utah School for the Deaf and Blind (USDB) staff to review USDB's role and structure in light of proposed budget cuts.
On May 26, 2011, the task force convened at the Division of Services for the Blind and Visually Impaired to hear concerns and gather input from parents and the wider community (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, May 26, 2011). The group included two legislative representatives (Jennifer M. Seelig and Stephen G. Handy), four board members (Dixie L. Allen, Leslie B. Castle, Joel Coleman—who later became USDB Superintendent—and Tami W. Pyfer), and two Utah State Office of Education staff members (Deputy Superintendent Martell Menlove and Associate Superintendent Todd Hauber). They collected feedback on the following questions:
1. Is the role of USDB to provide direct services to students with sensory disabilities or to support others who, in turn, provide direct services?
2. USDB is a "quasi-governmental agency" ultimately accountable to the Utah State Board of Education.
3. Is the current administrative structure of USDB meeting the needs of students and employees?
During a three-hour public hearing, parents, teachers, and community members strongly supported USDB, emphasizing the importance of preserving Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind and advocating for greater self-governance. This collective dedication underscores the community's commitment to the future of these schools and reassures stakeholders of continued local engagement.
Seventy-five people attended the hearing; about 80 percent were advocates for listening and spoken language, including Dr. Karl White from Sound Beginnings, Cheryl Winston from the University of Utah, and several parents. Additionally, USDB retirees, including Dr. Lee Robinson, a former USDB Superintendent, and John Schmidt, a former director of the Central Division and oral advocate, were present.
The most common question was whether USDB's role is to provide direct services to students with sensory disabilities or to support others to provide those services. Supporters advocated maintaining both standalone schools and mainstream classroom support, including services such as sign language interpreters for Deaf students (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, May 26, 2011).
However, most supporters of LSL praised the effective outreach services offered by the Utah School for the Deaf for Deaf and hard-of-hearing students in school districts. They highlighted that USD service providers, such as speech therapists, continue to deliver services in mainstream settings because of USD's expertise. Many parents requested that these services remain unchanged. Dr. Robinson, drawing on his experience as a former superintendent, noted that changing the USD system would be impossible, demonstrating his point by showing the task force a box full of thick folders indicating no improvement.
There were also numerous comments about USD being a national model for Deaf education. Jeff W. Pollock, a member of the USDB Advisory Council, stated that while USD might not serve as a national model for ASL/English bilingual education, it was a suitable model for the Listening and Spoken Language philosophy. He emphasized the lack of support for the ASL/English bilingual program at the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf, despite Superintendent Noyce's claim to the contrary. Jeff encouraged the task force to investigate further by conducting independent interviews with JMS personnel. While the Utah Deaf community valued this school and the options it provided, they faced criticism for supposedly being "fanatics" and "never satisfied" when raising concerns about improving services and facilities. He expressed that the goal should be the continuous improvement of all programs (Jeff W. Pollock, personal communication, June 1, 2011).
Like many others, Jeff suggested dividing the schools into two separate entities: the School for the Blind and the School for the Deaf. He asserted that separating the schools may be a valid option worth exploring, especially as Deaf, Blind, and Deaf-Blind individuals who have gone through the system as students can share insights on what worked for them and what did not. This proposal should be considered in contrast to the current superintendency structure.
Another frequently asked question was whether USDB's current
administrative structure meets the needs of students and staff. Many teachers, including Michelle Tanner, Ellen O'Hara, and Lynell Smith, called for the state board to relinquish governing authority and grant greater autonomy to the schools. Michelle—a USDB Teacher Association president and Advisory Council member—noted, "The state board has a full plate, and teachers recommend that USDB have its own governing board" (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, May 26, 2011).
As a former member of the USDB Advisory Council and the USDB Legislative Task Force, I, on behalf of the Utah Deaf Education Core Group, recommended reducing the burdensome administrative duties at USDB and instead focusing on teachers and students. We proposed delegating more governance responsibilities and authority to lower tiers, such as the USDB Advisory Council and program directors. For example, some issues that the USDB Advisory Council should consider had already been decided by Superintendent Noyce or other administrators before the Advisory Council was informed. Many members of the Advisory Council expressed confusion about their roles due to their lack of decision-making authority (Jeff W. Pollock, personal communication, June 1, 2011). Additionally, the current arrangement, in which the Utah State Board of Education oversees the education of students with sensory disabilities, is ineffective due to its limited understanding of Deaf, Blind, and DeafBlind education and of USDB in general.
As outlined in HB 296, which governs USDB, a structure with a superintendent and associate superintendents—where the superintendent serves as a CEO, focusing primarily on finances, funding, and legislative matters while avoiding curriculum and day-to-day operational decisions—could work well. The superintendent should possess the appropriate experience and comprehension of effective teaching approaches for children with unique sensory needs, allowing each associate superintendent to manage their respective school of sensory specialty without undue interference.
However, in the 22 months since Steven Noyce was appointed USDB Superintendent, this structure has not been implemented as planned.
Therefore, I recommend that the Associate Superintendent of the Deaf Division and the Director of the Deaf Parent Infant Program possess a background in Deaf Education, coupled with knowledge of Special Education law, rather than solely in Special Education. It is vital to point out the significant differences between Deaf Education and Special Education.
Furthermore, these individuals should be able to sign and communicate directly with USDB students, Deaf faculty, and parents. We need people in these two positions who can effectively collaborate between the Listening and Spoken Language (LSL) and American Sign Language (ASL)/English programs, facilitating joint projects and services.
The Associate Superintendent for Deaf Education and the Director of the Deaf Parent Infant Program must comply with the goals established by the newly formed committee, chaired by Christine Timothy, for Utah's version of "The National Agenda: Moving Forward on Achieving Educational Equality for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students" (this must be a state rule, not merely a guideline). For instance, in 2009, the Idaho Schools for the Deaf and the Blind underwent a similar analysis by a task force, which recommended creating a new governing board, a Board of Directors, to oversee the school and remove the Idaho State Board of Education from its jurisdiction. A law was enacted to facilitate this change, allowing for a transition period. Responsibility for day-to-day operations was transferred to the new Board of Directors, which was tasked with interfacing with school districts throughout the state to ensure that services were delivered to targeted students. The board also managed the residential school program.
Finally, I recommended that the USDB superintendent and the two associate superintendents hold equal authority and report directly to the newly created USDB Board of Directors. In my letter on behalf of the Utah Deaf Education Core Group, I urged a reduction in the cumbersome administrative duties at USDB to allow a greater focus on teachers and students. Lower tiers, such as the USDB Advisory Council and program directors, should receive more governance responsibilities and authority. The program directors should not be required to attend numerous meetings, as the workload prevents them from being in their respective offices, schools, or programs to observe and collaborate with their teachers and students. They supported the "Educational Paradigm Shift" articulated by a USDB teacher and acknowledged the need for a significant shift in the USD's perspective on Deaf Education.
As representatives of a minority group, JMS PTA President Crystal Hess, PTA Vice President Melissa Miller (a JMS parent), Mary Hash, and her son shared their positive experiences at JMS before the task force.
In conclusion, the task force will review USDB's organization to identify potential improvements, with a report to the state board scheduled for August 5, 2011.
On May 26, 2011, the task force convened at the Division of Services for the Blind and Visually Impaired to hear concerns and gather input from parents and the wider community (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, May 26, 2011). The group included two legislative representatives (Jennifer M. Seelig and Stephen G. Handy), four board members (Dixie L. Allen, Leslie B. Castle, Joel Coleman—who later became USDB Superintendent—and Tami W. Pyfer), and two Utah State Office of Education staff members (Deputy Superintendent Martell Menlove and Associate Superintendent Todd Hauber). They collected feedback on the following questions:
1. Is the role of USDB to provide direct services to students with sensory disabilities or to support others who, in turn, provide direct services?
- a. Which of these services is most important to students in Utah?
- b. What should the relationship be between USDB and school districts and charter schools?
- c. Are students best served in USDB classrooms or in district and charter classrooms with USDB support?
2. USDB is a "quasi-governmental agency" ultimately accountable to the Utah State Board of Education.
- a. Who should be ultimately responsible for USDB students?
- b. Who is responsible for USDB concerns, and is there a better process for resolving them?
- c. Where should the "buck stop" for USDB?
3. Is the current administrative structure of USDB meeting the needs of students and employees?
- a. Is there a more efficient administrative structure?
- b. What do you believe is the best administrative structure for USDB?
During a three-hour public hearing, parents, teachers, and community members strongly supported USDB, emphasizing the importance of preserving Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind and advocating for greater self-governance. This collective dedication underscores the community's commitment to the future of these schools and reassures stakeholders of continued local engagement.
Seventy-five people attended the hearing; about 80 percent were advocates for listening and spoken language, including Dr. Karl White from Sound Beginnings, Cheryl Winston from the University of Utah, and several parents. Additionally, USDB retirees, including Dr. Lee Robinson, a former USDB Superintendent, and John Schmidt, a former director of the Central Division and oral advocate, were present.
The most common question was whether USDB's role is to provide direct services to students with sensory disabilities or to support others to provide those services. Supporters advocated maintaining both standalone schools and mainstream classroom support, including services such as sign language interpreters for Deaf students (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, May 26, 2011).
However, most supporters of LSL praised the effective outreach services offered by the Utah School for the Deaf for Deaf and hard-of-hearing students in school districts. They highlighted that USD service providers, such as speech therapists, continue to deliver services in mainstream settings because of USD's expertise. Many parents requested that these services remain unchanged. Dr. Robinson, drawing on his experience as a former superintendent, noted that changing the USD system would be impossible, demonstrating his point by showing the task force a box full of thick folders indicating no improvement.
There were also numerous comments about USD being a national model for Deaf education. Jeff W. Pollock, a member of the USDB Advisory Council, stated that while USD might not serve as a national model for ASL/English bilingual education, it was a suitable model for the Listening and Spoken Language philosophy. He emphasized the lack of support for the ASL/English bilingual program at the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf, despite Superintendent Noyce's claim to the contrary. Jeff encouraged the task force to investigate further by conducting independent interviews with JMS personnel. While the Utah Deaf community valued this school and the options it provided, they faced criticism for supposedly being "fanatics" and "never satisfied" when raising concerns about improving services and facilities. He expressed that the goal should be the continuous improvement of all programs (Jeff W. Pollock, personal communication, June 1, 2011).
Like many others, Jeff suggested dividing the schools into two separate entities: the School for the Blind and the School for the Deaf. He asserted that separating the schools may be a valid option worth exploring, especially as Deaf, Blind, and Deaf-Blind individuals who have gone through the system as students can share insights on what worked for them and what did not. This proposal should be considered in contrast to the current superintendency structure.
Another frequently asked question was whether USDB's current
administrative structure meets the needs of students and staff. Many teachers, including Michelle Tanner, Ellen O'Hara, and Lynell Smith, called for the state board to relinquish governing authority and grant greater autonomy to the schools. Michelle—a USDB Teacher Association president and Advisory Council member—noted, "The state board has a full plate, and teachers recommend that USDB have its own governing board" (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, May 26, 2011).
As a former member of the USDB Advisory Council and the USDB Legislative Task Force, I, on behalf of the Utah Deaf Education Core Group, recommended reducing the burdensome administrative duties at USDB and instead focusing on teachers and students. We proposed delegating more governance responsibilities and authority to lower tiers, such as the USDB Advisory Council and program directors. For example, some issues that the USDB Advisory Council should consider had already been decided by Superintendent Noyce or other administrators before the Advisory Council was informed. Many members of the Advisory Council expressed confusion about their roles due to their lack of decision-making authority (Jeff W. Pollock, personal communication, June 1, 2011). Additionally, the current arrangement, in which the Utah State Board of Education oversees the education of students with sensory disabilities, is ineffective due to its limited understanding of Deaf, Blind, and DeafBlind education and of USDB in general.
As outlined in HB 296, which governs USDB, a structure with a superintendent and associate superintendents—where the superintendent serves as a CEO, focusing primarily on finances, funding, and legislative matters while avoiding curriculum and day-to-day operational decisions—could work well. The superintendent should possess the appropriate experience and comprehension of effective teaching approaches for children with unique sensory needs, allowing each associate superintendent to manage their respective school of sensory specialty without undue interference.
However, in the 22 months since Steven Noyce was appointed USDB Superintendent, this structure has not been implemented as planned.
Therefore, I recommend that the Associate Superintendent of the Deaf Division and the Director of the Deaf Parent Infant Program possess a background in Deaf Education, coupled with knowledge of Special Education law, rather than solely in Special Education. It is vital to point out the significant differences between Deaf Education and Special Education.
Furthermore, these individuals should be able to sign and communicate directly with USDB students, Deaf faculty, and parents. We need people in these two positions who can effectively collaborate between the Listening and Spoken Language (LSL) and American Sign Language (ASL)/English programs, facilitating joint projects and services.
The Associate Superintendent for Deaf Education and the Director of the Deaf Parent Infant Program must comply with the goals established by the newly formed committee, chaired by Christine Timothy, for Utah's version of "The National Agenda: Moving Forward on Achieving Educational Equality for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students" (this must be a state rule, not merely a guideline). For instance, in 2009, the Idaho Schools for the Deaf and the Blind underwent a similar analysis by a task force, which recommended creating a new governing board, a Board of Directors, to oversee the school and remove the Idaho State Board of Education from its jurisdiction. A law was enacted to facilitate this change, allowing for a transition period. Responsibility for day-to-day operations was transferred to the new Board of Directors, which was tasked with interfacing with school districts throughout the state to ensure that services were delivered to targeted students. The board also managed the residential school program.
Finally, I recommended that the USDB superintendent and the two associate superintendents hold equal authority and report directly to the newly created USDB Board of Directors. In my letter on behalf of the Utah Deaf Education Core Group, I urged a reduction in the cumbersome administrative duties at USDB to allow a greater focus on teachers and students. Lower tiers, such as the USDB Advisory Council and program directors, should receive more governance responsibilities and authority. The program directors should not be required to attend numerous meetings, as the workload prevents them from being in their respective offices, schools, or programs to observe and collaborate with their teachers and students. They supported the "Educational Paradigm Shift" articulated by a USDB teacher and acknowledged the need for a significant shift in the USD's perspective on Deaf Education.
As representatives of a minority group, JMS PTA President Crystal Hess, PTA Vice President Melissa Miller (a JMS parent), Mary Hash, and her son shared their positive experiences at JMS before the task force.
In conclusion, the task force will review USDB's organization to identify potential improvements, with a report to the state board scheduled for August 5, 2011.
The Status of USDB Superintendent
Steven W. Noyce's Contract
Steven W. Noyce's Contract
At the Utah State Board of Education meeting on June 6, 2011, a month after the May 5th vigil, the agenda did not indicate that the contract for USDB Superintendent Noyce would be reviewed. Crystal Hess expressed hope that the information she and Melissa Miller compiled would remain valuable to the State Board's deliberations on JMS, USDB, and Superintendent Noyce's contract.
According to Dr. Martell Menlove on June 6, 2011, the Utah State Board of Education had not yet decided on Superintendent Noyce's future employment with USDB. He expected the board to address the matter at an upcoming meeting, but he could not confirm the exact date. Crystal Hess's petition had been shared with some decision-makers and would be considered as part of the process. However, Dr. Menlove emphasized that the decision would be based on data and input from various sources—not on the number of petition signatures, emails to board members, or attendance at meetings. Essentially, he signaled to parents and the Utah Deaf community that media campaigns, letters, and petitions would not influence the State Board's decision on Superintendent Noyce's contract.
This stance frustrated the Utah Deaf Education Core Group, as they continued to receive messages from board members and Dr. Menlove urging them to step back. The Core Group felt singled out due to their Deaf identity and believed they were expected to serve as "good examples" for their community.
The State Board's decision regarding Superintendent Noyce was delayed as they awaited the report from the State Board Task Force. The Utah Deaf Education Core Group believed the task force's work should have been separate from the issue of Superintendent Noyce's contract, while the Utah State Board of Education may have seen it differently.
According to Dr. Martell Menlove on June 6, 2011, the Utah State Board of Education had not yet decided on Superintendent Noyce's future employment with USDB. He expected the board to address the matter at an upcoming meeting, but he could not confirm the exact date. Crystal Hess's petition had been shared with some decision-makers and would be considered as part of the process. However, Dr. Menlove emphasized that the decision would be based on data and input from various sources—not on the number of petition signatures, emails to board members, or attendance at meetings. Essentially, he signaled to parents and the Utah Deaf community that media campaigns, letters, and petitions would not influence the State Board's decision on Superintendent Noyce's contract.
This stance frustrated the Utah Deaf Education Core Group, as they continued to receive messages from board members and Dr. Menlove urging them to step back. The Core Group felt singled out due to their Deaf identity and believed they were expected to serve as "good examples" for their community.
The State Board's decision regarding Superintendent Noyce was delayed as they awaited the report from the State Board Task Force. The Utah Deaf Education Core Group believed the task force's work should have been separate from the issue of Superintendent Noyce's contract, while the Utah State Board of Education may have seen it differently.
Dr. Martell Menlove/ Source: The Salt Lake Tribune, October 9, 2012
Bronwyn O'Hara Submits
Her Letters to People in Authority
Her Letters to People in Authority
Due to the ongoing review by the Utah State Board of Education's task force, USDB Superintendent Noyce's contract has been changed from a two-year term to a month-to-month arrangement. While the task force examines USDB's role and administrative structure, Bronwyn O'Hara submitted a letter on July 7, 2011, requesting that those in authority—including the task force—provide specific instances in which Superintendent Noyce failed to fulfill his responsibilities. The signatures that Bronwyn collected from various Utah Deaf community organizations demonstrated strong support for her request, highlighting the commitment and collaboration among stakeholders. She wrote the following:
*****
Dear USBOE members and USDB Advisory Council, July 7, 2011
As you work in your committees for USDB this summer, I would like you to include in your studies this list of examples where Mr. Steve Noyce has not done his job as Superintendent of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind. These facts have flowed into your hands in the past two years, showing beyond a shadow of a doubt that Mr. Noyce has not followed Utah Code. Examples are not limited to these presented here, however, read these below:
Utah Code 53A-25b-202. Superintendent acts as a chief executive officer and selects an associate superintendent for the deaf and blind schools:
Utah Code 53A-25b-202. Superintendent demonstrates knowledge of school management and the instruction of deaf persons:
Utah Code 53A-25b-201. The Superintendent must have demonstrated success in the administration of education programs:
A superintendent is supposed to secure funds for the programs of his school. He has failed at this.
Utah Code 53A-25b-201. The superintendent demonstrates skills in organizational management
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)-Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
Under Federal Law, children with disabilities are to be educated the same number of days, as children without disabilities.
Under Mr. Noyce, as Superintendent of USDB, this was not done. Three furlough days were taken in March, April, and May 2011 to manage the fiscal overspending that had been done since August 2009. The missed days are a violation of this provision of the ADA-IDEA law.
There have been numerous letters received by the State Board of Education and the Advisory Council sharing their experiences with Mr. Noyce and his manipulations of educational programs for Deaf children. Parents who have written are, but are not limited to, the following: Jodi Christel Becker, Julio and Minnie Mae Wilding Diaz, Dan and Stephanie Mathis, Jacob Dietz, Melissa Miller, Amy English, Melissa Jensen, Vea Lynn Jarvis, Suzanne Morrison, Bronwyn O'Hara, Jennifer Jackson, Bill Barber, and one anonymous.
Students who have written are, but are not limited to, the following: Nina Taggart and Shyanne Van Zyverden (first runner-up, Miss Deaf Utah 2011). Professionals who have written include, but are not limited to, the following: Jean Thomas and an anonymous interpreter. Getting letters from these people is a significant message to which to pay attention. Many of these letters were received before Steven Noyce was hired, warning of the inappropriateness of his hiring for the superintendent job. These letters also represent many unwritten letters, which haven't been written for various reasons.
In addition, in August 2009, you received letters of concern regarding the hiring of Steven Noyce from two local Deaf organisations. The Utah Association of the Deaf Board: Ronald J. Nelson, President Lorin Melander, Vice President, Jen Byrnes, Secretary, Valerie G. Kinney, Treasurer along with Board members: Donna Melander, Abel Martinez, Stephen Ehrlich, Mistie Owens, and Rob Kerr; and The Beehive Chapter of the Gallaudet University Alumni Association: Lorin Melander, President, Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz, Vice President, Bart Kern, Secretary, and Christopher Palaia, Treasurer.
The letters referred to here should be in your correspondence (email or mail) but can also be reviewed on the Internet at https://sites.google.com/site/utahDeafeducation/home
Lastly, in May 2011, you received a petition from the JMS PTA with 1,215 signatures petitioning the Utah State Board of Education not to renew Mr. Noyce's contract that was coming due on June 30, 2011. These are very large responses from parents, students, professionals, and people in the community. These are very significant numbers and speaks loudly about concerns that have arisen regarding Superintendent Steve Noyce's job performance.
A superintendent is supposed to build a rapport with the student body, parents, and community. Mr. Noyce has failed at this. He might be popular with the supporters of the oral/aural (LSL) Deaf segment of the School for the Deaf, but this is only a part of the population with whom he needs to have a working relationship. As a parent, Jacob Dietz, expressed in his blog, in an open letter to the USDB Advisory Council on April 21, 2011:
Since Steve Noyce has been Superintendent, relations between USDB and the Deaf community have never been worse. When asked about this, Steve seems to have the attitude that he doesn't really care what they think, and that this community is out to get him. He dismisses their concerns as it being none of their business because they don't have kids in the program. This is wrong. There are many in the Deaf community who do have kids in USDB. In addition to that, those I have had contact with in the Deaf community are concerned because they don't want this generation to have the same struggles as they did. They understand that a quality education is the key to a successful and bright future for any child. They fight for all Deaf children because they see them as their future. It is their business, yet Steve Noyce continues to try to distance himself from them."
There has been very low morale among the teachers for the Deaf and blind in all divisions. At one point during the past 24 months, there had been discussions among the teachers to circulate a “Vote of No Confidence” in Mr. Noyce as superintendent. There has also been talk of many teachers walking out if Mr. Noyce's contract is renewed. On occasion he had been overheard/overseen interacting in an unprofessional and bullying manner with subordinates who do not agree with him. The fact that the teachers' union has made complaints about him sends a powerful message to each of you that Mr. Noyce is failing at this part of his job duties.
Mr. Noyce is one of two superintendents to have had a 360-job review and survey requested and done. There was an attempt by Mr. Noyce and his proponents to stack the respondents unfairly in his favor to skew the answers. The results of these two questionnaires should weigh heavily in deciding whether to deny him a contract renewal.
Mr. Noyce is a member of nationally recognized oral/aural organizations and has taken an active role in some. However, he is not part of any professional or nationally recognized organization(s) that is/are affiliated with American Sign Language or a Bilingual program approach. We feel this lack of involvement among cutting-edge, state-of-the-art information impedes Mr. Noyce from understanding every facet of his school population and staff, as a good superintendent should. Mr. Noyce is insulating himself from further knowledge in regards to the Bilingual program at USDB which makes it very difficult, if not impossible, for him to make well-balanced decisions for that program.
We are gravely concerned about the inequality in the Deaf Division and its flawed implementation of programs. We cannot ignore it any longer. As far as these facts presented, Mr. Noyce has failed in performing his job as USDB superintendent in accordance with Utah Codes cited.
As Mr. Noyce's contract has expired as of June 30, 2011, we are asking that his contract not be renewed and a new superintendent search begin as soon as possible.
Respectfully submitted,
Bronwyn O'Hara
parent of Deaf children and Deaf education advocate
Contents of letter endorsed by:
Philippe Montalette, President
Utah Association of the Deaf
Crystal Hess, President
Jean Massieu School of USDB PTA
Jodi Christel Becker
Utah Deaf Education Core Group
Stephanie Mathis, Treasurer
Beehive Chapter of the Gallaudet Alumni Association
CC: Utah Senator Karen Morgan
USBOE Task Force (M. Menlove, L. Castle, T. Pfer, J. Coleman, J. Seelig, T. Hauber) Governor's webpage: http://www.governor.utah.gov/goca/form_comment.html
*****
Superintendent Noyce's contract was originally set to expire on June 30, just before the start of the new fiscal year on July 1. However, he was granted an extension to continue as superintendent for a little longer. This temporary extension was intended to ensure continuity during the review process, emphasizing the importance of stable leadership during this critical period.
*****
Dear USBOE members and USDB Advisory Council, July 7, 2011
As you work in your committees for USDB this summer, I would like you to include in your studies this list of examples where Mr. Steve Noyce has not done his job as Superintendent of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind. These facts have flowed into your hands in the past two years, showing beyond a shadow of a doubt that Mr. Noyce has not followed Utah Code. Examples are not limited to these presented here, however, read these below:
Utah Code 53A-25b-202. Superintendent acts as a chief executive officer and selects an associate superintendent for the deaf and blind schools:
- Mr. Noyce has failed to recruit and secure an Associate Superintendent for the Blind. By his own admission, the conditions in the blind school are deplorable ('A Plea to The Advisory Council' dated 4/21/2011).
- During Aug 2009-Dec 2010 Mr. Noyce interfered with the Associate Superintendent of the Deaf in doing her job. As a result, that person resigned January 2011 and had not been replaced.
- Rather than attend to his responsibility in recruiting candidates for the two open Associate Superintendent positions, Mr. Noyce is running the school himself. He became overly involved with revamping the Parent-Deaf Infant Program when curriculum duties are clearly the Associate Superintendent's, not the Superintendent’s. (Town Hall Mtgs with Day Mullings, Parent-Infant program Director, May 2010).
- Mr. Noyce has spent too much time in the past 24 months focusing on doing the Listening & Spoken Language part of the Associate Superintendent’s job.
Utah Code 53A-25b-202. Superintendent demonstrates knowledge of school management and the instruction of deaf persons:
- Mr. Noyce does not advocate for nor represent the needs of the American Sign Language/English Bilingual segment of the deaf school and has failed to communicate their needs to the State Board of Education and the legislature.
- Mr. Noyce is not taking time to learn about the American Sign Language/English Bilingual program's philosophy, goals, and outcomes. There is little demonstrated understanding in Mr. Noyce regarding bilingual education as it applies to deaf students.
- Although Mr. Noyce has worked in Deaf Education for 40 years, he has not learned to sign nor can he understand sign language. This impedes him from directly interacting with students, teachers, and/or parents who are deaf or hard of hearing. In this, he has failed this segment of student, staff, and parents the state school serves. This lack says a lot about where Mr. Noyce's priorities are and who are left out.
Utah Code 53A-25b-201. The Superintendent must have demonstrated success in the administration of education programs:
A superintendent is supposed to secure funds for the programs of his school. He has failed at this.
- Between August 2009 and May 2010, Mr. Noyce spent state school money to excessively remodel a building on the Ogden campus said to be for the exclusive use of only one program's parents of deaf infants/toddlers, not for use by all families served by the school.
- Mr. Noyce's performance at the 2011 legislative session was not successful. He expected the legislature to make up monies owed USDB in 2010 from local school districts. This didn't happen, and the school was projected to run out of money before June 30, 2011.
- March 2011: The decision was made to use furlough days in order to continue operating until the end of June 2011. This led to children not receiving an education on those days and teachers and staff not getting paid.
- Mr. Noyce contributed state money ($440,000) from the coffers of the school to a non-USDB speech program at Utah State University (March 2011 Advisory Council notes).
- Mr. Noyce denied providing a playground for the Jean Massieu School which houses the USDB Bilingual program.
- Mr. Noyce stepped over the Associate Superintendent and changed the Parent-Infant Program for Deaf and hard of hearing infants/toddlers. Parents are now denied service choices that were working well for children and families prior to August 2009 when Mr. Noyce was hired.
- Mr. Noyce's policy of requiring parents to decide a purely oral/aural (LSL) program or a signing program (ASL/E Bilingual) as soon as possible is causing mistakes in child/student placement decisions. In April 13, 2010, blog entry, Jacob Dietz says “I think it is wrong to force parents to choose one or the other path when the child is only 45 days old. Why? How can a parent know which way would best benefit their children at only 45 days? They can't.” These parental decisions can be rushed and, many times, are based on misinformation. While Mr. Noyce verbally states that he supports both programs, the fact remains that the LSL (oral) program is presented by USDB staff as promising parents their child(ren) will hear and speak while the signing program is presented for speaking and hearing failures. This misinformation results in the inaccurate placement of some children or the withholding of vital services to other children that deserve them, i.e., speech training for ASL/E students and ASL or ASL instructions for LSL students.
- Parents are guided by USDB personnel to place their children in the LSL program with the assurance they can add signing later. (personal phone conversation with Anissa Wardell, 2/23/2011). However, if later the parents want to move their children into the Bilingual program, Mr. Noyce has explained the school doesn't legally have to change the child's program until he/she fails at the Speech and Hearing goals. (See “Letter from Anonymous Terp” at website -- https://sites.google.com/site/utahDeafeducation/home/yourletters/anonymous2)
- Typically when the child does fail, he/she is usually in 3rd-to-5th grade and is grossly behind in language acquisition. This creates the false idea that signing and JMS are only for those who are linguistically behind. This misrepresents to parents and educators outside of Deaf Education the successful aspects of educating the deaf using a bilingual approach. This, furthermore, causes the other students at the ASL/English Bilingual program to have to be educated with students who have failed in the LSL program and are at a lower linguistic and academic level. JMS's intrinsic value is not in being a convenient program for the LSL program failures.
Utah Code 53A-25b-201. The superintendent demonstrates skills in organizational management
- The promotional video that was made at USDB about the Listening & Spoken Language program was put on the You-Tube website by an LSL parent who was a new Advisory Council member (April 2011). To my knowledge, this was not taken off of the site. When asked about the Bilingual promotional video, Mr. Noyce answered that the one the school was making for the American Sign Language/English bilingual program was not done yet. He did not mention asking the parent to remove the posting from You-Tube, out of respect for high feelings among bilingual parents of favoritism bordering on discrimination. It's currently unclear if the ASL/E Bilingual video has been put up on You-Tube, like the other one. This is preferential treatment towards one program rather than equality for both.
- Mr. Noyce has taken time off from his job duties at USDB in order to fly to various deaf schools in the country to promote only one program that is under his auspices. This is unfair. A superintendent is not to show bias or favoritism as it might affect his decision-making abilities.
- During the last year, Mr. Noyce has taken employee positions, specialists, and student enrollment from the Bilingual program to put into the LSL program. This has created a crippled program, because of lowered critical mass, for the Bilingual students.
- During the March 2011 Advisory Council meeting, Mr. Noyce verbally berated the Teachers' Union representative in front of the AC, and continued his bullying, disrespectful demeanor even after the meeting was adjourned, and in spite of being told by council members, he should not interact with his staff that way.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)-Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
Under Federal Law, children with disabilities are to be educated the same number of days, as children without disabilities.
Under Mr. Noyce, as Superintendent of USDB, this was not done. Three furlough days were taken in March, April, and May 2011 to manage the fiscal overspending that had been done since August 2009. The missed days are a violation of this provision of the ADA-IDEA law.
There have been numerous letters received by the State Board of Education and the Advisory Council sharing their experiences with Mr. Noyce and his manipulations of educational programs for Deaf children. Parents who have written are, but are not limited to, the following: Jodi Christel Becker, Julio and Minnie Mae Wilding Diaz, Dan and Stephanie Mathis, Jacob Dietz, Melissa Miller, Amy English, Melissa Jensen, Vea Lynn Jarvis, Suzanne Morrison, Bronwyn O'Hara, Jennifer Jackson, Bill Barber, and one anonymous.
Students who have written are, but are not limited to, the following: Nina Taggart and Shyanne Van Zyverden (first runner-up, Miss Deaf Utah 2011). Professionals who have written include, but are not limited to, the following: Jean Thomas and an anonymous interpreter. Getting letters from these people is a significant message to which to pay attention. Many of these letters were received before Steven Noyce was hired, warning of the inappropriateness of his hiring for the superintendent job. These letters also represent many unwritten letters, which haven't been written for various reasons.
In addition, in August 2009, you received letters of concern regarding the hiring of Steven Noyce from two local Deaf organisations. The Utah Association of the Deaf Board: Ronald J. Nelson, President Lorin Melander, Vice President, Jen Byrnes, Secretary, Valerie G. Kinney, Treasurer along with Board members: Donna Melander, Abel Martinez, Stephen Ehrlich, Mistie Owens, and Rob Kerr; and The Beehive Chapter of the Gallaudet University Alumni Association: Lorin Melander, President, Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz, Vice President, Bart Kern, Secretary, and Christopher Palaia, Treasurer.
The letters referred to here should be in your correspondence (email or mail) but can also be reviewed on the Internet at https://sites.google.com/site/utahDeafeducation/home
Lastly, in May 2011, you received a petition from the JMS PTA with 1,215 signatures petitioning the Utah State Board of Education not to renew Mr. Noyce's contract that was coming due on June 30, 2011. These are very large responses from parents, students, professionals, and people in the community. These are very significant numbers and speaks loudly about concerns that have arisen regarding Superintendent Steve Noyce's job performance.
A superintendent is supposed to build a rapport with the student body, parents, and community. Mr. Noyce has failed at this. He might be popular with the supporters of the oral/aural (LSL) Deaf segment of the School for the Deaf, but this is only a part of the population with whom he needs to have a working relationship. As a parent, Jacob Dietz, expressed in his blog, in an open letter to the USDB Advisory Council on April 21, 2011:
Since Steve Noyce has been Superintendent, relations between USDB and the Deaf community have never been worse. When asked about this, Steve seems to have the attitude that he doesn't really care what they think, and that this community is out to get him. He dismisses their concerns as it being none of their business because they don't have kids in the program. This is wrong. There are many in the Deaf community who do have kids in USDB. In addition to that, those I have had contact with in the Deaf community are concerned because they don't want this generation to have the same struggles as they did. They understand that a quality education is the key to a successful and bright future for any child. They fight for all Deaf children because they see them as their future. It is their business, yet Steve Noyce continues to try to distance himself from them."
There has been very low morale among the teachers for the Deaf and blind in all divisions. At one point during the past 24 months, there had been discussions among the teachers to circulate a “Vote of No Confidence” in Mr. Noyce as superintendent. There has also been talk of many teachers walking out if Mr. Noyce's contract is renewed. On occasion he had been overheard/overseen interacting in an unprofessional and bullying manner with subordinates who do not agree with him. The fact that the teachers' union has made complaints about him sends a powerful message to each of you that Mr. Noyce is failing at this part of his job duties.
Mr. Noyce is one of two superintendents to have had a 360-job review and survey requested and done. There was an attempt by Mr. Noyce and his proponents to stack the respondents unfairly in his favor to skew the answers. The results of these two questionnaires should weigh heavily in deciding whether to deny him a contract renewal.
Mr. Noyce is a member of nationally recognized oral/aural organizations and has taken an active role in some. However, he is not part of any professional or nationally recognized organization(s) that is/are affiliated with American Sign Language or a Bilingual program approach. We feel this lack of involvement among cutting-edge, state-of-the-art information impedes Mr. Noyce from understanding every facet of his school population and staff, as a good superintendent should. Mr. Noyce is insulating himself from further knowledge in regards to the Bilingual program at USDB which makes it very difficult, if not impossible, for him to make well-balanced decisions for that program.
We are gravely concerned about the inequality in the Deaf Division and its flawed implementation of programs. We cannot ignore it any longer. As far as these facts presented, Mr. Noyce has failed in performing his job as USDB superintendent in accordance with Utah Codes cited.
As Mr. Noyce's contract has expired as of June 30, 2011, we are asking that his contract not be renewed and a new superintendent search begin as soon as possible.
Respectfully submitted,
Bronwyn O'Hara
parent of Deaf children and Deaf education advocate
Contents of letter endorsed by:
Philippe Montalette, President
Utah Association of the Deaf
Crystal Hess, President
Jean Massieu School of USDB PTA
Jodi Christel Becker
Utah Deaf Education Core Group
Stephanie Mathis, Treasurer
Beehive Chapter of the Gallaudet Alumni Association
CC: Utah Senator Karen Morgan
USBOE Task Force (M. Menlove, L. Castle, T. Pfer, J. Coleman, J. Seelig, T. Hauber) Governor's webpage: http://www.governor.utah.gov/goca/form_comment.html
*****
Superintendent Noyce's contract was originally set to expire on June 30, just before the start of the new fiscal year on July 1. However, he was granted an extension to continue as superintendent for a little longer. This temporary extension was intended to ensure continuity during the review process, emphasizing the importance of stable leadership during this critical period.
Dr. Martell Menlove Receives
a Letter from an Attorney
a Letter from an Attorney
In response to the frustratingly slow decision-making process of the Utah State Board of Education regarding Superintendent Noyce's contract, Crystal Hess, acting on behalf of the parents from Jean Massieu School of the Deaf, enlisted the help of her attorney, James I. Watts. She requested that he draft a letter to Dr. Martell Menlove, urging him not to renew Superintendent Noyce's contract. On July 11, 2011, Mr. Watts submitted his letter to Dr. Menlove, cc'ing the Utah State Board of Education. The ASL/English bilingual parents hoped that this correspondence would aid the State Board Task Force in their decision-making process. Additionally, Attorney Watts expressed his readiness to take legal action, should it be necessary, to advocate in court for the equality rights of the parents' children.
*****
July 11, 2011
Martell Menlove
Utah State Office of Education
250 E. 500 S.
Salt Lake City, UT. 84114
Dr. Menlove,
I have been retained by some parents of Deaf children who are currently receiving educational services at the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf (JMS).
They contacted me to discuss their concerns that their children may not be receiving the type of educational services mandated by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), codified at 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. As I am sure you are aware, that act is the successor to the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1973 (Public Law 94-142), which was an effort by the federal government to address the educational needs of millions of children with disabilities whose needs were being ignored or not fully met for a variety of reasons, chief among them a perception that "they were uneducable and untrainable," language found in Mills v. Board of Education D.C. 348 F Supp. 866 (DC 1972), one of the cases that gave rise to the passage of the act.
In passing IDEA, the U.S. Congress made the following specific finding:
"Disability is a natural part of the human experience and in no way diminishes the right of individuals to participate in or contribute to society. Improving educational results for children with disabilities is an essential element of our national policy of ensuring equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for individuals with disabilities." U.S.C. 22-33 § 1400 (1)
The Congress, in 1997, amended the act, making the following finding of fact. "However, the implementation of this chapter has been impeded by low expectations and an insufficient focus on applying replicable research on proven methods of teaching and learning for children with disabilities." U.S.C. 20-33 § 1400 (4)
The two primary cases that led to the passage of the 1975 Act were Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens v. Pennsylvania, 343 F. Supp. 279 (Pa. 1972) and Metz v. Washington D.C. Board of Education, 348 F. Supp. 866 (D.C. 1972). The courts hearing the cases struck down the statutes of Pennsylvania and a school district policy in the District of Columbia, having found them in violation of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees that all U.S. citizens receive equal protection under the law. The courts have further held that the equal protection clause, which mandates that "no state shall make or enforce any law that abridges the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the United States," applies to both procedural and statutory provisions. Therefore, any policy of a state agency or division that has the effect of denying a class of individuals equal protection would violate the 14th Amendment.
There is no dispute that Utah’s deaf children are recognized as a beneficiary and a class of person intended to benefit from the provisions of the IDEA, a fact acknowledged by the Utah State Department of Education and the Utah State School for the Deaf and Blind in its policy statement “The recognition of individual potential.” The school policy is in keeping with the statement made by Dr. Robert G. Sanderson in 1992 posted at https://sites.google.com/site/utahDeafeducation/mainstreaming-is-not-the-answer-for-all-Deaf-children. “That each child will be carefully evaluated by unbiased professionals who have the children's best interests at heart rather than their personal philosophies."
With this as a background, the families that I represent have grave concerns that their children are being denied the type of education that will enable them to meet the goals of the IDEA of obtaining "equal opportunity and full participation" in large part due to the personal policies of Steven Noyce, Superintendent of Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind, which promote and emphasize a Listening and Spoken Language (LSL) approach to a child's education over an American Sign Language (ASL)/English bilingual approach as taught at the state's only ASL facility, the Jean Massieu School (JMS).
Mr. Noyce's policies are designed to dissuade parents from selecting an ASL approach to their children's education during their participation in the Parent Infant Program (PIP).
Some parents report that the staff tell them nothing about the JMS and only promote an LSL approach at preschool. Research and data on the subject certainly do not support the claim that ASL will limit their child's potential.
It is this same type of bias that the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found was codified in the District of Columbia's school policies, which were struck down as a violation of the children's equal protection rights.
Mr. Noyce's approach involves using LSL as the primary educational tool, and only when a child fails to meet performance standards, typically after third grade, does he move them to JMS and the ASL program. If these children had been given the opportunity or encouragement to enroll in the ASL program, they might have avoided the discouragement of failing in the public setting of LSL. It has the additional consequence, intended or not, of altering JMS's on-grade-level scores.
The superintendent has failed to ensure that training funding for the Parent Infant Program Specialists in the ASL and LSL programs is equal; the LSL program receives a disproportionate share of the limited funds.
Mr. Noyce has disproportionately reduced and eliminated staff and teaching positions across the two educational approaches, such as eliminating the Deaf Mentor from the Parents Infant Program for parents who select ASL as the educational approach.
It appears from the information I have been provided and from my discussion with my clients that Mr. Noyce, by his actions, has created a subclass within a class of protected individuals: deaf children choosing an ASL approach to speech and education.
Mr. Noyce's approach is akin to the separate but equal argument rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294, 75 S. Ct. 753, 99 L.Ed. 1083 (1955), and in a series of cases that have followed.
His policies, which favor the LSL over the ASL, are analogous to cases addressing the equal protection clause as it affects "groups identified by ethnic, national origin, or linguistic characteristics." United States v. Uvalde. While that case dealt with English-speaking versus non-English-speaking individuals, the court nonetheless found that "language-based classification might be the same as 'national origin' classification for equal protection analysis." "A policy that discriminates against one linguistic approach, ASL, against another, LSL, I suggest, is a policy similar to the English-speaking versus non-English-speaking person."
Last month, you received a petition, signed by 1215 members of the Deaf community and parents of deaf children, requesting that you not renew Mr. Noyce's contract, which is to expire at the end of this month. My clients again encourage you to review the information contained herein and consider it in your deliberations as to whether to renew his contract.
They hope that at the conclusion of those deliberations, you will recognize the needs of their children who are being underserved and choose not to renew the contract.
Very Truly Yours,
James I. Watts
CC: Client
CC: Board of Education Members
*****
It is essential to highlight that David S. Tatel, the Director of the Office for Civil Rights in 1978, had a compellingly different perspective on segregation and inequality in Deaf education at the Utah School for the Deaf compared to James I. Watts, an attorney in 2011. The school's educational philosophy, along with the biases of its administration and staff, played a significant role in shaping their differing views. By examining these contrasting perspectives, readers can draw insightful connections between past debates and current issues in Deaf education, illustrating how these discussions have influenced subsequent policies and advocacy efforts.
Although Dr. Menlove did not respond to Attorney Watts's letter, advocates for ASL/English bilingual education continued their efforts for nearly two years. Our determination to engage authorities reflected our firm commitment to this cause. Despite many challenges and no immediate results, we remained dedicated to advocating for meaningful change.
*****
July 11, 2011
Martell Menlove
Utah State Office of Education
250 E. 500 S.
Salt Lake City, UT. 84114
Dr. Menlove,
I have been retained by some parents of Deaf children who are currently receiving educational services at the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf (JMS).
They contacted me to discuss their concerns that their children may not be receiving the type of educational services mandated by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), codified at 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. As I am sure you are aware, that act is the successor to the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1973 (Public Law 94-142), which was an effort by the federal government to address the educational needs of millions of children with disabilities whose needs were being ignored or not fully met for a variety of reasons, chief among them a perception that "they were uneducable and untrainable," language found in Mills v. Board of Education D.C. 348 F Supp. 866 (DC 1972), one of the cases that gave rise to the passage of the act.
In passing IDEA, the U.S. Congress made the following specific finding:
"Disability is a natural part of the human experience and in no way diminishes the right of individuals to participate in or contribute to society. Improving educational results for children with disabilities is an essential element of our national policy of ensuring equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for individuals with disabilities." U.S.C. 22-33 § 1400 (1)
The Congress, in 1997, amended the act, making the following finding of fact. "However, the implementation of this chapter has been impeded by low expectations and an insufficient focus on applying replicable research on proven methods of teaching and learning for children with disabilities." U.S.C. 20-33 § 1400 (4)
The two primary cases that led to the passage of the 1975 Act were Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens v. Pennsylvania, 343 F. Supp. 279 (Pa. 1972) and Metz v. Washington D.C. Board of Education, 348 F. Supp. 866 (D.C. 1972). The courts hearing the cases struck down the statutes of Pennsylvania and a school district policy in the District of Columbia, having found them in violation of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees that all U.S. citizens receive equal protection under the law. The courts have further held that the equal protection clause, which mandates that "no state shall make or enforce any law that abridges the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the United States," applies to both procedural and statutory provisions. Therefore, any policy of a state agency or division that has the effect of denying a class of individuals equal protection would violate the 14th Amendment.
There is no dispute that Utah’s deaf children are recognized as a beneficiary and a class of person intended to benefit from the provisions of the IDEA, a fact acknowledged by the Utah State Department of Education and the Utah State School for the Deaf and Blind in its policy statement “The recognition of individual potential.” The school policy is in keeping with the statement made by Dr. Robert G. Sanderson in 1992 posted at https://sites.google.com/site/utahDeafeducation/mainstreaming-is-not-the-answer-for-all-Deaf-children. “That each child will be carefully evaluated by unbiased professionals who have the children's best interests at heart rather than their personal philosophies."
With this as a background, the families that I represent have grave concerns that their children are being denied the type of education that will enable them to meet the goals of the IDEA of obtaining "equal opportunity and full participation" in large part due to the personal policies of Steven Noyce, Superintendent of Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind, which promote and emphasize a Listening and Spoken Language (LSL) approach to a child's education over an American Sign Language (ASL)/English bilingual approach as taught at the state's only ASL facility, the Jean Massieu School (JMS).
Mr. Noyce's policies are designed to dissuade parents from selecting an ASL approach to their children's education during their participation in the Parent Infant Program (PIP).
Some parents report that the staff tell them nothing about the JMS and only promote an LSL approach at preschool. Research and data on the subject certainly do not support the claim that ASL will limit their child's potential.
It is this same type of bias that the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found was codified in the District of Columbia's school policies, which were struck down as a violation of the children's equal protection rights.
Mr. Noyce's approach involves using LSL as the primary educational tool, and only when a child fails to meet performance standards, typically after third grade, does he move them to JMS and the ASL program. If these children had been given the opportunity or encouragement to enroll in the ASL program, they might have avoided the discouragement of failing in the public setting of LSL. It has the additional consequence, intended or not, of altering JMS's on-grade-level scores.
The superintendent has failed to ensure that training funding for the Parent Infant Program Specialists in the ASL and LSL programs is equal; the LSL program receives a disproportionate share of the limited funds.
Mr. Noyce has disproportionately reduced and eliminated staff and teaching positions across the two educational approaches, such as eliminating the Deaf Mentor from the Parents Infant Program for parents who select ASL as the educational approach.
It appears from the information I have been provided and from my discussion with my clients that Mr. Noyce, by his actions, has created a subclass within a class of protected individuals: deaf children choosing an ASL approach to speech and education.
Mr. Noyce's approach is akin to the separate but equal argument rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294, 75 S. Ct. 753, 99 L.Ed. 1083 (1955), and in a series of cases that have followed.
His policies, which favor the LSL over the ASL, are analogous to cases addressing the equal protection clause as it affects "groups identified by ethnic, national origin, or linguistic characteristics." United States v. Uvalde. While that case dealt with English-speaking versus non-English-speaking individuals, the court nonetheless found that "language-based classification might be the same as 'national origin' classification for equal protection analysis." "A policy that discriminates against one linguistic approach, ASL, against another, LSL, I suggest, is a policy similar to the English-speaking versus non-English-speaking person."
Last month, you received a petition, signed by 1215 members of the Deaf community and parents of deaf children, requesting that you not renew Mr. Noyce's contract, which is to expire at the end of this month. My clients again encourage you to review the information contained herein and consider it in your deliberations as to whether to renew his contract.
They hope that at the conclusion of those deliberations, you will recognize the needs of their children who are being underserved and choose not to renew the contract.
Very Truly Yours,
James I. Watts
CC: Client
CC: Board of Education Members
*****
It is essential to highlight that David S. Tatel, the Director of the Office for Civil Rights in 1978, had a compellingly different perspective on segregation and inequality in Deaf education at the Utah School for the Deaf compared to James I. Watts, an attorney in 2011. The school's educational philosophy, along with the biases of its administration and staff, played a significant role in shaping their differing views. By examining these contrasting perspectives, readers can draw insightful connections between past debates and current issues in Deaf education, illustrating how these discussions have influenced subsequent policies and advocacy efforts.
Although Dr. Menlove did not respond to Attorney Watts's letter, advocates for ASL/English bilingual education continued their efforts for nearly two years. Our determination to engage authorities reflected our firm commitment to this cause. Despite many challenges and no immediate results, we remained dedicated to advocating for meaningful change.
James Watts. Source: jwattsattorney.com
Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind Task Force
Issues Recommendations
Issues Recommendations
Following the 2011 general session of the Utah Legislature, the Utah State Board of Education leadership established a task force to study the vital role of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind (USDB). The task force, which included Deputy Superintendent Martell Menlove, Associate Superintendent Todd Hauber, and other members, held a series of meetings, including a public hearing, to highlight the importance of USDB in statewide education (Utah State Board of Education Meeting Summary, August 5, 2011).
During the meeting on August 5, 2011, the task force presented nine recommendations to the State Board, derived from their hearings and the collected information. Additionally, the State Board reviewed the employment status of USDB Superintendent Steven Noyce, changing his status from contract to at-will (Utah State Board of Education Meeting Summary, August 5, 2011). Attendees at the meeting included Jeff W. Pollock, Julio Diaz Jr., Bryce Jackson, JMS sophomore; Michelle Tanner, JMS teacher; Tiff Dodge, JMS teacher; Amie Breinholt, JMS teacher; Jenny Avery, JMS teacher; Crystal Hess, JMS PTA president; Melissa Miller, JMS PTA vice president; Philippe Montalette, UAD president; and myself.
One additional point discussed during the meeting was the possibility of the State Board establishing three Associate Superintendent positions: one for the School for the Blind, one for the Listening and Spoken Language Program in the School for the Deaf, and one for the ASL/English bilingual program in the School for the Deaf. This proposal mirrors a suggestion made by Dr. Jay J. Campbell, Deputy State Superintendent, at a State Board meeting on April 14, 1977.
Dr. Menlove presented the task force report to the State Board, but no action was taken on the recommendations during that meeting. To promote ongoing collaboration, the State Board committed to providing updates on how these recommendations would translate into specific roles and responsibilities for stakeholders as implementation progressed, ensuring clarity and engagement.
The USBE appointed Trena Roueche, a longtime employee of the total communication program, as the new Associate Superintendent of the School for the Deaf, and Carolyn Lassiter as the new Associate Superintendent of the School for the Blind. Furthermore, Superintendent Noyce's employment status was changed from contract to at-will. His office was moved from the Ogden campus to the Utah State Office of Education, where he would report directly to the State Board of Education. Michael Sears, the USDB Finance Officer, would report directly to Todd Hauber, the Associate Superintendent for Business and Operations. This restructuring aimed to allow state officials to monitor USDB decisions and financial expenditures more closely.
Superintendent Noyce commented that this move would give him greater access to individuals in critical positions who could assist USDB. Dr. Menlove, who led the state's investigative task force, noted that "Normal public school districts have their school boards, but the USDB answers directly to the Utah State Board of Education." He also acknowledged the substantial state funding allocated to USDB. He emphasized the State Board of Education's unique responsibility for the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind (Valkenburg, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, August 8, 2011).
According to Valkenburg (August 8, 2011), USDB has schools in Ogden and Salt Lake City, while most other school districts have designated classrooms for groups of Deaf and blind students or rely on traveling teachers, interpreters, or aides who provide services to individual students. Dr. Menlove emphasized that USDB provides statewide services and that resources must be used effectively and collaboratively with local districts. He hoped that having an office at the Utah State Office of Education would enhance relationships statewide and improve service coordination (Valkenburg, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, August 8, 2011).
The Core Group believed that the task force's recommendations were excellent and would lead to positive changes within the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind (USDB) and the Advisory Council. However, they had concerns about recommendation #7ii. Jeff W. Pollock sought clarification from Joel Coleman, a member of the Utah State Board of Education. Joel clarified that their intention was not to exclude Deaf or Blind individuals from the Council, but rather to ensure they select individuals with expertise in Deaf and Blind education. This position differed from the current rules, which allowed, for example, a parent of a Deaf-Blind child to serve on the Council, even if that parent lacked expertise in Deaf-Blind education. Without that expertise, it would be challenging for this individual to effectively advise the USDB and the Utah State Board of Education on related issues. The same could be said for appointing any Deaf or Blind person to the Council. Ultimately, this recommendation did not require that Advisory Council members be hearing or sighted; it only suggested that they possess significant knowledge of education laws and regulations in their respective fields of expertise, such as Deaf education and sensory disabilities. This arrangement could potentially result in an USDB Advisory Council composed only of hearing and sighted members (Jeff W. Pollock, personal communication, August 10, 2011).
Dan Mathis stated, "One thing for sure is to be vocally concerned about who is appointed to the Advisory Council if they decide to make changes. No one can truly understand what it's like to be Deaf or Blind unless they have experienced it throughout their own lives. For too long, we have had so-called experts and specialists claiming to know more than we do but ultimately causing more harm. This is not to discount the benefits of having strong hearing allies; we simply need our voices to be heard and respected at all times" (Dan Mathis, personal communication, August 6, 2011).
Since then, the USDB's governance has remained unchanged, and the superintendent reports to the Utah State Board of Education.
The Utah Deaf Education Core Group appreciated and applauded the efforts of the USDB Advisory Council, the Task Force, and the Utah State Board of Education. We recognized the potential for change and improvement, informed by the task force's recommendations and the USBE's staffing decisions. The Core Group was committed to ongoing collaboration and improvement, as well as advocating for positive changes that would lead to greater educational achievement and better lifelong outcomes for Deaf children throughout the state. These recommendations and staffing changes would not have occurred without the Utah Deaf Education Core Group.
During the meeting on August 5, 2011, the task force presented nine recommendations to the State Board, derived from their hearings and the collected information. Additionally, the State Board reviewed the employment status of USDB Superintendent Steven Noyce, changing his status from contract to at-will (Utah State Board of Education Meeting Summary, August 5, 2011). Attendees at the meeting included Jeff W. Pollock, Julio Diaz Jr., Bryce Jackson, JMS sophomore; Michelle Tanner, JMS teacher; Tiff Dodge, JMS teacher; Amie Breinholt, JMS teacher; Jenny Avery, JMS teacher; Crystal Hess, JMS PTA president; Melissa Miller, JMS PTA vice president; Philippe Montalette, UAD president; and myself.
One additional point discussed during the meeting was the possibility of the State Board establishing three Associate Superintendent positions: one for the School for the Blind, one for the Listening and Spoken Language Program in the School for the Deaf, and one for the ASL/English bilingual program in the School for the Deaf. This proposal mirrors a suggestion made by Dr. Jay J. Campbell, Deputy State Superintendent, at a State Board meeting on April 14, 1977.
Dr. Menlove presented the task force report to the State Board, but no action was taken on the recommendations during that meeting. To promote ongoing collaboration, the State Board committed to providing updates on how these recommendations would translate into specific roles and responsibilities for stakeholders as implementation progressed, ensuring clarity and engagement.
The USBE appointed Trena Roueche, a longtime employee of the total communication program, as the new Associate Superintendent of the School for the Deaf, and Carolyn Lassiter as the new Associate Superintendent of the School for the Blind. Furthermore, Superintendent Noyce's employment status was changed from contract to at-will. His office was moved from the Ogden campus to the Utah State Office of Education, where he would report directly to the State Board of Education. Michael Sears, the USDB Finance Officer, would report directly to Todd Hauber, the Associate Superintendent for Business and Operations. This restructuring aimed to allow state officials to monitor USDB decisions and financial expenditures more closely.
Superintendent Noyce commented that this move would give him greater access to individuals in critical positions who could assist USDB. Dr. Menlove, who led the state's investigative task force, noted that "Normal public school districts have their school boards, but the USDB answers directly to the Utah State Board of Education." He also acknowledged the substantial state funding allocated to USDB. He emphasized the State Board of Education's unique responsibility for the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind (Valkenburg, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, August 8, 2011).
According to Valkenburg (August 8, 2011), USDB has schools in Ogden and Salt Lake City, while most other school districts have designated classrooms for groups of Deaf and blind students or rely on traveling teachers, interpreters, or aides who provide services to individual students. Dr. Menlove emphasized that USDB provides statewide services and that resources must be used effectively and collaboratively with local districts. He hoped that having an office at the Utah State Office of Education would enhance relationships statewide and improve service coordination (Valkenburg, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, August 8, 2011).
The Core Group believed that the task force's recommendations were excellent and would lead to positive changes within the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind (USDB) and the Advisory Council. However, they had concerns about recommendation #7ii. Jeff W. Pollock sought clarification from Joel Coleman, a member of the Utah State Board of Education. Joel clarified that their intention was not to exclude Deaf or Blind individuals from the Council, but rather to ensure they select individuals with expertise in Deaf and Blind education. This position differed from the current rules, which allowed, for example, a parent of a Deaf-Blind child to serve on the Council, even if that parent lacked expertise in Deaf-Blind education. Without that expertise, it would be challenging for this individual to effectively advise the USDB and the Utah State Board of Education on related issues. The same could be said for appointing any Deaf or Blind person to the Council. Ultimately, this recommendation did not require that Advisory Council members be hearing or sighted; it only suggested that they possess significant knowledge of education laws and regulations in their respective fields of expertise, such as Deaf education and sensory disabilities. This arrangement could potentially result in an USDB Advisory Council composed only of hearing and sighted members (Jeff W. Pollock, personal communication, August 10, 2011).
Dan Mathis stated, "One thing for sure is to be vocally concerned about who is appointed to the Advisory Council if they decide to make changes. No one can truly understand what it's like to be Deaf or Blind unless they have experienced it throughout their own lives. For too long, we have had so-called experts and specialists claiming to know more than we do but ultimately causing more harm. This is not to discount the benefits of having strong hearing allies; we simply need our voices to be heard and respected at all times" (Dan Mathis, personal communication, August 6, 2011).
Since then, the USDB's governance has remained unchanged, and the superintendent reports to the Utah State Board of Education.
The Utah Deaf Education Core Group appreciated and applauded the efforts of the USDB Advisory Council, the Task Force, and the Utah State Board of Education. We recognized the potential for change and improvement, informed by the task force's recommendations and the USBE's staffing decisions. The Core Group was committed to ongoing collaboration and improvement, as well as advocating for positive changes that would lead to greater educational achievement and better lifelong outcomes for Deaf children throughout the state. These recommendations and staffing changes would not have occurred without the Utah Deaf Education Core Group.
Joel Coleman & Jared Felt at the Utah State Capitol. Source: Twitter.com
The Utah State Board of Education Moves USDB Superintendent Steven W. Noyce's Month-to-Month Contract to At-Will Status
The Utah Deaf Education Core Group was not exactly thrilled about Steven W. Noyce remaining at the helm of the USDB. Regarding Core Group's concern about changing Superintendent Noyce from a contract employee to a month-to-month employee and then to an at-will employee, Jeff W. Pollock, who had an M.Ed. in Educational Leadership and Policy, was aware of no legislation that would prevent this. He sent an inquiry to the Utah Labor Commission to ask whether there is a specific law or regulation on this. From an administrative standpoint, this is an acceptable way to change one's employment status.
According to Jeff, this change eliminated the State of Utah's liability if it broke Superintendent Noyce's contract. For example, if he continued as a month-to-month contract employee and signed a contract for September but was fired or dismissed on September 2, the State Board would have to pay him for the entire month of September. By changing him to an at-will employee, the State Board could now dismiss him for any reason and not have to pay him for the rest of the month, as they would if he were a contract employee. In fact, they could keep him indefinitely as well (Jeff W. Pollock, personal communication, August 10, 2011). Dan Mathis said, "Perhaps this change isn't exactly what we hoped for, but if we can have some faith that the recommendations would at least keep Steven Noyce at bay and give the middle and lower administration levels more power to work on educational programs, then that's probably what we need to do right now. Of course, we keep a watchful eye on what happens where our children's education is concerned (Dan V. Mathis, personal communication, August 6, 2011).
As soon as it was announced that Steven Noyce remained as superintendent, Crystal Hess, JMS PTA President, sent an email to Dr. Menlove and said, "I fear that what it means to Utah's Deaf children is continued bias and inequality. Moreover, I am deeply terrified that USDB will lose its most valuable resources, like teachers, staff, and parents, who are wary of this battle and leave." Additionally, she asked for more reasoning: "What do we need to do to ensure our children are provided for and educated with equality despite their language differences?" (Crystal Hess, personal communication, August 5, 2011).
Three days later, on August 8th, 2011, Dr. Menlove responded, saying, "As previously stated, all allegations of bias and inequality will be investigated. However, employment action and funding allocation decisions cannot be taken based on rumors, unsubstantiated claims, and hearsay reports." He encouraged all parents of students receiving services from USDB to actively participate in developing their children's IEPs and to ensure that they are implemented with fidelity. If not, he also encouraged her to exercise her parental rights. Efforts to continually compare individual students or groups with different needs with one another are often unproductive (Dr. Martell Menlove, personal communication, August 8, 2011).
Dr. Menlove informed the Utah State Board of Education about Crystal's efforts and the petitions she filed. It was also made aware of the efforts by those who petitioned the State Board to continue Superintendent Noyce's contract (Dr. Martell Menlove, personal communication, August 8, 2011). Thus, Steven Noyce continued to reign as superintendent.
Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz questioned, asking, "What can we do to help Dr. Menlove and the State Board realize that much (if not all) of what we have sent in are NOT "rumors, unsubstantiated claims, and hearsay reports," but are our own actual experiences with Mr. Noyce? That's something that seems to come up again and again..." (Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz, personal communication, August 10, 2011).
When the State Board made the decision to retain Steven Noyce, the members of the Utah Deaf Education Core Group felt frustrated and let down. However, they quickly came together to support one another, regroup, and take action. In collaboration with the Utah Association for the Deaf and the USDB Advisory Council, they established themselves as a vigilant watchdog group, ready to pursue a new direction and advocate for the community's needs.
According to Jeff, this change eliminated the State of Utah's liability if it broke Superintendent Noyce's contract. For example, if he continued as a month-to-month contract employee and signed a contract for September but was fired or dismissed on September 2, the State Board would have to pay him for the entire month of September. By changing him to an at-will employee, the State Board could now dismiss him for any reason and not have to pay him for the rest of the month, as they would if he were a contract employee. In fact, they could keep him indefinitely as well (Jeff W. Pollock, personal communication, August 10, 2011). Dan Mathis said, "Perhaps this change isn't exactly what we hoped for, but if we can have some faith that the recommendations would at least keep Steven Noyce at bay and give the middle and lower administration levels more power to work on educational programs, then that's probably what we need to do right now. Of course, we keep a watchful eye on what happens where our children's education is concerned (Dan V. Mathis, personal communication, August 6, 2011).
As soon as it was announced that Steven Noyce remained as superintendent, Crystal Hess, JMS PTA President, sent an email to Dr. Menlove and said, "I fear that what it means to Utah's Deaf children is continued bias and inequality. Moreover, I am deeply terrified that USDB will lose its most valuable resources, like teachers, staff, and parents, who are wary of this battle and leave." Additionally, she asked for more reasoning: "What do we need to do to ensure our children are provided for and educated with equality despite their language differences?" (Crystal Hess, personal communication, August 5, 2011).
Three days later, on August 8th, 2011, Dr. Menlove responded, saying, "As previously stated, all allegations of bias and inequality will be investigated. However, employment action and funding allocation decisions cannot be taken based on rumors, unsubstantiated claims, and hearsay reports." He encouraged all parents of students receiving services from USDB to actively participate in developing their children's IEPs and to ensure that they are implemented with fidelity. If not, he also encouraged her to exercise her parental rights. Efforts to continually compare individual students or groups with different needs with one another are often unproductive (Dr. Martell Menlove, personal communication, August 8, 2011).
Dr. Menlove informed the Utah State Board of Education about Crystal's efforts and the petitions she filed. It was also made aware of the efforts by those who petitioned the State Board to continue Superintendent Noyce's contract (Dr. Martell Menlove, personal communication, August 8, 2011). Thus, Steven Noyce continued to reign as superintendent.
Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz questioned, asking, "What can we do to help Dr. Menlove and the State Board realize that much (if not all) of what we have sent in are NOT "rumors, unsubstantiated claims, and hearsay reports," but are our own actual experiences with Mr. Noyce? That's something that seems to come up again and again..." (Minnie Mae Wilding-Diaz, personal communication, August 10, 2011).
When the State Board made the decision to retain Steven Noyce, the members of the Utah Deaf Education Core Group felt frustrated and let down. However, they quickly came together to support one another, regroup, and take action. In collaboration with the Utah Association for the Deaf and the USDB Advisory Council, they established themselves as a vigilant watchdog group, ready to pursue a new direction and advocate for the community's needs.
The Resignation of Principal Jill Radford
from the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf
from the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf
Advocates for this bilingual approach believe that infants and toddlers should have increased opportunities to develop their skills in both signing and speaking. This enables parents to make informed decisions that reflect their child's potential as a visual or auditory learner. For instance, Jill Radford, a Deaf individual and former principal of JMS, responded to reporter Rosemary Winters via email, stating, "How do parents know which language the child needs? I promote choice, but I strongly believe it needs to be the child's choice. Often, parents will pick what is most convenient for them and their family [which tends to be LSL] because the child needs to be able to communicate with them" (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, February 21, 2011).
Despite receiving strong support from some advocates, the ASL/English bilingual program faced skepticism from many administrators. Several supporters of the program resigned, leaving Jill to defend JMS alone against Superintendent Noyce. At the Legislative Education Interim Committee meeting on September 21, 2010, Superintendent Noyce presented a report that many found damaging. See his report below:
*****
Academic Achievement of USD and USB
*****
In response to what she deemed Superintendent Noyce's misleading findings, Jill Radford abruptly resigned from the USDB Advisory Council on August 25, 2011. After two years of ongoing conflicts with Superintendent Noyce, his report served as the final straw. Jill confronted him directly, expressing her inability to continue fighting: "I'm sorry, but I'm no longer capable of fighting you! My resignation letter has already been delivered to Associate Superintendent Trena Roueche." Her resignation was a significant loss for JMS and the Utah Deaf community. Purpleterp remarked in a newspaper article published by The Salt Lake Tribune on August 26, 2011, "It was just one more example of dedicated individuals finally succumbing to the unrelenting paternalistic majority of hearing individuals who do not value or understand the importance of ASL among the [Utah] Deaf community" (Purpleterp, personal communication, August 26, 2011).
Alongside the resignations of Dr. Jennifer Howell and Jill Radford, this moment marked another devastating setback for JMS, the Utah School for the Deaf, and the Utah Deaf community as a whole. Purpleterp commented in The Salt Lake Tribune (August 26, 2011) that this situation exemplified how dedicated individuals were yielding to the persistent paternalism of hearing people who overlook the critical role of ASL in the Deaf community.
Advocates of Deaf education intensely criticized Superintendent Noyce following Jill's departure. Deaf education advocates accused Superintendent Noyce of favoring the LSL program over the American Sign Language (ASL)/English bilingual program. Jill expressed her dissatisfaction with Noyce's focus on JMS. In his third year as superintendent, Noyce maintained that both programs received equal support (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, August 26, 2011). He also noted that the LSL program had gained popularity among parents, with approximately 70 percent choosing the LSL track for their Deaf and hard-of-hearing children before preschool. He claimed that students learn to listen and speak, often returning to their neighborhood schools by third grade. While some students have transitioned from the LSL program to the ASL program, such transitions are infrequent (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, August 26, 2011). However, JMS consistently enrolled many third graders who lacked language skills and struggled within the LSL program. Superintendent Noyce's report did not address several factors contributing to JMS students' poor academic performance.
The administrators of listening and spoken language programs assigned the ASL/English bilingual program as a last resort to help students who struggled with oral communication and had multiple disabilities. This approach was similar to past programs like simultaneous communication and total communication. Additionally, JMS enrolled many Hispanic students from Spanish-speaking families due to its emphasis on bilingual education. These factors contributed to language deprivation among the students. Jill expressed concern that parents of listening and spoken language (LSL) students were enrolling their children in the program, regardless of their abilities. The ASL/English bilingual program was viewed as a last option for students who were not learning to listen and speak as quickly as their parents expected (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, August 26, 2011).
In her resignation letter, Jill wrote, "Under the current educational structure, 'failed' students are relegated to a second track for learning, causing years of development to be lost in the process." As a result of these lost years, these inadequately served students at the Schools for the Deaf are caught in a cycle of trying to catch up. This culture of 'failure' is thus perpetuated" (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, August 26, 2011). Since the dual-track program was implemented at the Utah School for the Deaf in 1962 and the two-track program in 1971, Jill has expressed concern about a nearly 50-year cycle that persists today, with no signs of improvement.
Jill was not alone in her situation. Superintendent Noyce's statements also surprised both the parents of JMS students and members of the Utah Deaf community. As previously mentioned, the study did not provide all the details regarding JMS's low academic achievement. Many suspected that Superintendent Noyce fabricated statistics for personal gain, possibly to discredit both JMS and KBS (Kenneth Burdett School of the Deaf in Ogden). In his defense, Superintendent Noyce stated, "It really shouldn't be a reflection on the teachers or JMS. We need to find out why the scores are lower and determine what we can do to fix that. The measure of success for all of our students is how well they can read, write, and use math. Our role as educators, frankly, is to teach them to read and write. Whether they speak or use sign language is not the important part" (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, August 26, 2011).
The Utah Deaf Education Core Group disputed Superintendent Noyce's claims, arguing that the two-track program utilized misleading statistics to penalize them for speaking out against inequality. They commended Jill Radford for advocating for the educational rights of Deaf children, despite the Utah State Board of Education labeling her resignation as "unprofessional." Jill emerged as a hero in the Utah Deaf Community for bravely challenging Superintendent Noyce.
Jacob Dietz, a hearing father of two Deaf children from JMS, commented on Jill Radford, saying, "It's one less advocate that we have in the education system fighting for our kids. I also understand she's been fighting an uphill battle for the last couple of years, and it's difficult to do that" (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, August 26, 2011).
Following the Advisory Council meeting, Jill Radford submitted her powerful and inspirational resignation letter.
*****
August 25, 2011
To Whom It May Concern:
To be a leader, one must have courage, passion, and vision. It is beyond doubt that USDB's current superintendent has courage; he fears nothing and no one. It is also true that he is possessed of the passion and vision to promote the listening and spoken language skills for deaf and hard-of-hearing children (and I use the capital 'D' here to emphasize the specific and separate cultural and linguistic community of deaf, hard-of-hearing, and hearing individuals). Yes, he fulfills the three necessary attributes of the leader—but in this case, he does so under only one specific methodology. Unfortunately, he has been chosen as the leader of a school with a dual-track vision. His leadership is therefore ineffective in its current application. Without dedicated support for ALL programs, schools, and classes, the office of the superintendent will continue to fall short of its responsibilities.
Over the years in this position, it has become increasingly evident to me that the problem goes much deeper than this office. Quite simply, the system in Utah is broken beyond repair. As long as the current climate remains status quo, the battle will be ongoing for deaf and hard-of-hearing students hoping to be educated in their natural language. The attacks on Schools of the Deaf will continue unabated. The students of these schools will forever shoulder the blame for a desperately flawed system. This system allows students who have "failed" the LSL or mainstreaming approaches to learn using American Sign Language as their means of communication. Under the current educational structure, "failed" students are given a second track through which to learn, but years of development are lost in the process. As a result of these lost years, the students in the Schools for the Deaf are forced into a game of continuous "catch up." The culture of "failure" is thus perpetuated.
It has become evident to me that I can no longer serve in an office that continues to blame these "failures" on the student rather than the system itself. Further, I can no longer in good conscience serve a system that views the Deaf community as an enemy to be silenced at all costs. And I can no longer be a part of an office that does not value the individuals most dedicated to improving the life experience of others like themselves.
In my years of service, JMS has become a part of my soul. It devastates me to have to write this letter. I have tried to put my feelings behind me and do what I think is right from within my current position. But at the time of this writing, I have found clarity. As long as I remain in this post, I am hindered in my ability to fight for the ensured success of all students served in the Utah education system. If I hope to achieve real, measurable change, I simply cannot continue to work for a superintendent who so blatantly demoralizes the efforts, dedication, and passion of the faculty and staff at JMS. And so with a heavy heart, I submit this letter of resignation. I anticipate my last day two weeks from today and request administrative leave until that date.
While this is a letter of resignation, it is not a concession. I will continue to fight as a deaf adult for the rights and needs of deaf and hard of hearing children all across this great state. I will not rest until students such as these have access to a visual language (ASL), literacy skills, and oracy skills.
Sincerely,
Jill Radford, Ed.S.
*****
Despite receiving strong support from some advocates, the ASL/English bilingual program faced skepticism from many administrators. Several supporters of the program resigned, leaving Jill to defend JMS alone against Superintendent Noyce. At the Legislative Education Interim Committee meeting on September 21, 2010, Superintendent Noyce presented a report that many found damaging. See his report below:
*****
Academic Achievement of USD and USB
- Most academic students who are blind or visually impaired and most Deaf or hard-of-hearing students who are using LSL are mainstreamed before the 3rd grade. Statewide testing begins at the 3rd grade; therefore, a majority of USDB students have already exited to mainstream settings.
- Most mainstream students are functioning at or near the grade level and are comparable to their non-disabled peers.
- Students who remain in USD self-contained classes are performing below grade level in reading and language.
- Remaining LSL students and students in Deaf North (KBS) are performing relatively evenly in language and reading. Students at JMS are performing poorer than other DHH students in USD.
- In light of most LSL students mainstreaming, it is expected that ASL/English students would outperform the remaining LSL students. That has not occurred (Steven Noyce, personal communication, August 25, 2011).
*****
In response to what she deemed Superintendent Noyce's misleading findings, Jill Radford abruptly resigned from the USDB Advisory Council on August 25, 2011. After two years of ongoing conflicts with Superintendent Noyce, his report served as the final straw. Jill confronted him directly, expressing her inability to continue fighting: "I'm sorry, but I'm no longer capable of fighting you! My resignation letter has already been delivered to Associate Superintendent Trena Roueche." Her resignation was a significant loss for JMS and the Utah Deaf community. Purpleterp remarked in a newspaper article published by The Salt Lake Tribune on August 26, 2011, "It was just one more example of dedicated individuals finally succumbing to the unrelenting paternalistic majority of hearing individuals who do not value or understand the importance of ASL among the [Utah] Deaf community" (Purpleterp, personal communication, August 26, 2011).
Alongside the resignations of Dr. Jennifer Howell and Jill Radford, this moment marked another devastating setback for JMS, the Utah School for the Deaf, and the Utah Deaf community as a whole. Purpleterp commented in The Salt Lake Tribune (August 26, 2011) that this situation exemplified how dedicated individuals were yielding to the persistent paternalism of hearing people who overlook the critical role of ASL in the Deaf community.
Advocates of Deaf education intensely criticized Superintendent Noyce following Jill's departure. Deaf education advocates accused Superintendent Noyce of favoring the LSL program over the American Sign Language (ASL)/English bilingual program. Jill expressed her dissatisfaction with Noyce's focus on JMS. In his third year as superintendent, Noyce maintained that both programs received equal support (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, August 26, 2011). He also noted that the LSL program had gained popularity among parents, with approximately 70 percent choosing the LSL track for their Deaf and hard-of-hearing children before preschool. He claimed that students learn to listen and speak, often returning to their neighborhood schools by third grade. While some students have transitioned from the LSL program to the ASL program, such transitions are infrequent (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, August 26, 2011). However, JMS consistently enrolled many third graders who lacked language skills and struggled within the LSL program. Superintendent Noyce's report did not address several factors contributing to JMS students' poor academic performance.
The administrators of listening and spoken language programs assigned the ASL/English bilingual program as a last resort to help students who struggled with oral communication and had multiple disabilities. This approach was similar to past programs like simultaneous communication and total communication. Additionally, JMS enrolled many Hispanic students from Spanish-speaking families due to its emphasis on bilingual education. These factors contributed to language deprivation among the students. Jill expressed concern that parents of listening and spoken language (LSL) students were enrolling their children in the program, regardless of their abilities. The ASL/English bilingual program was viewed as a last option for students who were not learning to listen and speak as quickly as their parents expected (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, August 26, 2011).
In her resignation letter, Jill wrote, "Under the current educational structure, 'failed' students are relegated to a second track for learning, causing years of development to be lost in the process." As a result of these lost years, these inadequately served students at the Schools for the Deaf are caught in a cycle of trying to catch up. This culture of 'failure' is thus perpetuated" (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, August 26, 2011). Since the dual-track program was implemented at the Utah School for the Deaf in 1962 and the two-track program in 1971, Jill has expressed concern about a nearly 50-year cycle that persists today, with no signs of improvement.
Jill was not alone in her situation. Superintendent Noyce's statements also surprised both the parents of JMS students and members of the Utah Deaf community. As previously mentioned, the study did not provide all the details regarding JMS's low academic achievement. Many suspected that Superintendent Noyce fabricated statistics for personal gain, possibly to discredit both JMS and KBS (Kenneth Burdett School of the Deaf in Ogden). In his defense, Superintendent Noyce stated, "It really shouldn't be a reflection on the teachers or JMS. We need to find out why the scores are lower and determine what we can do to fix that. The measure of success for all of our students is how well they can read, write, and use math. Our role as educators, frankly, is to teach them to read and write. Whether they speak or use sign language is not the important part" (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, August 26, 2011).
The Utah Deaf Education Core Group disputed Superintendent Noyce's claims, arguing that the two-track program utilized misleading statistics to penalize them for speaking out against inequality. They commended Jill Radford for advocating for the educational rights of Deaf children, despite the Utah State Board of Education labeling her resignation as "unprofessional." Jill emerged as a hero in the Utah Deaf Community for bravely challenging Superintendent Noyce.
Jacob Dietz, a hearing father of two Deaf children from JMS, commented on Jill Radford, saying, "It's one less advocate that we have in the education system fighting for our kids. I also understand she's been fighting an uphill battle for the last couple of years, and it's difficult to do that" (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, August 26, 2011).
Following the Advisory Council meeting, Jill Radford submitted her powerful and inspirational resignation letter.
*****
August 25, 2011
To Whom It May Concern:
To be a leader, one must have courage, passion, and vision. It is beyond doubt that USDB's current superintendent has courage; he fears nothing and no one. It is also true that he is possessed of the passion and vision to promote the listening and spoken language skills for deaf and hard-of-hearing children (and I use the capital 'D' here to emphasize the specific and separate cultural and linguistic community of deaf, hard-of-hearing, and hearing individuals). Yes, he fulfills the three necessary attributes of the leader—but in this case, he does so under only one specific methodology. Unfortunately, he has been chosen as the leader of a school with a dual-track vision. His leadership is therefore ineffective in its current application. Without dedicated support for ALL programs, schools, and classes, the office of the superintendent will continue to fall short of its responsibilities.
Over the years in this position, it has become increasingly evident to me that the problem goes much deeper than this office. Quite simply, the system in Utah is broken beyond repair. As long as the current climate remains status quo, the battle will be ongoing for deaf and hard-of-hearing students hoping to be educated in their natural language. The attacks on Schools of the Deaf will continue unabated. The students of these schools will forever shoulder the blame for a desperately flawed system. This system allows students who have "failed" the LSL or mainstreaming approaches to learn using American Sign Language as their means of communication. Under the current educational structure, "failed" students are given a second track through which to learn, but years of development are lost in the process. As a result of these lost years, the students in the Schools for the Deaf are forced into a game of continuous "catch up." The culture of "failure" is thus perpetuated.
It has become evident to me that I can no longer serve in an office that continues to blame these "failures" on the student rather than the system itself. Further, I can no longer in good conscience serve a system that views the Deaf community as an enemy to be silenced at all costs. And I can no longer be a part of an office that does not value the individuals most dedicated to improving the life experience of others like themselves.
In my years of service, JMS has become a part of my soul. It devastates me to have to write this letter. I have tried to put my feelings behind me and do what I think is right from within my current position. But at the time of this writing, I have found clarity. As long as I remain in this post, I am hindered in my ability to fight for the ensured success of all students served in the Utah education system. If I hope to achieve real, measurable change, I simply cannot continue to work for a superintendent who so blatantly demoralizes the efforts, dedication, and passion of the faculty and staff at JMS. And so with a heavy heart, I submit this letter of resignation. I anticipate my last day two weeks from today and request administrative leave until that date.
While this is a letter of resignation, it is not a concession. I will continue to fight as a deaf adult for the rights and needs of deaf and hard of hearing children all across this great state. I will not rest until students such as these have access to a visual language (ASL), literacy skills, and oracy skills.
Sincerely,
Jill Radford, Ed.S.
*****
Jill Radford
Regardless of Jill's "unprofessional" resignation, she was commended for advocating for Deaf children's rights to education. Many considered her a hero. However, Leslie Castle, a member of the State Board and also part of the USDB Advisory Council, expressed that she was "disheartened" by the timing and manner of Jill's resignation. She commented, "It did not serve the students of JMS, and it was all done with a finger pointed at Steve Noyce, who was guilty of none of those things. I found that to be unprofessional, at best."
Leslie further stated, "The board has decided that, for now, he will continue to serve as superintendent of USDB. This controversy that Steve Noyce has been facing has been ongoing for years. It did not start with him, and it will not end with him whenever he eventually leaves" (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, August 26, 2011).
She has had the opportunity to speak with many people who provided her with substantial evidence, personal accounts, and information about Superintendent Noyce's mishandling of USDB, particularly concerning USDB funds. Leslie likely knew that Noyce had committed several errors, so it was unfair for her to criticize Jill for her decision" (Alan Wilding, personal communication, August 26, 2011).
The Core Group also shared its dissatisfaction with Leslie's remark. While it might appear to the public that the timing of the resignation was poor, they understood the underlying reasons. The situation revealed the mindset of those involved, including the 'victim' narrative that Mr. Noyce seemed to present to the Board. The Core Group struggled to understand why Leslie would make such a statement. Eventually, it was revealed that Superintendent Noyce had consistently praised JMS, leaving the Core Group puzzled about their ongoing issues with him, as they viewed him as a JMS supporter. This led them to draw an analogy likening Superintendent Noyce's interactions with JMS and the Board to those of an abusive husband. Perceived as "two-faced," the State Board remained oblivious to the struggles taking place behind closed doors.
Jill Radford's departure saddened Jacob Dietz, a father of two Deaf children enrolled in preschool at JMS. He and his wife were contemplating a move to Washington State, California, or Colorado, believing those states had schools that were more supportive of ASL education. He remarked, "It's one less advocate that we have in the education system fighting for our kids," referring to Radford. He added, "I also understand she's been fighting an uphill battle for the last couple of years, and it's difficult to do that" (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, August 26, 2011).
Parents at JMS and members of the Utah Deaf community were also upset to see Jill leave. They viewed her as deeply committed to her work and personally invested in her students' lives. In fact, she had consistently engaged in every aspect of JMS, dedicating her life to the school, sometimes to the detriment of her health and well-being.
Brittany Watterson, a former USD student, shared a fitting analogy about Superintendent Noyce on her Facebook profile: "When there is a will, there is a way. Noyce is a good example. He is very passionate about his flawed beliefs, and even after many battles we've fought against him, he is still standing strong" (Brittany Watterson, personal communication, August 26, 2011). While Superintendent Noyce stood firm in his beliefs, her analogy resonated with the Core Group's ongoing struggle against him.
Leslie further stated, "The board has decided that, for now, he will continue to serve as superintendent of USDB. This controversy that Steve Noyce has been facing has been ongoing for years. It did not start with him, and it will not end with him whenever he eventually leaves" (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, August 26, 2011).
She has had the opportunity to speak with many people who provided her with substantial evidence, personal accounts, and information about Superintendent Noyce's mishandling of USDB, particularly concerning USDB funds. Leslie likely knew that Noyce had committed several errors, so it was unfair for her to criticize Jill for her decision" (Alan Wilding, personal communication, August 26, 2011).
The Core Group also shared its dissatisfaction with Leslie's remark. While it might appear to the public that the timing of the resignation was poor, they understood the underlying reasons. The situation revealed the mindset of those involved, including the 'victim' narrative that Mr. Noyce seemed to present to the Board. The Core Group struggled to understand why Leslie would make such a statement. Eventually, it was revealed that Superintendent Noyce had consistently praised JMS, leaving the Core Group puzzled about their ongoing issues with him, as they viewed him as a JMS supporter. This led them to draw an analogy likening Superintendent Noyce's interactions with JMS and the Board to those of an abusive husband. Perceived as "two-faced," the State Board remained oblivious to the struggles taking place behind closed doors.
Jill Radford's departure saddened Jacob Dietz, a father of two Deaf children enrolled in preschool at JMS. He and his wife were contemplating a move to Washington State, California, or Colorado, believing those states had schools that were more supportive of ASL education. He remarked, "It's one less advocate that we have in the education system fighting for our kids," referring to Radford. He added, "I also understand she's been fighting an uphill battle for the last couple of years, and it's difficult to do that" (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, August 26, 2011).
Parents at JMS and members of the Utah Deaf community were also upset to see Jill leave. They viewed her as deeply committed to her work and personally invested in her students' lives. In fact, she had consistently engaged in every aspect of JMS, dedicating her life to the school, sometimes to the detriment of her health and well-being.
Brittany Watterson, a former USD student, shared a fitting analogy about Superintendent Noyce on her Facebook profile: "When there is a will, there is a way. Noyce is a good example. He is very passionate about his flawed beliefs, and even after many battles we've fought against him, he is still standing strong" (Brittany Watterson, personal communication, August 26, 2011). While Superintendent Noyce stood firm in his beliefs, her analogy resonated with the Core Group's ongoing struggle against him.
'Principal of School for the Deaf in Millcreek resigns, chastising leadership.' The Salt Lake Tribune, August 26, 2011
Did You Know?
On August 23, 2011, the ASL/English Bilingual program at the Ogden Campus was named in honor of Kenneth C. Burdett, whose lasting impact on Deaf education reflects the dedication and progress of our community.
At the suggestion of Trena Roueche, a new Associate Superintendent of the Utah School for the Deaf, and following extensive discussions with faculty, staff, and students, it was determined that the North Division program should have a name. The goal was to help students establish a connection to Deaf culture and the community, thereby strengthening their identity as Deaf individuals.
During the naming process, three names were proposed for a vote: Kenneth C. Burdett, Henry C. White, and Elizabeth Wood. This decision involved input from past and present administrators, parents, and students, emphasizing our collective effort to honor those who have shaped Deaf education in Utah.
On September 29, 2011, the USD held a meaningful plaque-hanging ceremony to honor Kenneth C. Burdett. Ronald, Burdett's wife, Joyanne, and his sister, JoAnn Haymond, shared heartfelt memories during the event. The plaque and a portrait now hang prominently in the hall at the Kenneth C. Burdett School of the Deaf, ensuring that his legacy endures. For more information about his life, please visit the 'Kenneth C. Burdett School of the Deaf' webpage.
At the suggestion of Trena Roueche, a new Associate Superintendent of the Utah School for the Deaf, and following extensive discussions with faculty, staff, and students, it was determined that the North Division program should have a name. The goal was to help students establish a connection to Deaf culture and the community, thereby strengthening their identity as Deaf individuals.
During the naming process, three names were proposed for a vote: Kenneth C. Burdett, Henry C. White, and Elizabeth Wood. This decision involved input from past and present administrators, parents, and students, emphasizing our collective effort to honor those who have shaped Deaf education in Utah.
On September 29, 2011, the USD held a meaningful plaque-hanging ceremony to honor Kenneth C. Burdett. Ronald, Burdett's wife, Joyanne, and his sister, JoAnn Haymond, shared heartfelt memories during the event. The plaque and a portrait now hang prominently in the hall at the Kenneth C. Burdett School of the Deaf, ensuring that his legacy endures. For more information about his life, please visit the 'Kenneth C. Burdett School of the Deaf' webpage.
Kenneth C. Burdett School of the Deaf, Ogden, Utah
|
Kenneth C. Burdett
|
Two Utah Deaf Advocates
Meet With Dr. Martell Menlove
Meet With Dr. Martell Menlove
Shortly after Jill Radford's resignation, she met with Dr. Martell Menlove on September 7, 2011, where he assured her that he wanted the Utah Deaf community's voice to be heard and expressed his respect for several individuals in the community. Dr. Menlove's concern was that the actions of the Utah Deaf Education Core Group had silenced the voice of the listening and spoken language advocates. He recalled the vigil at the Utah State Office of Education on May 5, 2011, and mentioned receiving threatening phone calls from unidentified individuals (the Core Group was unaware of these threatening calls and was not responsible for them). Jill clarified that when the Core Group felt unheard, their natural reaction was to be more visible. Over the past two years, the Utah Deaf community has taken numerous steps to express its dissatisfaction with the State Board. The Core Group felt it was time to be seen when the State Board responded with "no action," emphasizing the community's dedication and the importance of their voices in shaping Deaf education.
When Jill asked Dr. Menlove why the performance of the superintendents of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind was being set aside, she did not receive a direct answer. Instead, Dr. Menlove questioned, "If not him, who? The Utah Deaf community will never be satisfied unless someone from the Deaf community is appointed to that position." Jill disagreed, stating that appointing an individual with a stronger CEO background and the ability to represent all programs would foster collaboration rather than conflict.
Jill proposed several changes she felt were necessary:
Overall, Jill found the meeting favorable and promising. She left feeling that the Core Group had an ally in Dr. Menlove if they used their resources appropriately and professionally. She asked Dr. Menlove to help the Core Group—and herself—understand how to build a partnership between the community and the State Board. They both agreed that educating both sides would be necessary. Dr. Menlove expressed his desire to keep in touch, stating that he planned to remain open to all concerned community members and wanted to work collaboratively with them.
After the meeting, Jill advised the Core Group to leverage their relationship with Dr. Menlove while ensuring they approached it appropriately to avoid being silenced again (Jill Radford, personal communication, September 7, 2011).
Two weeks later, on September 23, 2011, Jeff W. Pollock, a Deaf representative of the USDB Advisory Council, met with Dr. Menlove to discuss the Core Group's approach to the Utah State Board of Education. Dr. Menlove indicated that the vigil by the Utah Deaf community at the State Board meeting on May 5, 2011, had not produced a positive effect. The State Board members expressed that the Utah Deaf community was protesting before the Board even made a decision, which colored their perspective on the situation. Additionally, Dr. Menlove mentioned that someone had called him through the relay service and threatened to sue (the caller's identity remains unknown). The majority of the State Board perceived the Utah Deaf community as always being dissatisfied. Jeff advised the Utah Deaf community to ensure their approach and comments to any legislative or decision-making body were respectful and clearly communicated to positively influence outcomes.
During their meeting, Jill informed Dr. Menlove that the Utah Association for the Deaf has an Education Committee and suggested that he meet with Dan Mathis, the new chair. They could collaboratively demonstrate that all Deaf children can succeed in bilingual education in ASL and English if they eliminate the 'Y' system, which separates parents and hinders effective learning, ultimately benefiting Deaf children and families.
Jeff elaborated on the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf, sharing how it was established in response to dissatisfaction with the Utah School for the Deaf. He expressed concern that JMS was becoming a "dumping ground" for students with multiple disabilities, which was not its intended purpose. He clarified that Deaf children with multiple disabilities needed to learn ASL and would require additional services under the special education framework; they belong in JMS. Furthermore, he emphasized that Deaf children should not be viewed solely as requiring special education but rather as a language minority needing education in their language.
Jeff shared a story about one of Dan Mathis' ASL students, a mother of a child with cochlear implants. The child had initially been enrolled in the LSL program, but wasn't making progress with her spoken language skills. Consequently, she was labeled as having behavioral issues. The child later transferred to JMS, where she began to thrive and even improved her spoken language. The mother was thrilled with this change.
During the discussion, Jeff pointed out to Dr. Menlove that ASL could enhance children's spoken language skills. He argued that all Deaf children should learn ASL to benefit their overall education. Jeff mentioned that there was no need to continue with the 'Y' approach. Dr. Menlove responded that he had heard contrary opinions from other parents, to which Jeff challenged him to provide empirical proof supporting those claims.
Jeff then presented Dr. Menlove with the student academic records he had gathered. He emphasized that mainstream students were performing significantly below their hearing peers, despite graduating on time. Many were not prepared for college, struggled to find jobs, and ultimately relied on SSI/SSDI and general welfare assistance. Dr. Menlove seemed interested in this information.
Next, they discussed finances. Jeff inquired whether Dr. Menlove knew how the $440,000 allocated to Sound Beginnings would be used. Dr. Menlove mentioned that Steven Noyce had informed him the funds would go towards two classrooms in Logan, which would typically cost $600,000, thus saving USDB $200,000. Jeff argued that USDB could save even more by eliminating the 'Y' approach, ensuring that all Deaf and hard-of-hearing students learn ASL.
Overall, Jeff felt that the meeting was productive. He observed that Dr. Menlove and the State Board still had much to learn, and he believed it was the responsibility of the Utah Deaf community to educate them to improve the Deaf educational system. While the Core Group was in the process of merging with the UAD Education Committee, Jeff recommended that the future UAD Education Committee serve as a watchdog. They should present data to the State Board that highlights the USD's successes while also noting that many Deaf mainstream students face significant challenges. These students often perform below their hearing peers, struggle to be prepared for college, and encounter difficulties in finding employment. This situation underscores the urgent need for policy changes to improve their outcomes (Jeff W. Pollock, personal communication, September 23, 2011).
By monitoring and advocating for Deaf and hard-of-hearing students, the committee can ensure essential resources and support systems are put in place. This proactive approach can create more equitable educational opportunities and improve transition programs for students moving into postsecondary institutions and the workforce.
When Jill asked Dr. Menlove why the performance of the superintendents of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind was being set aside, she did not receive a direct answer. Instead, Dr. Menlove questioned, "If not him, who? The Utah Deaf community will never be satisfied unless someone from the Deaf community is appointed to that position." Jill disagreed, stating that appointing an individual with a stronger CEO background and the ability to represent all programs would foster collaboration rather than conflict.
Jill proposed several changes she felt were necessary:
- The Parent Infant Program should provide children with the opportunity to learn both American Sign Language (ASL) and spoken English from the start, following the child's lead.
- The annual report should be delivered by the Associate Superintendent, Trena Roueche.
- She questioned what happens to LSL students after they are mainstreamed, particularly as they reach third grade and are expected to read to learn instead of learning to read.
Overall, Jill found the meeting favorable and promising. She left feeling that the Core Group had an ally in Dr. Menlove if they used their resources appropriately and professionally. She asked Dr. Menlove to help the Core Group—and herself—understand how to build a partnership between the community and the State Board. They both agreed that educating both sides would be necessary. Dr. Menlove expressed his desire to keep in touch, stating that he planned to remain open to all concerned community members and wanted to work collaboratively with them.
After the meeting, Jill advised the Core Group to leverage their relationship with Dr. Menlove while ensuring they approached it appropriately to avoid being silenced again (Jill Radford, personal communication, September 7, 2011).
Two weeks later, on September 23, 2011, Jeff W. Pollock, a Deaf representative of the USDB Advisory Council, met with Dr. Menlove to discuss the Core Group's approach to the Utah State Board of Education. Dr. Menlove indicated that the vigil by the Utah Deaf community at the State Board meeting on May 5, 2011, had not produced a positive effect. The State Board members expressed that the Utah Deaf community was protesting before the Board even made a decision, which colored their perspective on the situation. Additionally, Dr. Menlove mentioned that someone had called him through the relay service and threatened to sue (the caller's identity remains unknown). The majority of the State Board perceived the Utah Deaf community as always being dissatisfied. Jeff advised the Utah Deaf community to ensure their approach and comments to any legislative or decision-making body were respectful and clearly communicated to positively influence outcomes.
During their meeting, Jill informed Dr. Menlove that the Utah Association for the Deaf has an Education Committee and suggested that he meet with Dan Mathis, the new chair. They could collaboratively demonstrate that all Deaf children can succeed in bilingual education in ASL and English if they eliminate the 'Y' system, which separates parents and hinders effective learning, ultimately benefiting Deaf children and families.
Jeff elaborated on the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf, sharing how it was established in response to dissatisfaction with the Utah School for the Deaf. He expressed concern that JMS was becoming a "dumping ground" for students with multiple disabilities, which was not its intended purpose. He clarified that Deaf children with multiple disabilities needed to learn ASL and would require additional services under the special education framework; they belong in JMS. Furthermore, he emphasized that Deaf children should not be viewed solely as requiring special education but rather as a language minority needing education in their language.
Jeff shared a story about one of Dan Mathis' ASL students, a mother of a child with cochlear implants. The child had initially been enrolled in the LSL program, but wasn't making progress with her spoken language skills. Consequently, she was labeled as having behavioral issues. The child later transferred to JMS, where she began to thrive and even improved her spoken language. The mother was thrilled with this change.
During the discussion, Jeff pointed out to Dr. Menlove that ASL could enhance children's spoken language skills. He argued that all Deaf children should learn ASL to benefit their overall education. Jeff mentioned that there was no need to continue with the 'Y' approach. Dr. Menlove responded that he had heard contrary opinions from other parents, to which Jeff challenged him to provide empirical proof supporting those claims.
Jeff then presented Dr. Menlove with the student academic records he had gathered. He emphasized that mainstream students were performing significantly below their hearing peers, despite graduating on time. Many were not prepared for college, struggled to find jobs, and ultimately relied on SSI/SSDI and general welfare assistance. Dr. Menlove seemed interested in this information.
Next, they discussed finances. Jeff inquired whether Dr. Menlove knew how the $440,000 allocated to Sound Beginnings would be used. Dr. Menlove mentioned that Steven Noyce had informed him the funds would go towards two classrooms in Logan, which would typically cost $600,000, thus saving USDB $200,000. Jeff argued that USDB could save even more by eliminating the 'Y' approach, ensuring that all Deaf and hard-of-hearing students learn ASL.
Overall, Jeff felt that the meeting was productive. He observed that Dr. Menlove and the State Board still had much to learn, and he believed it was the responsibility of the Utah Deaf community to educate them to improve the Deaf educational system. While the Core Group was in the process of merging with the UAD Education Committee, Jeff recommended that the future UAD Education Committee serve as a watchdog. They should present data to the State Board that highlights the USD's successes while also noting that many Deaf mainstream students face significant challenges. These students often perform below their hearing peers, struggle to be prepared for college, and encounter difficulties in finding employment. This situation underscores the urgent need for policy changes to improve their outcomes (Jeff W. Pollock, personal communication, September 23, 2011).
By monitoring and advocating for Deaf and hard-of-hearing students, the committee can ensure essential resources and support systems are put in place. This proactive approach can create more equitable educational opportunities and improve transition programs for students moving into postsecondary institutions and the workforce.
Parents of Deaf Children Must
Navigate Sounds, Signs, and Choices Early
Navigate Sounds, Signs, and Choices Early
On October 7, 2011, Molly Farmer, a reporter for the Deseret News, highlighted the experiences of a hearing family, Phil and Shelli Rosbach from Kaysville, Utah, illustrating the importance of parental decision-making in Deaf education.
In her article, Day Mullings, director of the USD Deaf Parent Infant Program (PIP), explained that the Parent Infant Program has been controversial. Recently, some members of the Utah Deaf community expressed concern that parents were being pressured to enroll their Deaf or hard-of-hearing infants and toddlers in the Listening and Spoken Language PIP program. She stated, "We were getting lots of feedback that parents weren't receiving the information that they needed." Mullings insisted that the PIP worked to address these information gaps by establishing a new orientation program in December 2010, where specialists would be the first point of contact for all families informed that their baby is Deaf (Farmer, Deseret News, October 7, 2011).
Ann Lovell and Sharelle Goff served as PIP Orientation Specialists, sharing different language philosophies and ensuring they were present at every in-home family appointment. Together, they met with every new referral to explain the available options. They agreed that the family is the decision-maker (Farmer, Deseret News, October 7, 2011). This new orientation plan seemed fairer, as it allowed more students to transition from the PIP into the ASL/English bilingual program at the Jean Massieu School, part of the Utah School for the Deaf. During the 2010-2011 school year, sixteen preschoolers were enrolled at JMS, likely the program's largest enrollment to date.
The Rosbach family faced pressure from both families and experts, both within and outside the school system, regarding what the "right" way to teach a Deaf child was, further complicating their decision-making. Phil stated, "During that process, a lot of people tell you if you do implants, you should not sign" (Farmer, Deseret News, October 7, 2011). In their frustration, Phil and Shelli turned to a parent-driven organization called Hands and Voices for the support they needed.
Ultimately, they chose the ASL/English bilingual option for their son, Colton, who was 28 months old, despite having opted for cochlear implants. They went through a significant process to determine what their family needed to learn to communicate with their son, particularly when he wasn't wearing his hearing aids or implants. Shelli expressed concern that the USD ASL-English bilingual specialist only visited their home about twice a month to teach the family sign language, which she felt was insufficient for them to acquire adequate signing skills. The Rosbachs also had to seek speech therapy for Colton elsewhere (Farmer, Deseret News, October 7, 2011). This issue has been one of the disappointments with the current Deaf PIP program. In 2009-2010, USD decided to separate infants, toddlers, and children in the signing program from those in the listening-and-spoken language program. This decision was puzzling, as the bilingual program includes an oral component (listening and speaking). Why couldn't the Rosbachs access both elements of the bilingual program through the school for the Deaf?
In her article, Day Mullings, director of the USD Deaf Parent Infant Program (PIP), explained that the Parent Infant Program has been controversial. Recently, some members of the Utah Deaf community expressed concern that parents were being pressured to enroll their Deaf or hard-of-hearing infants and toddlers in the Listening and Spoken Language PIP program. She stated, "We were getting lots of feedback that parents weren't receiving the information that they needed." Mullings insisted that the PIP worked to address these information gaps by establishing a new orientation program in December 2010, where specialists would be the first point of contact for all families informed that their baby is Deaf (Farmer, Deseret News, October 7, 2011).
Ann Lovell and Sharelle Goff served as PIP Orientation Specialists, sharing different language philosophies and ensuring they were present at every in-home family appointment. Together, they met with every new referral to explain the available options. They agreed that the family is the decision-maker (Farmer, Deseret News, October 7, 2011). This new orientation plan seemed fairer, as it allowed more students to transition from the PIP into the ASL/English bilingual program at the Jean Massieu School, part of the Utah School for the Deaf. During the 2010-2011 school year, sixteen preschoolers were enrolled at JMS, likely the program's largest enrollment to date.
The Rosbach family faced pressure from both families and experts, both within and outside the school system, regarding what the "right" way to teach a Deaf child was, further complicating their decision-making. Phil stated, "During that process, a lot of people tell you if you do implants, you should not sign" (Farmer, Deseret News, October 7, 2011). In their frustration, Phil and Shelli turned to a parent-driven organization called Hands and Voices for the support they needed.
Ultimately, they chose the ASL/English bilingual option for their son, Colton, who was 28 months old, despite having opted for cochlear implants. They went through a significant process to determine what their family needed to learn to communicate with their son, particularly when he wasn't wearing his hearing aids or implants. Shelli expressed concern that the USD ASL-English bilingual specialist only visited their home about twice a month to teach the family sign language, which she felt was insufficient for them to acquire adequate signing skills. The Rosbachs also had to seek speech therapy for Colton elsewhere (Farmer, Deseret News, October 7, 2011). This issue has been one of the disappointments with the current Deaf PIP program. In 2009-2010, USD decided to separate infants, toddlers, and children in the signing program from those in the listening-and-spoken language program. This decision was puzzling, as the bilingual program includes an oral component (listening and speaking). Why couldn't the Rosbachs access both elements of the bilingual program through the school for the Deaf?
Shelli Rosbach & her son, Colton. Source: The Deseret News
Day stated that USD opted not to teach LSL and ASL simultaneously because research indicates that it isn't effective (Farmer, Deseret News, October 7, 2011). This raises the question: What research? In a Letter to the Editor by Bronwyn O'Hara, she inquired about the research Day Mullings was referring to" (letter sent October 15, 2011, but not published in the Deseret News).
In a counterintuitive move, Day Mullings appears to oppose a bilingual approach to educating Deaf infants and toddlers, a stance similar to that of Dr. Grant Bitter in 1977, who favored oral education. As mentioned in Part III, this issue surfaced after a two-year study into USD's teaching and offering communication methods, led by Dr. Jay Campbell at the request of the Utah State Board of Education from 1975 to 1977. He advocated for improved procedures for parent orientation and student placement, noting that parents were often unaware of the school's total communication program. Dr. Campbell recommended creating an informative pamphlet that detailed both programs and their distinct communication methodologies, stressing the importance of regularly updating it with new empirical research findings (Campbell, 1977). However, Dr. Bitter criticized the initiative aimed at educating parents, contending that the simultaneous use of speech and sign represented a philosophy rather than an actual teaching method (Dr. Grant B. Bitter, personal communication, February 4, 1985). Consequently, Dr. Campbell's proposal fell short. While the provision of information about ASL/English bilingual and LSL options marked an advancement, it also raised concerns about the ongoing misunderstandings among school administrators regarding the relationship between ASL and oracy skills.
In the intervening forty years, the Utah Deaf community had learned a lot more about bilingual education. Brownwyn O'Hara pointed out that American Sign Language and spoken English could be compatible in the same way that any bilingual languages are in the classroom. She said, "We've learned a lot from the Spanish speakers who have come to our country as educators, but their education isn't being accommodated. English as a Second Language (ESL) has worked. The Deaf and hard-of-hearing children can be viewed as English second language learners. The principles that govern bilingual speakers can work" (Bronwyn O'Hara, personal communication, October 10, 2011).
The current USDB superintendent, Steven Noyce, told Molly Farmer that he felt claims that he favored the Listening and Spoken Language program in PIP are unfounded. His view was that "all parents have taken hits amidst recent economic turmoil. He said the schools have faced challenges and cutbacks that he and his staff are trying to work through. 'We have some needs that are unmet…. We don't always have the personnel that we want...." (Farmer, Deseret News, October 7, 2011).
Dan Mathis, the newly appointed chair of the Utah Association of the Deaf Education Committee, thought the Deseret News article brought up one huge truth that has not been addressed by the Utah School for the Deaf or the Utah State Board of Education. Many parents, like the Rosbach family, want to use every possible way to communicate with their children—including learning both sign language, listening, and speech.
Dan said the UAD Education Committee can take on questioning the USD administration's claims that they're doing the right thing and that they are short-funded and short-staffed. However, rather than a combative approach, Dan preferred that the committee work with the USD administration and parents to ultimately provide what is most important for the Deaf and hard-of-hearing infants through teens: "We've got a means of giving a true and decent appropriate education for them in our state" (Dan Mathis, personal communication, October 11, 2011). Dan emphasized the importance of collaboration among all stakeholders, highlighting that open dialogue is essential for addressing the unique challenges faced by parents and students. This approach aims not only to enhance educational opportunities but also to foster a supportive community that effectively meets their needs, ensuring that every child has the chance to thrive.
In a counterintuitive move, Day Mullings appears to oppose a bilingual approach to educating Deaf infants and toddlers, a stance similar to that of Dr. Grant Bitter in 1977, who favored oral education. As mentioned in Part III, this issue surfaced after a two-year study into USD's teaching and offering communication methods, led by Dr. Jay Campbell at the request of the Utah State Board of Education from 1975 to 1977. He advocated for improved procedures for parent orientation and student placement, noting that parents were often unaware of the school's total communication program. Dr. Campbell recommended creating an informative pamphlet that detailed both programs and their distinct communication methodologies, stressing the importance of regularly updating it with new empirical research findings (Campbell, 1977). However, Dr. Bitter criticized the initiative aimed at educating parents, contending that the simultaneous use of speech and sign represented a philosophy rather than an actual teaching method (Dr. Grant B. Bitter, personal communication, February 4, 1985). Consequently, Dr. Campbell's proposal fell short. While the provision of information about ASL/English bilingual and LSL options marked an advancement, it also raised concerns about the ongoing misunderstandings among school administrators regarding the relationship between ASL and oracy skills.
In the intervening forty years, the Utah Deaf community had learned a lot more about bilingual education. Brownwyn O'Hara pointed out that American Sign Language and spoken English could be compatible in the same way that any bilingual languages are in the classroom. She said, "We've learned a lot from the Spanish speakers who have come to our country as educators, but their education isn't being accommodated. English as a Second Language (ESL) has worked. The Deaf and hard-of-hearing children can be viewed as English second language learners. The principles that govern bilingual speakers can work" (Bronwyn O'Hara, personal communication, October 10, 2011).
The current USDB superintendent, Steven Noyce, told Molly Farmer that he felt claims that he favored the Listening and Spoken Language program in PIP are unfounded. His view was that "all parents have taken hits amidst recent economic turmoil. He said the schools have faced challenges and cutbacks that he and his staff are trying to work through. 'We have some needs that are unmet…. We don't always have the personnel that we want...." (Farmer, Deseret News, October 7, 2011).
Dan Mathis, the newly appointed chair of the Utah Association of the Deaf Education Committee, thought the Deseret News article brought up one huge truth that has not been addressed by the Utah School for the Deaf or the Utah State Board of Education. Many parents, like the Rosbach family, want to use every possible way to communicate with their children—including learning both sign language, listening, and speech.
Dan said the UAD Education Committee can take on questioning the USD administration's claims that they're doing the right thing and that they are short-funded and short-staffed. However, rather than a combative approach, Dan preferred that the committee work with the USD administration and parents to ultimately provide what is most important for the Deaf and hard-of-hearing infants through teens: "We've got a means of giving a true and decent appropriate education for them in our state" (Dan Mathis, personal communication, October 11, 2011). Dan emphasized the importance of collaboration among all stakeholders, highlighting that open dialogue is essential for addressing the unique challenges faced by parents and students. This approach aims not only to enhance educational opportunities but also to foster a supportive community that effectively meets their needs, ensuring that every child has the chance to thrive.
The End of Superintendent
Steven W. Noyce's Two-Year Contract
Steven W. Noyce's Two-Year Contract
From 2010 to 2011, the Utah Deaf Education Core Group worked to promote fair, equitable, and transparent options for Deaf education. They organized a peaceful vigil to influence policy; however, the Utah State Board of Education did not decide on Superintendent Noyce's contract. In the end, they extended his contract after a task force study, highlighting the difficulties advocacy groups face in bringing about change.
Superintendent Noyce has painted the Core Group as radical and fanatical in an effort to alienate us and promote LSL education and services. This strategy also aligns with Dr. Bitter's negative portrayal of the Utah Association for the Deaf, particularly of Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, while pushing his agenda for oral and mainstream education. After exhausting all possible options to terminate Superintendent Noyce's contract and losing faith in the system while he was still in office, the Core Group chose to remain silent for two years, hoping to ultimately reveal the superintendent's concealed intentions.
On January 10, 2013, during a meeting of the Utah State Board of Education, the board voted unanimously in open session not to renew Superintendent Noyce's appointment. Debra Roberts, the chairwoman of the State Board, did not disclose the reasons for the board's decision, citing privacy concerns. She emphasized that there was no wrongdoing and that the board had been discussing the matter for months (Schencker, The Salt Lake Tribune, January 10, 2013). Superintendent Noyce expressed surprise at the news, stating, "There have been long-standing controversies at the school. I don't imagine that's the reason, though, because, frankly, for the last 18 months, things have been very, very quiet" (Schencker, The Salt Lake Tribune, January 10, 2013). As of today, the reason for his contract termination remains unknown.
In an interview on the same day, Superintendent Noyce denied favoring one educational approach over another. He stated, "The school created an orientation video for families and sent two adults, one from each pathway, to visit families to ensure they understand their options. I think we've gone to incredible lengths to provide families with enough information to make informed choices" (Schencker, The Salt Lake Tribune, January 10, 2013). Debra Roberts remarked, "It's a very challenging assignment to be a leader at USDB. It's very challenging to meet the needs of the kids there." Despite her observations, I believe that by implementing the National Agenda, the Deaf Child's Bill of Rights, and LEAD-K (additional information on LEAD-K can be found in the section below), we can gain a better understanding of, and more effectively address, the inequalities present in Deaf education in Utah, particularly at the Utah School for the Deaf.
During the public interview for the USDB superintendent position in 2013, one of the candidates, Larry S. Taub, a Deaf individual and former executive director of the Pennsylvania School for the Deaf and superintendent of the Governor Baxter School for the Deaf, emphasized the importance of utilizing and complying with the National Agenda (Utah Public Education, May 22, 2013). However, he was not hired for the position. This episode raises questions about whether the state board truly understood the National Agenda and how it could benefit the Utah School for the Deaf, highlighting a potential gap in policy awareness.
As the author and a parent of two adult Deaf children, I wonder which approach is better: should they take a more active or more passive role in the movement? Think about what would have happened if the Utah Association for the Deaf hadn't fought to protect sign language at the Utah School for the Deaf in the 1960s and 1970s. If the Utah Deaf Education Core Group had remained passive, could ASL have diminished completely? Would ASL/English bilingual education be jeopardized? Would the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf, Kenneth Burdett School of the Deaf, and Elizabeth DeLong School of the Deaf still exist today? Could the oral education movement have swept across Utah? In such circumstances, there would have been no win-win situation.
In 2013, Joel Coleman, then a member of the Utah State Board of Education, was appointed the next Superintendent of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind. In 2014, Michelle Tanner, a longtime teacher at the Utah School for the Deaf, was promoted to Associate Superintendent.
During the 2013–14 school year, Associate Superintendent Tanner and Superintendent Coleman recognized the critical need for both ASL/English bilingual and LSL options to create an equitable educational system. Their collaborative efforts fostered a sense of shared achievement and instilled confidence in the progress of an inclusive educational system at the Utah School for the Deaf, as detailed in the section below.
Superintendent Noyce has painted the Core Group as radical and fanatical in an effort to alienate us and promote LSL education and services. This strategy also aligns with Dr. Bitter's negative portrayal of the Utah Association for the Deaf, particularly of Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, while pushing his agenda for oral and mainstream education. After exhausting all possible options to terminate Superintendent Noyce's contract and losing faith in the system while he was still in office, the Core Group chose to remain silent for two years, hoping to ultimately reveal the superintendent's concealed intentions.
On January 10, 2013, during a meeting of the Utah State Board of Education, the board voted unanimously in open session not to renew Superintendent Noyce's appointment. Debra Roberts, the chairwoman of the State Board, did not disclose the reasons for the board's decision, citing privacy concerns. She emphasized that there was no wrongdoing and that the board had been discussing the matter for months (Schencker, The Salt Lake Tribune, January 10, 2013). Superintendent Noyce expressed surprise at the news, stating, "There have been long-standing controversies at the school. I don't imagine that's the reason, though, because, frankly, for the last 18 months, things have been very, very quiet" (Schencker, The Salt Lake Tribune, January 10, 2013). As of today, the reason for his contract termination remains unknown.
In an interview on the same day, Superintendent Noyce denied favoring one educational approach over another. He stated, "The school created an orientation video for families and sent two adults, one from each pathway, to visit families to ensure they understand their options. I think we've gone to incredible lengths to provide families with enough information to make informed choices" (Schencker, The Salt Lake Tribune, January 10, 2013). Debra Roberts remarked, "It's a very challenging assignment to be a leader at USDB. It's very challenging to meet the needs of the kids there." Despite her observations, I believe that by implementing the National Agenda, the Deaf Child's Bill of Rights, and LEAD-K (additional information on LEAD-K can be found in the section below), we can gain a better understanding of, and more effectively address, the inequalities present in Deaf education in Utah, particularly at the Utah School for the Deaf.
During the public interview for the USDB superintendent position in 2013, one of the candidates, Larry S. Taub, a Deaf individual and former executive director of the Pennsylvania School for the Deaf and superintendent of the Governor Baxter School for the Deaf, emphasized the importance of utilizing and complying with the National Agenda (Utah Public Education, May 22, 2013). However, he was not hired for the position. This episode raises questions about whether the state board truly understood the National Agenda and how it could benefit the Utah School for the Deaf, highlighting a potential gap in policy awareness.
As the author and a parent of two adult Deaf children, I wonder which approach is better: should they take a more active or more passive role in the movement? Think about what would have happened if the Utah Association for the Deaf hadn't fought to protect sign language at the Utah School for the Deaf in the 1960s and 1970s. If the Utah Deaf Education Core Group had remained passive, could ASL have diminished completely? Would ASL/English bilingual education be jeopardized? Would the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf, Kenneth Burdett School of the Deaf, and Elizabeth DeLong School of the Deaf still exist today? Could the oral education movement have swept across Utah? In such circumstances, there would have been no win-win situation.
In 2013, Joel Coleman, then a member of the Utah State Board of Education, was appointed the next Superintendent of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind. In 2014, Michelle Tanner, a longtime teacher at the Utah School for the Deaf, was promoted to Associate Superintendent.
During the 2013–14 school year, Associate Superintendent Tanner and Superintendent Coleman recognized the critical need for both ASL/English bilingual and LSL options to create an equitable educational system. Their collaborative efforts fostered a sense of shared achievement and instilled confidence in the progress of an inclusive educational system at the Utah School for the Deaf, as detailed in the section below.
Larry S. Taub. Source: Linkedin.com
The Establishment of the Hybrid Program
at the Utah School for the Deaf
at the Utah School for the Deaf
The landscape of Deaf education began to change in 2016 when Dr. Michelle Tanner, with the support of USDB Superintendent Joel Coleman, turned Dr. Robert G. Sanderson's dream into reality, twenty-four years after it was first proposed in 1992. They launched a hybrid program that fosters collaboration between the ASL/English and LSL programs while enabling personalized placements in Deaf education.
For over fifty years, the prevailing 'Y' system, which prioritized oral education, left many parents with limited choices and information regarding their children's educational paths. This model created barriers, making it difficult for families to understand the full range of available options. Dr. Tanner's transformative vision has sparked essential changes in the approach to Deaf education, promoting inclusivity.
During the dominance of the oral-focused two-track system, parents faced numerous challenges, which limited their understanding of available options and left them feeling helpless. However, thanks to Dr. Tanner, a significant shift has occurred. The hybrid program has shown promising results, with preliminary data indicating increased family satisfaction and student engagement. These successes highlight the program's positive impact and instill hope for further improvements.
The hybrid program, as described below, is designed to empower parents by offering balanced, transparent options that allow them to avoid an 'either/or' dilemma between ASL/English and LSL approaches. By incorporating ASL, the program effectively reduces pressure on students, reduces the risk of language deprivation, and simplifies the decision-making process for families. Furthermore, it offers essential support for students with specific communication needs. Overall, the hybrid program has led to increased family satisfaction and greater student engagement, signaling a promising future for Deaf education.
For over fifty years, the prevailing 'Y' system, which prioritized oral education, left many parents with limited choices and information regarding their children's educational paths. This model created barriers, making it difficult for families to understand the full range of available options. Dr. Tanner's transformative vision has sparked essential changes in the approach to Deaf education, promoting inclusivity.
During the dominance of the oral-focused two-track system, parents faced numerous challenges, which limited their understanding of available options and left them feeling helpless. However, thanks to Dr. Tanner, a significant shift has occurred. The hybrid program has shown promising results, with preliminary data indicating increased family satisfaction and student engagement. These successes highlight the program's positive impact and instill hope for further improvements.
The hybrid program, as described below, is designed to empower parents by offering balanced, transparent options that allow them to avoid an 'either/or' dilemma between ASL/English and LSL approaches. By incorporating ASL, the program effectively reduces pressure on students, reduces the risk of language deprivation, and simplifies the decision-making process for families. Furthermore, it offers essential support for students with specific communication needs. Overall, the hybrid program has led to increased family satisfaction and greater student engagement, signaling a promising future for Deaf education.
Michelle Tanner, USD Assoc. Supt; Joel Coleman, USDB Superintendent; Carolyn Lasater, USB Assoc. Supt. Source: Twitter
Challenges Encountered in Collaboration
Between the Listening & Spoken Language
and ASL/English Bilingual Departments
Between the Listening & Spoken Language
and ASL/English Bilingual Departments
During Dr. Tanner's first year as an associate superintendent of the Deaf Division, her leadership directly influenced the development of a hybrid program at the Utah School for the Deaf. She instilled confidence in her vision for positive change by addressing the pervasive 'Y' system mentality, which forced parents to choose one educational path over another, often leaving them confused about the best option for their child's education. This situation prompted her to question the resolution of the long-standing conflict over approaches to Deaf education. Reflecting on the historical disputes within the school, she wondered, "Will this conflict ever end? Can the two factions peacefully coexist?"
As Dr. Tanner contemplated these challenges, she recognized her capacity and authority to foster a new approach at the Utah School for the Deaf. She sought to promote collaboration between the ASL/English and LSL programs, aiming to move beyond the 'either/or' mindset. Understanding that today's culture values options and personalized solutions, Dr. Tanner saw a unique opportunity in having the LSL and ASL/English departments located on the same campus in Ogden and Salt Lake City.
To initiate this change, Dr. Tanner revised the school's policies to eliminate the 'either/or' mentality. In the preschool program, parents could choose both options without compromising the school's educational philosophies or biases. Students could transition between ASL/English and LSL classes based on decisions made by their Individualized Education Program (IEP) teams. This flexibility enabled students to benefit from both programs while remaining true to each program's educational philosophies and methods.
Dr. Tanner communicated these new structures to parents, including those transitioning to Part B services, emphasizing that they could now attend both ASL/English and LSL classes. While the ASL/English teachers largely supported the changes, LSL teachers initially resisted during the first two years of implementation, with some engaging in subterfuge to discourage parents from choosing the ASL/English program. Nevertheless, Dr. Tanner stood firm in her commitment to a hybrid program that offered equal options for families. The pushback from LSL teachers prompted parents to seek evidence of the program's effectiveness, resulting in complaints filed with the Utah State Board of Education. Many LSL teachers were reluctant to collaborate with their ASL/English counterparts.
To address these challenges, Dr. Tanner demonstrated transformational leadership by holding weekly meetings with teachers to resolve conflicts and answer their questions. Over the years, she fostered a culture of collaboration and inclusivity by encouraging open communication and shared decision-making. The team changed how students were shared between programs and made it a rule that teachers had to work together before talking to parents. Additionally, she replaced some less cooperative teachers with more open-minded educators, reinforcing her commitment to an inclusive and collaborative environment.
From 2014 to 2020, significant progress was made in fostering collaboration among the ASL/English and LSL teachers, allowing Dr. Tanner to reduce her involvement in weekly meetings. In August 2016, the term 'hybrid' emerged to describe the collaboration between ASL/English and LSL programs, making Deaf education in Utah a reality through teamwork. Dr. Tanner refers to it as a "collaboration" between ASL/English bilingual and LSL programs, or as a personalized Deaf education placement available starting in first grade at the Utah School for the Deaf.
The initiative aims to provide parents with more educational choices, demonstrating how the hybrid program benefits Deaf students and their families by moving away from the restrictive 'Y' system and eliminating the need to choose 'either/or' between the two programs. By introducing ASL without imposing ineffective placements, the program has reduced language deprivation. The success of the hybrid program has reassured stakeholders that the Utah School for the Deaf is on the right track in delivering quality education for Deaf students.
Dr. Tanner has noted that parents are not only satisfied but thrilled with the changes, as the school collaborates to meet each student's specific needs (Michelle Tanner, personal communication, October 17, 2021). With the support of USDB Superintendent Coleman, Dr. Tanner has played an essential role in achieving the goals set by Dr. Jay J. Campbell and Dr. Robert G. Sanderson. Their innovative approach is vital in providing unbiased, equal access to information. They have demonstrated strong support and courage in improving the system for everyone involved, which is crucial for creating a more inclusive educational environment. Their collaborative efforts enhance the learning experience and foster connections among students and educators.
Along with the hybrid program, Superintendent Coleman and Associate Superintendent Tanner reinstated Section 504 plans, allowing students to choose between a Section 504 plan and an IEP during the IEP meeting, following HB 296, which was passed in 2009 and had previously been discouraged by Superintendent Steven W. Noyce. The Utah School for the Deaf currently serves about 300 students across four regions on campus.
As Dr. Tanner contemplated these challenges, she recognized her capacity and authority to foster a new approach at the Utah School for the Deaf. She sought to promote collaboration between the ASL/English and LSL programs, aiming to move beyond the 'either/or' mindset. Understanding that today's culture values options and personalized solutions, Dr. Tanner saw a unique opportunity in having the LSL and ASL/English departments located on the same campus in Ogden and Salt Lake City.
To initiate this change, Dr. Tanner revised the school's policies to eliminate the 'either/or' mentality. In the preschool program, parents could choose both options without compromising the school's educational philosophies or biases. Students could transition between ASL/English and LSL classes based on decisions made by their Individualized Education Program (IEP) teams. This flexibility enabled students to benefit from both programs while remaining true to each program's educational philosophies and methods.
Dr. Tanner communicated these new structures to parents, including those transitioning to Part B services, emphasizing that they could now attend both ASL/English and LSL classes. While the ASL/English teachers largely supported the changes, LSL teachers initially resisted during the first two years of implementation, with some engaging in subterfuge to discourage parents from choosing the ASL/English program. Nevertheless, Dr. Tanner stood firm in her commitment to a hybrid program that offered equal options for families. The pushback from LSL teachers prompted parents to seek evidence of the program's effectiveness, resulting in complaints filed with the Utah State Board of Education. Many LSL teachers were reluctant to collaborate with their ASL/English counterparts.
To address these challenges, Dr. Tanner demonstrated transformational leadership by holding weekly meetings with teachers to resolve conflicts and answer their questions. Over the years, she fostered a culture of collaboration and inclusivity by encouraging open communication and shared decision-making. The team changed how students were shared between programs and made it a rule that teachers had to work together before talking to parents. Additionally, she replaced some less cooperative teachers with more open-minded educators, reinforcing her commitment to an inclusive and collaborative environment.
From 2014 to 2020, significant progress was made in fostering collaboration among the ASL/English and LSL teachers, allowing Dr. Tanner to reduce her involvement in weekly meetings. In August 2016, the term 'hybrid' emerged to describe the collaboration between ASL/English and LSL programs, making Deaf education in Utah a reality through teamwork. Dr. Tanner refers to it as a "collaboration" between ASL/English bilingual and LSL programs, or as a personalized Deaf education placement available starting in first grade at the Utah School for the Deaf.
The initiative aims to provide parents with more educational choices, demonstrating how the hybrid program benefits Deaf students and their families by moving away from the restrictive 'Y' system and eliminating the need to choose 'either/or' between the two programs. By introducing ASL without imposing ineffective placements, the program has reduced language deprivation. The success of the hybrid program has reassured stakeholders that the Utah School for the Deaf is on the right track in delivering quality education for Deaf students.
Dr. Tanner has noted that parents are not only satisfied but thrilled with the changes, as the school collaborates to meet each student's specific needs (Michelle Tanner, personal communication, October 17, 2021). With the support of USDB Superintendent Coleman, Dr. Tanner has played an essential role in achieving the goals set by Dr. Jay J. Campbell and Dr. Robert G. Sanderson. Their innovative approach is vital in providing unbiased, equal access to information. They have demonstrated strong support and courage in improving the system for everyone involved, which is crucial for creating a more inclusive educational environment. Their collaborative efforts enhance the learning experience and foster connections among students and educators.
Along with the hybrid program, Superintendent Coleman and Associate Superintendent Tanner reinstated Section 504 plans, allowing students to choose between a Section 504 plan and an IEP during the IEP meeting, following HB 296, which was passed in 2009 and had previously been discouraged by Superintendent Steven W. Noyce. The Utah School for the Deaf currently serves about 300 students across four regions on campus.
Michelle Tanner. Source: Twitter
As the author of this website and an advocate for Deaf education, I want to address a misconception expressed by former USDB Superintendent Noyce, who claimed that the Utah Deaf community would never be satisfied. This viewpoint is misguided. Since the implementation of the hybrid program, we have received no complaints or resistance from our community. We understand that the oral program at the Utah School for the Deaf has been a longstanding practice since 1962 and is here to stay. Our advocacy centers on promoting fairness, equity, and transparency in the educational options available to families.
Our goal is to empower Deaf students to thrive academically and socially. We have made significant progress in overcoming the biases that previously restricted communication methods and school placement options, including the state school for the deaf. Let us honor Dr. Sanderson's vision from 1992 and ensure that Deaf students receive the communication, language, and education they rightfully deserve, paving their way to success in college and the workforce as proud, contributing citizens.
Our goal is to empower Deaf students to thrive academically and socially. We have made significant progress in overcoming the biases that previously restricted communication methods and school placement options, including the state school for the deaf. Let us honor Dr. Sanderson's vision from 1992 and ensure that Deaf students receive the communication, language, and education they rightfully deserve, paving their way to success in college and the workforce as proud, contributing citizens.
Did You Know?
Joel Coleman, who joined the Utah State Board of Education in 2010 and later became superintendent of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind in 2013, is Rachel Coleman's brother-in-law and the creator of the "Signing Time" films.
The Coleman Family: Rachel, Aaron, Leah, and Lucy. Source: signingtime.com
The Implementation and Promotion of Language Equality
and Acquisition for Deaf Children (LEAD-K)
and Acquisition for Deaf Children (LEAD-K)
In this section, we explore the journey behind the implementation and advocacy of Language Equality and Acquisition for Deaf Children, also known as LEAD-K. This initiative emphasizes the crucial role of language in the development of Deaf and hard-of-hearing children. Embraced by the Utah School for the Deaf in 2018, LEAD-K is making a significant impact in the lives of these children. Join us as we examine how this program is fostering a more inclusive environment for their growth and learning.
On October 8, 2015, California passed Senate Bill 210 to advance the 1994 Deaf Child's Bill of Rights. This law mandates that all Deaf and hard-of-hearing babies in California undergo language acquisition assessments every six months until they reach five years old (California Department of Education, 1994; California Legislative Information, 2015). Julie Rems-Smario, a Deaf education advocate and political activist who spearheaded LEAD-K, encourages all other states to follow California's example, a move already embraced by Utah, as detailed below. The Senate Bill aims to ensure that Deaf and hard-of-hearing children are academically prepared for kindergarten. Following the bill's passage, the Language Equality and Acquisition for Deaf Kids (LEAD-K) organization was established to provide equal access to language acquisition and literacy for Deaf and hard-of-hearing children before they enter kindergarten (California Legislative Information, 2015; Deaf Nation, 2015; Endeavors, Fall 2015).
In 2018, the Coleman/Tanner administration introduced the LEAD-K policy. This pioneering initiative offered parents more language options instead of a restrictive 'either/or' situation. By promoting language equality and acquisition, the LEAD-K policy aims to fully prepare Deaf children for kindergarten. In 2021, the USD Language and Communication Policy was amended to include clear standards for LSL programs and an ASL/English bilingual program. This amendment represents a significant step forward after over 50 years of prevalent oral bias, which prevented parents from receiving clear information about their children's educational and communication options. The amendment also provides detailed information on communication and educational options, ensuring that students have access to the language support they need. Dr. Jay J. Campbell, the Deputy Superintendent of the Utah State Office of Education and a crucial ally of the Utah Deaf community, first proposed this approach in 1977; however, it was rejected by Dr. Grant B. Bitter, an advocate for oral and mainstreaming methods. This collaborative effort instills hope in the Utah Deaf community.
Dr. Sanderson, who passed away in 2012, would have greatly appreciated Dr. Tanner for bringing his vision to fruition. As a Deaf parent education advocate, I am convinced that our collaborative efforts—my research on Deaf Education History in Utah and Dr. Tanner's implementation of effective ideas and strategies—have significantly benefited both the ASL/English bilingual and LSL departments. These plans were crucial for effectively serving parents and children in both programs. I extend my heartfelt gratitude to Dr. Tanner not only for studying the Utah Deaf History website but also for implementing these strategies, which have enhanced her advocacy for the Utah Deaf community, including Deaf and hard-of-hearing students.
On October 8, 2015, California passed Senate Bill 210 to advance the 1994 Deaf Child's Bill of Rights. This law mandates that all Deaf and hard-of-hearing babies in California undergo language acquisition assessments every six months until they reach five years old (California Department of Education, 1994; California Legislative Information, 2015). Julie Rems-Smario, a Deaf education advocate and political activist who spearheaded LEAD-K, encourages all other states to follow California's example, a move already embraced by Utah, as detailed below. The Senate Bill aims to ensure that Deaf and hard-of-hearing children are academically prepared for kindergarten. Following the bill's passage, the Language Equality and Acquisition for Deaf Kids (LEAD-K) organization was established to provide equal access to language acquisition and literacy for Deaf and hard-of-hearing children before they enter kindergarten (California Legislative Information, 2015; Deaf Nation, 2015; Endeavors, Fall 2015).
In 2018, the Coleman/Tanner administration introduced the LEAD-K policy. This pioneering initiative offered parents more language options instead of a restrictive 'either/or' situation. By promoting language equality and acquisition, the LEAD-K policy aims to fully prepare Deaf children for kindergarten. In 2021, the USD Language and Communication Policy was amended to include clear standards for LSL programs and an ASL/English bilingual program. This amendment represents a significant step forward after over 50 years of prevalent oral bias, which prevented parents from receiving clear information about their children's educational and communication options. The amendment also provides detailed information on communication and educational options, ensuring that students have access to the language support they need. Dr. Jay J. Campbell, the Deputy Superintendent of the Utah State Office of Education and a crucial ally of the Utah Deaf community, first proposed this approach in 1977; however, it was rejected by Dr. Grant B. Bitter, an advocate for oral and mainstreaming methods. This collaborative effort instills hope in the Utah Deaf community.
Dr. Sanderson, who passed away in 2012, would have greatly appreciated Dr. Tanner for bringing his vision to fruition. As a Deaf parent education advocate, I am convinced that our collaborative efforts—my research on Deaf Education History in Utah and Dr. Tanner's implementation of effective ideas and strategies—have significantly benefited both the ASL/English bilingual and LSL departments. These plans were crucial for effectively serving parents and children in both programs. I extend my heartfelt gratitude to Dr. Tanner not only for studying the Utah Deaf History website but also for implementing these strategies, which have enhanced her advocacy for the Utah Deaf community, including Deaf and hard-of-hearing students.
Julie Rems-Smario
Deaf Representatives Comprise 51% of the
Committees at the Utah School for the Deaf
Committees at the Utah School for the Deaf
Under the administration of Associate Superintendent Michelle Tanner, a committee comprising more than 51% Deaf individuals developed the LEAD-K policy, mirroring the approach taken by Gallaudet University's Board of Trustees after the 1988 Deaf President Now protest. This move emphasizes the importance of including Deaf voices in decision-making to foster inclusivity and validation for the Deaf community.
In 2018, the Utah School for the Deaf adopted the California law's recommendations for team members and for LEAD-K goals. The Utah School for the Deaf also ensures that its Communication and Language Policy Committee, like all other committees, follows the same structure. Dr. Tanner believed it was essential to implement all policy changes that would affect Deaf and hard-of-hearing students and employees.
The LEAD-K Committee was composed of Deaf representatives proficient in both ASL and LSL. These representatives collaborated with USD administrators to develop the policy. The Deaf members of the LEAD-K Committee included Philippe Montalette (ASL), Leanna Turman Gale (ASL), Brooke Budzinski Grossinger (ASL), Jared Allebest (LSL), Stephanie Morgan (Deaf PIP Director), Jamie Warrngo (ASL), and Lori Ruth (LSL). During their time on the committee, Philippe and Jared also served on the USDB Advisory Council.
I sincerely appreciate Dr. Tanner's recognition of the importance of having Deaf individuals articulate issues related to Deaf education and the opportunity to contribute to this vital work. Under her leadership, the Utah School for the Deaf is making remarkable strides in supporting Deaf and hard-of-hearing students, enabling them to thrive on campus and prepare effectively for life after graduation. This collaborative effort not only improves the educational environment but also nurtures a strong sense of community among students and staff. As we continue to advocate for inclusive practices, it is vital to ensure that all stakeholders' voices are heard and valued.
In 2018, the Utah School for the Deaf adopted the California law's recommendations for team members and for LEAD-K goals. The Utah School for the Deaf also ensures that its Communication and Language Policy Committee, like all other committees, follows the same structure. Dr. Tanner believed it was essential to implement all policy changes that would affect Deaf and hard-of-hearing students and employees.
The LEAD-K Committee was composed of Deaf representatives proficient in both ASL and LSL. These representatives collaborated with USD administrators to develop the policy. The Deaf members of the LEAD-K Committee included Philippe Montalette (ASL), Leanna Turman Gale (ASL), Brooke Budzinski Grossinger (ASL), Jared Allebest (LSL), Stephanie Morgan (Deaf PIP Director), Jamie Warrngo (ASL), and Lori Ruth (LSL). During their time on the committee, Philippe and Jared also served on the USDB Advisory Council.
I sincerely appreciate Dr. Tanner's recognition of the importance of having Deaf individuals articulate issues related to Deaf education and the opportunity to contribute to this vital work. Under her leadership, the Utah School for the Deaf is making remarkable strides in supporting Deaf and hard-of-hearing students, enabling them to thrive on campus and prepare effectively for life after graduation. This collaborative effort not only improves the educational environment but also nurtures a strong sense of community among students and staff. As we continue to advocate for inclusive practices, it is vital to ensure that all stakeholders' voices are heard and valued.
Philippe Montalette (ASL)
|
Jared Allebest (LSL)
|
Stephanie Morgan – Director of PIP
|
Brooke Budzinski Grossinger (ASL)
|
Leanna Turman Gale (ASL)
|
Jamie Warengo Threet (ASL)
Lori Ruth ( LSL)
|
Did You Know?
On July 10, 2011, Barry Strassler, the editor, addressed a pressing issue on the DeafDigest Gold website amid the ongoing conflict involving the Utah Deaf Education Core Group and USDB Superintendent Steven W. Noyce, an ardent proponent of oral and mainstream education. His message highlighted a notable concern:
*****
"Deaf Miscellaneous Stuff:
Ever since Gallaudet has had its first Deaf president, the 51 percent Deaf/hard of hearing majority rule has kicked in with many Deaf governing groups. Apparently, not at Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind. Despite efforts over the years, participation by the Deaf has been minimal. This issue kicked up again this week on Utah Deaf blogs."
*****
This reflection underscores the strides we've made in advocating for better representation and inclusivity in educational decision-making. It serves as a reminder of the importance of our continued efforts and offers hope for the future of Deaf Education.
*****
"Deaf Miscellaneous Stuff:
Ever since Gallaudet has had its first Deaf president, the 51 percent Deaf/hard of hearing majority rule has kicked in with many Deaf governing groups. Apparently, not at Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind. Despite efforts over the years, participation by the Deaf has been minimal. This issue kicked up again this week on Utah Deaf blogs."
*****
This reflection underscores the strides we've made in advocating for better representation and inclusivity in educational decision-making. It serves as a reminder of the importance of our continued efforts and offers hope for the future of Deaf Education.
PART VI: The Suspension of the
ASL/English Bilingual Education Program
at Utah State University and Its Reimagined Status
ASL/English Bilingual Education Program
at Utah State University and Its Reimagined Status
Decision to Suspend the Bilingual-Bicultural
Deaf Education Program at Utah State University
Deaf Education Program at Utah State University
Since 1985, Utah State University has offered a Bilingual-Bicultural (Bi-Bi) education track within its master's program in Communicative Disorders and Deaf Education, following a total communication approach. However, on January 5, 2022, the Association for Advancing Quality in Educator Preparation (AAQEP) unexpectedly suspended the Bilingual-Bicultural Track after completing the accreditation process within the College of Education (O'Hara Bergeson, hellobibi.org, 2022). This decision was driven by Dr. Alan L. Smith, the Dean of USU's Emma Eccles Jones College of Education and Human Services.
Additionally, the Council on Education of the Deaf (CED) recognized the Bi-Bi Deaf Education Program and AAQEP's previous accreditation, as it accredits Deaf education programs in the United States. The accreditation status of the Bi-Bi Program remained unchanged until 2017, when the Deaf Education Department underwent organizational changes. However, the CED accreditation for the Bi-Bi Program expired in 2021. During the program's recertification period, CED was undergoing a significant reconfiguration, which delayed the recertification process (King, hellobibi.org, February 25, 2022).
The university's provost informed Dr. Smith that the Bi-Bi Program was in a lapsed status while faculty worked on the necessary procedures to reinstate accreditation. The provost and dean expressed concern about the quality and accreditation of the Bi-Bi Program, prompting an internal review. In a public announcement, Dr. Smith stated that this review would help determine whether the programs are thriving, require updates, or should be discontinued or restructured (Smith, hellobibi.org, February 2, 2022).
Additionally, the Council on Education of the Deaf (CED) recognized the Bi-Bi Deaf Education Program and AAQEP's previous accreditation, as it accredits Deaf education programs in the United States. The accreditation status of the Bi-Bi Program remained unchanged until 2017, when the Deaf Education Department underwent organizational changes. However, the CED accreditation for the Bi-Bi Program expired in 2021. During the program's recertification period, CED was undergoing a significant reconfiguration, which delayed the recertification process (King, hellobibi.org, February 25, 2022).
The university's provost informed Dr. Smith that the Bi-Bi Program was in a lapsed status while faculty worked on the necessary procedures to reinstate accreditation. The provost and dean expressed concern about the quality and accreditation of the Bi-Bi Program, prompting an internal review. In a public announcement, Dr. Smith stated that this review would help determine whether the programs are thriving, require updates, or should be discontinued or restructured (Smith, hellobibi.org, February 2, 2022).
Dr. Alan L. Smith. Source: usu.edu
Suspension Leads to Closure of the Bilingual-Bicultural
Deaf Education Program at Utah State University
Deaf Education Program at Utah State University
The Bilingual-Bicultural Program can continue to operate without accreditation until it receives a renewal, according to the Council on Education of the Deaf. However, Dean Smith chose to suspend the program until the findings of an internal review addressed existing concerns. Following this review, he instructed Dr. Karen Muñoz, a professor of audiology and the Director of the Communicative Disorders and Deaf Education Department, to formally suspend the program.
On January 6, 2022, Dr. Muñoz emailed Bi-Bi students, announcing that the program was "phasing out" because its accreditation had expired in February 2021. Consequently, the program currently lacks the necessary certification. Despite ongoing efforts, the accreditation issues remain unresolved (Caldwell & Popa II, The Utah Statesman, February 9, 2022). Students received letters on January 6 informing them that they could complete their master's degree by spring 2023.
After Dean Smith's announcement of the Bi-Bi Program's suspension, the CED, which had accredited Utah State University's Bilingual-Bicultural Program for over 30 years, issued a letter clarifying that it played no role in the decision. Barbara Raimondo, Executive Director of the Council on Education of the Deaf, released a statement disputing the claims made by Dr. Smith and Dr. Muñoz regarding the accreditation lapse in the public announcement. Barbara emphasized that Dr. Smith wrongly attributed the suspension of the Bilingual-Bicultural track to the CED, stating that "that decision was made by USU and USU alone" (Caldwell & Popa II, The Utah Statesman, February 9, 2022). Despite the CED's refutation of any accreditation issues, Dr. Smith maintained that there was an accreditation problem, further complicating the situation by asserting that "an accrediting body doesn't dictate whether an institution has a program or not" (Caldwell & Popa II, The Utah Statesman, February 9, 2022).
On January 6, 2022, Dr. Muñoz emailed Bi-Bi students, announcing that the program was "phasing out" because its accreditation had expired in February 2021. Consequently, the program currently lacks the necessary certification. Despite ongoing efforts, the accreditation issues remain unresolved (Caldwell & Popa II, The Utah Statesman, February 9, 2022). Students received letters on January 6 informing them that they could complete their master's degree by spring 2023.
After Dean Smith's announcement of the Bi-Bi Program's suspension, the CED, which had accredited Utah State University's Bilingual-Bicultural Program for over 30 years, issued a letter clarifying that it played no role in the decision. Barbara Raimondo, Executive Director of the Council on Education of the Deaf, released a statement disputing the claims made by Dr. Smith and Dr. Muñoz regarding the accreditation lapse in the public announcement. Barbara emphasized that Dr. Smith wrongly attributed the suspension of the Bilingual-Bicultural track to the CED, stating that "that decision was made by USU and USU alone" (Caldwell & Popa II, The Utah Statesman, February 9, 2022). Despite the CED's refutation of any accreditation issues, Dr. Smith maintained that there was an accreditation problem, further complicating the situation by asserting that "an accrediting body doesn't dictate whether an institution has a program or not" (Caldwell & Popa II, The Utah Statesman, February 9, 2022).
Dr. Karen Muñoz. Source: usu.edu
|
Barbara Raimondo. Source: msd.edu
|
Dr. Freeman King, a retired professor from the Bilingual-Bicultural Program, reported that Dr. Karen Muñoz had instructed the faculty not to discuss their concerns regarding the reaccreditation process or the potential closure of the program with national colleagues, particularly not to contact the CED with any questions or concerns. He further indicated that Dr. Curtis Radford (Deaf) and Jan Kelley-King were overwhelmed with additional work related to CED reaccreditation on top of their regular teaching responsibilities. Dr. Muñoz gave Dr. Radford and Jan Kelley-King performance ratings that did not meet expectations during the 2020 annual performance appraisal. They believed the evaluations inaccurately represented their job roles and the positive contributions they had on the Bilingual-Bicultural Deaf Education Program and the Deaf Education profession (King, hellobibi.org, February 25, 2022).
'Suspension of Deaf Education Program Leaves Members of the Deaf Community Upset.' Source: The Utah Statesman, February 7, 2022
Utah State University Must Not
Eliminate Sign Language Program
Eliminate Sign Language Program
Bronwyn O'Hara, a dedicated advocate for Deaf education and a parent of Deaf children, has been a prominent critic of the closure of a university program. Her late daughter, Ellen, who passed away in a car accident in 2016, was a graduate of this program, which deepens her investment in its future. In her critique, Bronwyn argued that the university did not effectively engage with Deaf professionals and community stakeholders before making this decision. This frustration motivated her to write an article for the Herald Journal News on February 1, 2022, addressing the closure of the Bilingual-Bicultural Deaf Education Master's Program at Utah State University.
*****
*****
Ellen and Bronwyn O'Hara at the Utah State University graduation, 2009
"This is a tragedy! This program is the only one of its kind in Utah!
University students in this program commit to five years and earn a master's degree. The Utah School for the Deaf has four deaf school locations that readily hire these graduates. Other states quickly snap them up as well.
My daughter graduated from this program. Deaf herself, she knew intimately how important it was to have a qualified teacher of the deaf who knows American Sign Language. A visual language is the easiest modality for a deaf child to access educational content.
Why was this decision made? This program is vital to the educational future of deaf children. Were the necessary stakeholders involved? It seems there was no transparency from USU regarding this decision. It is unconscionable what USU has planned in dismantling its Deaf Education-American Sign Language program.
This action, if not reversed, will undoubtedly lower USU's reputation and esteem among colleges and universities across the country. But worse than USU's national reputation will be the damage done to the children. This is discrimination of the worst kind. Closing this program denies deaf children access to teachers who know their language. Without these teachers, these children's learning capability is stymied.
The Utah School for the Deaf will not have enough qualified teachers for their students who use American Sign Language as their native language.
This is a tragedy. It's the children who will suffer." (O'Hara, The Herald Journal News, February 1, 2025).
University students in this program commit to five years and earn a master's degree. The Utah School for the Deaf has four deaf school locations that readily hire these graduates. Other states quickly snap them up as well.
My daughter graduated from this program. Deaf herself, she knew intimately how important it was to have a qualified teacher of the deaf who knows American Sign Language. A visual language is the easiest modality for a deaf child to access educational content.
Why was this decision made? This program is vital to the educational future of deaf children. Were the necessary stakeholders involved? It seems there was no transparency from USU regarding this decision. It is unconscionable what USU has planned in dismantling its Deaf Education-American Sign Language program.
This action, if not reversed, will undoubtedly lower USU's reputation and esteem among colleges and universities across the country. But worse than USU's national reputation will be the damage done to the children. This is discrimination of the worst kind. Closing this program denies deaf children access to teachers who know their language. Without these teachers, these children's learning capability is stymied.
The Utah School for the Deaf will not have enough qualified teachers for their students who use American Sign Language as their native language.
This is a tragedy. It's the children who will suffer." (O'Hara, The Herald Journal News, February 1, 2025).
'USU must not eliminate sign language program.' Source: hjnews.com
Announcement: Closure of Bilingual-Bicultural
Deaf Education Master's Degree Program at Utah State University
Deaf Education Master's Degree Program at Utah State University
Despite objections from the Utah Deaf community, Dean Smith announced the closure of the Deaf Education Bilingual-Bicultural Composite Master's Degree program at Utah State University on February 2, 2022, just one day after Bronwyn O'Hara’s recent post in the Herald Journal News on February 1, 2022. This program was the only one in the state dedicated to training Deaf educators who teach using the bilingual-bicultural approach.
Dr. Freeman King pointed out that none of the individuals involved in the "internal review" had the necessary knowledge or expertise in Bilingual-Bicultural Deaf Education or in teaching American Sign Language (ASL). He argued that Dean Smith decided to close the program without consulting the remaining Deaf Education and ASL faculty members: Dr. Curtis Radford, Dr. Carolyn Ball, Jan-Kelley King, and Brian Burns (King, hellobibi.org, February 26, 2022).
Dr. Freeman King pointed out that none of the individuals involved in the "internal review" had the necessary knowledge or expertise in Bilingual-Bicultural Deaf Education or in teaching American Sign Language (ASL). He argued that Dean Smith decided to close the program without consulting the remaining Deaf Education and ASL faculty members: Dr. Curtis Radford, Dr. Carolyn Ball, Jan-Kelley King, and Brian Burns (King, hellobibi.org, February 26, 2022).
Dr. Alan Smith announced the closure of the Deaf Education Bilingual-Bicultural Composite Master's Degree program at Utah State University, Source: https://www.utahdeafhistory.com/uploads/5/4/2/6/5426987/announcement_of_program_closure_%7C_usu.pdf
In his announcement, Dr. Smith claimed that the master's program did not meet the standards for "high-quality education." Dr. Michelle Tanner, a graduate of USU's Deaf Education program and the associate superintendent at the Utah School for the Deaf, expressed her concerns regarding the program's closure. In response to Dr. Smith's criticisms, she stated that she had not seen any evidence indicating that the teachers were not qualified (Lowell, KSL News Radio, February 8, 2022). Despite the program graduating approximately five students each year in recent years, Dr. Tanner noted that she hires teachers almost exclusively from the USU Bi-Bi Program. Therefore, suspending the program would significantly impact the already limited number of certified teachers needed to work with Deaf students (Bress, ABC 4 News, February 10, 2022).
Dr. Tanner highlighted the national shortage of teachers in Deaf education, stating, "The main problem with this decision made at a university is that they do not get to see the children's faces. I do. This dilemma haunts children, particularly the most vulnerable ones" (Bress, ABC 4 News, February 10, 2022).
She further explained that while other colleges, such as the University of Utah, offer combined bilingual-bicultural and listening and spoken language programs, they do not produce as many or as high-quality Deaf educators as Utah State University's degree path does. "Most teachers we hire who utilize an ASL-English bilingual-bicultural approach come from Utah State University. Within Utah, they're our primary pipeline for teachers of the Deaf who use American Sign Language," Dr. Tanner said (Caldwell & Popa II, The Utah Statesman, February 9, 2022).
Dr. Tanner highlighted the national shortage of teachers in Deaf education, stating, "The main problem with this decision made at a university is that they do not get to see the children's faces. I do. This dilemma haunts children, particularly the most vulnerable ones" (Bress, ABC 4 News, February 10, 2022).
She further explained that while other colleges, such as the University of Utah, offer combined bilingual-bicultural and listening and spoken language programs, they do not produce as many or as high-quality Deaf educators as Utah State University's degree path does. "Most teachers we hire who utilize an ASL-English bilingual-bicultural approach come from Utah State University. Within Utah, they're our primary pipeline for teachers of the Deaf who use American Sign Language," Dr. Tanner said (Caldwell & Popa II, The Utah Statesman, February 9, 2022).
Michelle Tanner
Justin Bodily, a senior in the master's program who is also Deaf and whose thoughts Emily Bergeson interpreted, has been aware of internal struggles with the administration. However, he hasn't observed any significant issues within the division as a whole. The university will continue to offer the ASL minor and classes, but Justin expressed his opinion that this is insufficient. "ASL is not just something you can learn and then teach," he explained. "If you want to be a teacher, you must have that structure and wealth of knowledge to take that language and then teach children material. People need to understand that this is a crucial matter. This subject is really important" (Caldwell & Popa II, The Utah Statesman, February 9, 2022).
Justin Bodily. Source: The Utah Statesman, February 9, 2022. PHOTO: Bailey Rigby
On February 4, 2022, just two days after Dean Smith's announcement of the program's closure, Dr. Janice Smith-Warshaw, the president of the Association of College Educators-Deaf and Hard of Hearing (ACE-DHH), reached out to Utah State University President Noelle Cockett and Dean Smith. In her letter, she expressed ACE-DHH's long-standing appreciation for USU's exceptional Bilingual-Bicultural Deaf Education Program.
Dr. Smith-Warshaw commended the program's faculty for their dedication to training highly skilled teacher candidates. She highlighted the quality of Deaf educators produced through USU's Bi-Bi track, emphasizing its crucial role in developing teachers proficient in both ASL and English. In closing, she urged the USU administration to reconsider the decision to discontinue the program, underscoring its importance in cultivating the next generation of qualified Deaf and Hard of Hearing educators.
For reference, please find Dr. Smith-Warshaw's letter below:
Dr. Smith-Warshaw commended the program's faculty for their dedication to training highly skilled teacher candidates. She highlighted the quality of Deaf educators produced through USU's Bi-Bi track, emphasizing its crucial role in developing teachers proficient in both ASL and English. In closing, she urged the USU administration to reconsider the decision to discontinue the program, underscoring its importance in cultivating the next generation of qualified Deaf and Hard of Hearing educators.
For reference, please find Dr. Smith-Warshaw's letter below:
Janice Smith-Warshaw. Source: chhs.fresnostate.edu
A letter written by Janice Smith-Warshaw, president of the Association of College Educators-Deaf and Hard of Hearing, to Utah State University on February 4th, 2022
A letter written by Janice Smith-Warshaw, president of the Association of College Educators-Deaf and Hard of Hearing, to Utah State University on February 4th, 2022
The Stakeholders Meet with
the Dean Smith at Utah State University
the Dean Smith at Utah State University
Many individuals have questioned the reasons behind the recent decision on accreditation claims and the upholding of transparency. The ruling has raised concerns about fairness and potential internal influences. Adam Smith, a USU student and certified ASL interpreter, expressed his frustration, stating, "Whatever is broken, just tell us what it is; just say what it actually is. We need honesty; just cut out the vague stuff. We don't want that" (Caldwell & Popa II, The Utah Statesman, February 9, 2022). When asked about how he thought his decision would affect others, Dr. Smith declined to comment.
Members of the Utah Deaf community feel their voices were disregarded in the decision-making process, particularly since Dr. Smith is not a member of the Deaf community himself and has overlooked their perspectives. Dereck Hooley, a member of the Utah Deaf community, described the announcement as a tragedy. "It's not okay because they didn't even give people an opportunity to discuss the program or suggest modifications. They should have spoken with others to get their opinion," he stated (Caldwell & Popa II, The Utah Statesman, February 7, 2022, p. 10). This situation points out the need for greater community involvement to ensure stakeholders feel respected and valued.
Many, including Deaf individuals Emma Cole and Dereck Hooley, have expressed dissatisfaction with their exclusion from the decision-making process and oppose the program's closure. Emma emphasized her disagreement with the decision, stating, "They need to know that it's not going to happen without an uproar. It's not going to happen without them losing some reputation. I like USU. I love it here. I don't want to damage its reputation, but I came here for that program, and to take it away is just wrong." Dereck added that there appears to be a misunderstanding between the Deaf community and the administration. "Maybe they don't understand what the Deaf program does. They may not comprehend Deaf culture or recognize what the Deaf community needs," Dereck expressed. "Their actions demonstrate that they are looking down on Deaf people" (Caldwell & Popa II, The Utah Statesman, February 7, 2022, p. 10). This disconnect can lead to decisions that overlook the importance of inclusivity and educational access. The administration must engage with the Deaf community to foster a better understanding and address their unique needs.
Members of the Utah Deaf community feel their voices were disregarded in the decision-making process, particularly since Dr. Smith is not a member of the Deaf community himself and has overlooked their perspectives. Dereck Hooley, a member of the Utah Deaf community, described the announcement as a tragedy. "It's not okay because they didn't even give people an opportunity to discuss the program or suggest modifications. They should have spoken with others to get their opinion," he stated (Caldwell & Popa II, The Utah Statesman, February 7, 2022, p. 10). This situation points out the need for greater community involvement to ensure stakeholders feel respected and valued.
Many, including Deaf individuals Emma Cole and Dereck Hooley, have expressed dissatisfaction with their exclusion from the decision-making process and oppose the program's closure. Emma emphasized her disagreement with the decision, stating, "They need to know that it's not going to happen without an uproar. It's not going to happen without them losing some reputation. I like USU. I love it here. I don't want to damage its reputation, but I came here for that program, and to take it away is just wrong." Dereck added that there appears to be a misunderstanding between the Deaf community and the administration. "Maybe they don't understand what the Deaf program does. They may not comprehend Deaf culture or recognize what the Deaf community needs," Dereck expressed. "Their actions demonstrate that they are looking down on Deaf people" (Caldwell & Popa II, The Utah Statesman, February 7, 2022, p. 10). This disconnect can lead to decisions that overlook the importance of inclusivity and educational access. The administration must engage with the Deaf community to foster a better understanding and address their unique needs.
Emma Cole, the creator of the petition to raise awareness on the closing of the USU's Bilingual Bicultural Deaf Education Program
Despite the challenges surrounding the CED situation and USU's accreditation, Dean Smith remained firm in his decision to phase out the program. This decision raised concerns among stakeholders, prompting a meeting on February 8, 2022, with Dr. Smith and program chair Dr. Karen Muñoz.
During the meeting, Emma Cole, a senior in the Bi-Bi Program and creator of a petition to save the 'Bilingual Bicultural Deaf Education' program, criticized the administration's "secrecy and lack of communication." Attendees, including community representatives, were eager for answers about the program's future (Caldwell & Popa II, The Utah Statesman, February 9, 2022).
Drs. Smith and Muñoz listened to the concerns raised about the program. However, they stated that it would remain suspended for now. Dr. Smith explained that they aimed to improve the program, but he could not predict how long the suspension would last. The attendees urged the administration to keep the program open while making improvements, but the dean clarified that the plan was not feasible and admitted that the suspension was not solely due to accreditation issues.
Attendees pressed Drs. Smith and Muñoz on the impact the program's closure would have on Deaf education, how long the program would remain suspended, and what would be required for reinstatement. Although they did not receive clear answers, Drs. Smith and Muñoz assured them that they recognized the program's importance and that it would not remain suspended indefinitely (O'Hara Bergeson, hellobibi.org, February 24, 2022).
The group of attendees included Justin Bodily, Savannah Sparks, and Emma Cole, students from the Bilingual-Bicultural Deaf Education master's program. Key representatives from the ASL/Deaf community included Dereck Hooley, who is Deaf; Bronwyn O'Hara, a parent of Deaf children; Mykel Winn, a SODA member; and Emily O'Hara Bergeson, a CODA/SODA and interpreter (O'Hara Bergeson, hellobibi.org, February 24, 2022).
During the meeting, Emma Cole, a senior in the Bi-Bi Program and creator of a petition to save the 'Bilingual Bicultural Deaf Education' program, criticized the administration's "secrecy and lack of communication." Attendees, including community representatives, were eager for answers about the program's future (Caldwell & Popa II, The Utah Statesman, February 9, 2022).
Drs. Smith and Muñoz listened to the concerns raised about the program. However, they stated that it would remain suspended for now. Dr. Smith explained that they aimed to improve the program, but he could not predict how long the suspension would last. The attendees urged the administration to keep the program open while making improvements, but the dean clarified that the plan was not feasible and admitted that the suspension was not solely due to accreditation issues.
Attendees pressed Drs. Smith and Muñoz on the impact the program's closure would have on Deaf education, how long the program would remain suspended, and what would be required for reinstatement. Although they did not receive clear answers, Drs. Smith and Muñoz assured them that they recognized the program's importance and that it would not remain suspended indefinitely (O'Hara Bergeson, hellobibi.org, February 24, 2022).
The group of attendees included Justin Bodily, Savannah Sparks, and Emma Cole, students from the Bilingual-Bicultural Deaf Education master's program. Key representatives from the ASL/Deaf community included Dereck Hooley, who is Deaf; Bronwyn O'Hara, a parent of Deaf children; Mykel Winn, a SODA member; and Emily O'Hara Bergeson, a CODA/SODA and interpreter (O'Hara Bergeson, hellobibi.org, February 24, 2022).
Utah Deaf community members are pictured after their meeting with the dean. Left to right: Bronwyn O’Hara, Emily Bergeson, Dereck Hooley, Emma Cole, Mykel Winn, Justin Bodily. Source: The Utah Statesman, February 21, 2022. Photo: Jacee Caldwell
Stakeholders expressed concerns about the recent decision and its potential consequences. They emphasized the importance of involving Deaf education experts in the strategic planning process to redesign the program (Caldwell & Popa II, The Utah Statesman, February 9, 2022). The group insisted that the program should remain operational during the improvement process. Dr. Smith acknowledged these concerns but stated that continuing the program was not possible due to accreditation issues and other factors. However, he was uncertain about how long the suspension would last (O'Hara Bergeson, hellobibi.org, February 24, 2022).
During a public announcement, Dr. Smith outlined his action plan in two parts. He stated, "First, the department will immediately address weaknesses in the foundational undergraduate program offerings in American Sign Language (ASL) to ensure the best quality experience for our students. Second, the department will engage in strategic planning that considers future workforce needs and opportunities, as well as promising directions for growth" (Caldwell & Popa II, The Utah Statesman, February 9, 2022). Following the meeting, Drs. Smith and Muñoz committed to collaborating with stakeholders on the strategic planning process to shape the program's future.
Bronwyn O'Hara has been an active participant in the Strategic Planning Committee and public surveys, advocating for a more thorough "reimagining" of the program tailored to the unique needs of the Utah Deaf community (O'Hara Bergeson, hellobibi.org, 2022).
Publicly, Bronwyn has raised concerns about the university's proposed online alternatives, arguing that they may not provide as many effective pathways for teacher training as the original immersive Bi-Bi model (O'Hara Bergeson, hellobibi.org, 2022). Despite the commitments from Drs. Smith and Muñoz to involve stakeholders in the strategic planning process, progress eventually stalled, leading to the regrettable closure of the Bi-Bi Master's program.
During a public announcement, Dr. Smith outlined his action plan in two parts. He stated, "First, the department will immediately address weaknesses in the foundational undergraduate program offerings in American Sign Language (ASL) to ensure the best quality experience for our students. Second, the department will engage in strategic planning that considers future workforce needs and opportunities, as well as promising directions for growth" (Caldwell & Popa II, The Utah Statesman, February 9, 2022). Following the meeting, Drs. Smith and Muñoz committed to collaborating with stakeholders on the strategic planning process to shape the program's future.
Bronwyn O'Hara has been an active participant in the Strategic Planning Committee and public surveys, advocating for a more thorough "reimagining" of the program tailored to the unique needs of the Utah Deaf community (O'Hara Bergeson, hellobibi.org, 2022).
Publicly, Bronwyn has raised concerns about the university's proposed online alternatives, arguing that they may not provide as many effective pathways for teacher training as the original immersive Bi-Bi model (O'Hara Bergeson, hellobibi.org, 2022). Despite the commitments from Drs. Smith and Muñoz to involve stakeholders in the strategic planning process, progress eventually stalled, leading to the regrettable closure of the Bi-Bi Master's program.
The group using sign language to communicate with each other after the meeting with the dean. In order (left to right): Winn, O’Hara, Bergeson, Hooley, Cole, Bodily. Source: The Utah Statesman, February 9, 2022
The Utah Association of the Deaf:
An Open Letter in Opposition to Closure of the
Utah State University's Bilingual-Bicultural Deaf Education Program
An Open Letter in Opposition to Closure of the
Utah State University's Bilingual-Bicultural Deaf Education Program
On February 12, 2022, the Utah Association of the Deaf published an open letter addressing Dean Smith. This letter was read by President Kim Lucas and Vice President Ashli-Marie Grant, representing the entire UAD board. In the letter, they expressed their opposition to the closure of Utah State University's Bilingual-Bicultural Deaf Education Master's Degree Program and urged Dean Smith to reconsider his decision.
Kim Lucas
Kim Lucas, then-UAD President, and Ashli-Marie Grant, then-UAD Vice President, shared an open letter on behalf of the Utah Association of the Deaf opposing the closure of the Bilingual—Bicultural Track of USU’s Master’s Program in Communication Disorders and Deaf Education. The photo above is by Ashli-Marie Grant
A Brief Historical Overview of Bilingual-Bicultural
Deaf Education Program at Utah State University
Deaf Education Program at Utah State University
The Bilingual-Bicultural Deaf Education Master's Degree Program at Utah State University has a significant history. Legislative advocacy efforts by the Utah Association for the Deaf led to the program's establishment on April 20, 1982. Initially called the Total Communication Program, it began receiving funding in 1985, thanks to the efforts of Dr. Thomas C. Clark. At that time, Dr. James Blair oversaw the teacher-training program in Deaf Education (King, hellobibi.org, February 25, 2022).
By 1990, with support from Dr. Clark and Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, USU was designated as a training ground for future teachers in the bilingual-bicultural approach, building on a proud history that enabled Deaf students to develop language skills in a supportive environment. Following Dr. Clark's retirement, Dr. Freeman King played a pivotal role in transforming the program into the Bilingual-Bicultural Program, with strong support from the Utah Deaf community (O'Hara Bergeson, hellobibi.org, 2022; King, hellobibi.org, February 25, 2022).
As mentioned in Part IV, the Bi-Bi Program and the newly established Listening and Spoken Language (LSL) Program have operated independently. Dr. Freeman led the Deaf Education Program for 26 years until 2017, when Dr. Kim Corbin-Lewis, who was initially involved in speech-language pathology and later became the Chair of the Department of Communicative Disorders and Deaf Education, restructured the leadership due to philosophical differences (King, hellobibi.org, February 25, 2022).
Dr. Corbin-Lewis took over oversight of both programs and appointed Dr. Lauri Nelson, Director of Sound Beginnings and the LSL Interdisciplinary Graduate Training Program, as the Director of Deaf Education, replacing Dr. Freeman. This transition created challenges for the Bi-Bi program, particularly when Dr. Freeman's position and related program roles remained unfilled, which ultimately contributed to Dr. Freeman's retirement in 2020 and the program's closure. This situation shocked and disheartened many members of the Utah Deaf community (King, hellobibi.org, February 25, 2022). Further details on this historical context can be found in Dr. King's letter, "Rebuttal to Program Closure," in the following section.
By 1990, with support from Dr. Clark and Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, USU was designated as a training ground for future teachers in the bilingual-bicultural approach, building on a proud history that enabled Deaf students to develop language skills in a supportive environment. Following Dr. Clark's retirement, Dr. Freeman King played a pivotal role in transforming the program into the Bilingual-Bicultural Program, with strong support from the Utah Deaf community (O'Hara Bergeson, hellobibi.org, 2022; King, hellobibi.org, February 25, 2022).
As mentioned in Part IV, the Bi-Bi Program and the newly established Listening and Spoken Language (LSL) Program have operated independently. Dr. Freeman led the Deaf Education Program for 26 years until 2017, when Dr. Kim Corbin-Lewis, who was initially involved in speech-language pathology and later became the Chair of the Department of Communicative Disorders and Deaf Education, restructured the leadership due to philosophical differences (King, hellobibi.org, February 25, 2022).
Dr. Corbin-Lewis took over oversight of both programs and appointed Dr. Lauri Nelson, Director of Sound Beginnings and the LSL Interdisciplinary Graduate Training Program, as the Director of Deaf Education, replacing Dr. Freeman. This transition created challenges for the Bi-Bi program, particularly when Dr. Freeman's position and related program roles remained unfilled, which ultimately contributed to Dr. Freeman's retirement in 2020 and the program's closure. This situation shocked and disheartened many members of the Utah Deaf community (King, hellobibi.org, February 25, 2022). Further details on this historical context can be found in Dr. King's letter, "Rebuttal to Program Closure," in the following section.
Dr. Corbin-Lewis. Source: ntermountainhealth.org
|
Dr. Lauri Nelson. Source: usu.edu
|
Community members such as Dereck Hooley voiced their concerns, emphasizing the Bi-Bi program's crucial role in shaping their identities and fostering a sense of belonging. Dereck, a member of Utah's Deaf community who received instruction from USU's Bi-Bi Program graduates, attributes his current identity to the program. He stated, "We really, really cherish this program, and we recognize it as the beginning of that starting block [for Deaf students]. So if we cut that off, the family dies, the community dies." Dereck argued, "That's why we're fighting, to show those in charge how important it is to keep the program, and we are willing to help fix that if they're willing to listen to us" (Bress, ABC News, February 10, 2021).
Dereck Hooley. Source: hellobibi.org/
‘If we cut it off, the community dies:’ USU suspends Utah’s only ASL education program indefinitely, devastating students, Deaf community. Source: ABC News, February 10, 2022
The Daily Moth's Coverage of the Closure of
Utah State University's Bilingual-Bicultural Deaf Education Program
Utah State University's Bilingual-Bicultural Deaf Education Program
Utah gained recognition when The Daily Moth, a Deaf news outlet that delivers news in video using American Sign Language, covered the closure of Utah State University's Bilingual-Bicultural Deaf Education Program on February 17, 2022. This coverage sparked significant discussions within the Deaf community regarding the impact of such closures on educational opportunities. Local stakeholders rallied to keep the program open.
Utah State University to close their Bi-Bi Masters Program. Source: The Daily Moth, February 17, 2022
Rebuttal to Closure of Bilingual-Bicultural Deaf
Education Master's Degree Program at
Utah State University by Dr. J. Freeman King
Education Master's Degree Program at
Utah State University by Dr. J. Freeman King
On February 26, 2022, a letter from Dr. J. Freeman King was posted on hellobibi.org, which was operated by Emily O'Hara Bergeson, a certified ASL interpreter and a member of the Utah Deaf community. In his letter, Dr. King expressed his disappointment and disillusionment regarding the closure of the Bilingual-Bicultural Deaf Education Master's Degree Program. He provided important historical context on the program's impact, as detailed in his letter below.
*****
February 25, 2022
To All Who Might Be Interested,
I am disheartened and disillusioned that the outstanding Bilingual-Bicultural Program in Deaf Education at Utah State University has been closed based on the recommendation of an “internal committee review” whose members consisted of the Dean of the Emma Eccles Jones College of Education and Human Services, Dr. Al Smith; the Department Chair of Communicative Disorders and Deaf Education, Dr. Karen Muñoz; and the Director of Deaf Education, Dr. Lauri Nelson. None of the “internal review” members have any institutional knowledge of or expertise in Bilingual-Bicultural Deaf Education or American Sign Language teaching. I was the Director of the Deaf Education Program at USU for 26 years, and was replaced in 2017 by Dr. Lauri Nelson, who at the time was the Director of the Listening and Spoken Language Program (LSL). The reason for my replacement was a philosophical impasse relative to Bilingual-Bicultural teacher preparation and Listening and Spoken Language with the Department Chair at the time, Dr. Kim Corbin-Lewis. I continued to teach Deaf Education in the Bilingual-Bicultural track until I retired December 31, 2020 and was granted Professor Emeritus status.
The Dean, Dr. Al Smith, stated on the College website, February 2, 2022, “…. The recent accreditation review of the Bi-Bi program by the Council on Education of the Deaf made it clear to us that this program track is not currently providing the high-quality education expected at Utah State University. Moreover, we came to learn of some weaknesses in our undergraduate ASL (American Sign Language) curriculum…” NOTE: ON FEBRUARY 3, AFTER RECEIVING A LETTER FROM DR. BARBARA RAIMONDO, PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL ON EDUCATION OF THE DEAF, HE RETRACTED THIS STATEMENT, AND SAID IT WAS ATTRIBUTED TO AN “INTERNAL REVIEW” OF THE PROGRAM.
This official announcement of the program’s closure was issued without the Dean having the professional courtesy to consult with Dr. Curtis Radford, Dr. Carolyn Ball, Jan-Kelley King, and Brian Burns, the Deaf Education/ASL professors still employed at Utah State. In fact, he has never even met them.
It is apparent that the Dean was not informed of or blatantly ignored the reputations of these highly qualified professors in Bilingual-Bicultural Deaf Education. Dr. Curt Radford, who is Deaf, has a doctorate in Deaf Education and is a national authority on the teaching of American Sign Language and the use of ASL in the classroom. He also achieved the highest rating possible, a five, on the American Sign Language Proficiency Interview administered by Gallaudet University; Dr. Carolyn Ball is hearing, with an earned doctorate in Educational Interpreting. She is an acclaimed professor and a nationally certified interpreter; Jan Kelley-King is hearing and has a master’s degree in Deaf Education and is nationally known for her innovations in teaching reading to the Deaf as well as her knowledge of designing ASL assessments that are used for evaluating the ASL skills of pre-service teachers; and Brian Burns, who is Deaf, has a master’s degree in ASL Teaching from Gallaudet University. He also has excellent teacher ratings and like Dr. Radford, achieved the highest rating, a five, on the on the American Sign Language Proficiency Interview.
The only input solicited by the Dean was from the Department Chair and Deaf Education Division Director whose professional training and experiences are in audiology, not Bilingual-Bicultural teacher preparation or American Sign Language methodology. It would have been far more appropriate, if it were necessary to conduct an internal review, that the members of the internal review committee had been professionals in the areas being reviewed.
It is interesting to note that the Bilingual-Bicultural Program at Utah State University has been accredited by the Council on Education of the Deaf (CED) for over 30 years. In fact, past reviewers of the program have been laudatory in their evaluation of the USU Deaf Education Program, deeming it to be one of the premier teacher training programs in the nation. When the time for recertification of the program came up, CED was experiencing a drastic reconfiguration and reorganization; resultantly, the recertification was delayed.
In 2019, at the national American Colleges Educators of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (ACE-DHH) convention, Dr. Radford was informed by Dr. Joseph Fishgrund, the Executive Director of CED, at the time, that our program had been reviewed and there were a few minor edits recommended, but that he had as of yet to find a second reviewer, as is required by the recertification process. For whatever reasons, a second reviewer was not found, so the reaccreditation was further delayed until the present moment.
During the ensuing year of the reaccreditation process, the Bilingual-Bicultural Deaf Education faculty was summarily instructed by the Department Chair, Dr. Karen Muñoz, not to discuss their plight (problems with the reaccreditation process or the possibility of the program closure) with any colleagues on the national level, and certainly not to contact the Council on Education of the Deaf (CED) with any concerns or questions.
Dr. Radford and Jan Kelley-King experienced an inordinate amount of additional work related to CED reaccreditation, that was added to their already full teaching loads. Dr. Muñoz, the Department Chair, gave both Dr. Radford and Jan Kelley-King teacher ratings of NOT MEETING EXPECTATIONS on the annual Performance Appraisal of 2020; both felt that these ratings were not reflective of their role statements or the positive contributions each had made to the success of the Department, the Bilingual-Bicultural Deaf Education Program, or the profession of Deaf Education, in general.
Certainly, it must be admitted, every program, including Bilingual-Bicultural Deaf Education has its systemic, operational weaknesses and areas that need improvement. Every program also has its strengths which should be embraced and highlighted.
Following is a brief historical chronology of the evolution and closing of the Bilingual-Bicultural Deaf Education Program at USU (Note that none of the positions have been refilled through the years, causing one to assume there is a systemic bias against bilingual-bicultural teacher training held by the Department and the College):
All teaching loads and responsibilities of those who retired, took another teaching position, or resigned were reassigned by the Department Chair, Dr. Karen Muñoz, to the remaining professors, Dr. Curt Radford, Dr. Carolyn Ball and Jan Kelley-King. The majority of the workload fell to Dr. Radford and Jan Kelley-King.
What a lost opportunity to have fully developed and supported equally two tracks in Deaf Education that would have allowed students to choose which philosophical path they wished to pursue, Bilingual-Bicultural teaching or Listening and Spoken Language; thus meeting the critical need for teachers of the Deaf, both in Utah and nationwide.
I am afraid that the decision of the Dean, Dr. Al Smith, and the Department Chair, Dr. Karen Muñoz, to close the Bilingual-Bicultural Deaf Education Program at Utah State University will cause the university to become a pariah to the Deaf /ASL Community and students, both Deaf and hearing, whose dream was to study Bilingual-Bicultural Deaf Education at USU. The closing of the Bilingual-Bicultural program is already national and state news in the Deaf/ASL community. In my opinion, closing the Bilingual-Bicultural Deaf Education teacher training program and questioning the quality of the American Sign Language program is a travesty and the direct result of poor and weak leadership on the part of the Dean of the Emma Eccles Jones College of Education and Human Services.
This decision has opened the door for the Utah State University Deaf Education Program to become a one-dimensional teacher training program, Listening and Spoken Language only. The idea of linguistic and philosophical choice has been obliterated by the program closure. Educational equity and freedom of choice no longer exists in the Department of Communicative Disorders and Deaf Education.
Respectively submitted,
Dr. J. Freeman King, Professor Emeritus
Deaf Education
Utah State University
Logan, Utah
*****
February 25, 2022
To All Who Might Be Interested,
I am disheartened and disillusioned that the outstanding Bilingual-Bicultural Program in Deaf Education at Utah State University has been closed based on the recommendation of an “internal committee review” whose members consisted of the Dean of the Emma Eccles Jones College of Education and Human Services, Dr. Al Smith; the Department Chair of Communicative Disorders and Deaf Education, Dr. Karen Muñoz; and the Director of Deaf Education, Dr. Lauri Nelson. None of the “internal review” members have any institutional knowledge of or expertise in Bilingual-Bicultural Deaf Education or American Sign Language teaching. I was the Director of the Deaf Education Program at USU for 26 years, and was replaced in 2017 by Dr. Lauri Nelson, who at the time was the Director of the Listening and Spoken Language Program (LSL). The reason for my replacement was a philosophical impasse relative to Bilingual-Bicultural teacher preparation and Listening and Spoken Language with the Department Chair at the time, Dr. Kim Corbin-Lewis. I continued to teach Deaf Education in the Bilingual-Bicultural track until I retired December 31, 2020 and was granted Professor Emeritus status.
The Dean, Dr. Al Smith, stated on the College website, February 2, 2022, “…. The recent accreditation review of the Bi-Bi program by the Council on Education of the Deaf made it clear to us that this program track is not currently providing the high-quality education expected at Utah State University. Moreover, we came to learn of some weaknesses in our undergraduate ASL (American Sign Language) curriculum…” NOTE: ON FEBRUARY 3, AFTER RECEIVING A LETTER FROM DR. BARBARA RAIMONDO, PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL ON EDUCATION OF THE DEAF, HE RETRACTED THIS STATEMENT, AND SAID IT WAS ATTRIBUTED TO AN “INTERNAL REVIEW” OF THE PROGRAM.
This official announcement of the program’s closure was issued without the Dean having the professional courtesy to consult with Dr. Curtis Radford, Dr. Carolyn Ball, Jan-Kelley King, and Brian Burns, the Deaf Education/ASL professors still employed at Utah State. In fact, he has never even met them.
It is apparent that the Dean was not informed of or blatantly ignored the reputations of these highly qualified professors in Bilingual-Bicultural Deaf Education. Dr. Curt Radford, who is Deaf, has a doctorate in Deaf Education and is a national authority on the teaching of American Sign Language and the use of ASL in the classroom. He also achieved the highest rating possible, a five, on the American Sign Language Proficiency Interview administered by Gallaudet University; Dr. Carolyn Ball is hearing, with an earned doctorate in Educational Interpreting. She is an acclaimed professor and a nationally certified interpreter; Jan Kelley-King is hearing and has a master’s degree in Deaf Education and is nationally known for her innovations in teaching reading to the Deaf as well as her knowledge of designing ASL assessments that are used for evaluating the ASL skills of pre-service teachers; and Brian Burns, who is Deaf, has a master’s degree in ASL Teaching from Gallaudet University. He also has excellent teacher ratings and like Dr. Radford, achieved the highest rating, a five, on the on the American Sign Language Proficiency Interview.
The only input solicited by the Dean was from the Department Chair and Deaf Education Division Director whose professional training and experiences are in audiology, not Bilingual-Bicultural teacher preparation or American Sign Language methodology. It would have been far more appropriate, if it were necessary to conduct an internal review, that the members of the internal review committee had been professionals in the areas being reviewed.
It is interesting to note that the Bilingual-Bicultural Program at Utah State University has been accredited by the Council on Education of the Deaf (CED) for over 30 years. In fact, past reviewers of the program have been laudatory in their evaluation of the USU Deaf Education Program, deeming it to be one of the premier teacher training programs in the nation. When the time for recertification of the program came up, CED was experiencing a drastic reconfiguration and reorganization; resultantly, the recertification was delayed.
In 2019, at the national American Colleges Educators of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (ACE-DHH) convention, Dr. Radford was informed by Dr. Joseph Fishgrund, the Executive Director of CED, at the time, that our program had been reviewed and there were a few minor edits recommended, but that he had as of yet to find a second reviewer, as is required by the recertification process. For whatever reasons, a second reviewer was not found, so the reaccreditation was further delayed until the present moment.
During the ensuing year of the reaccreditation process, the Bilingual-Bicultural Deaf Education faculty was summarily instructed by the Department Chair, Dr. Karen Muñoz, not to discuss their plight (problems with the reaccreditation process or the possibility of the program closure) with any colleagues on the national level, and certainly not to contact the Council on Education of the Deaf (CED) with any concerns or questions.
Dr. Radford and Jan Kelley-King experienced an inordinate amount of additional work related to CED reaccreditation, that was added to their already full teaching loads. Dr. Muñoz, the Department Chair, gave both Dr. Radford and Jan Kelley-King teacher ratings of NOT MEETING EXPECTATIONS on the annual Performance Appraisal of 2020; both felt that these ratings were not reflective of their role statements or the positive contributions each had made to the success of the Department, the Bilingual-Bicultural Deaf Education Program, or the profession of Deaf Education, in general.
Certainly, it must be admitted, every program, including Bilingual-Bicultural Deaf Education has its systemic, operational weaknesses and areas that need improvement. Every program also has its strengths which should be embraced and highlighted.
Following is a brief historical chronology of the evolution and closing of the Bilingual-Bicultural Deaf Education Program at USU (Note that none of the positions have been refilled through the years, causing one to assume there is a systemic bias against bilingual-bicultural teacher training held by the Department and the College):
- In 1990, the state legislature designated Utah State University as being responsible for the training of teachers of the Deaf and hard of hearing. This program was designed by Dr. Tom Clark and Dr. James Blair, who at the time directed the Deaf Education teacher training program.
- Dr. Blair recruited Dr. Freeman King in 1991 to teach at Utah State University and to assist in facilitating programmatic changes of the program from a Signed English/Total Communication program into a Bilingual-Bicultural-ASL-English program
- Jan Kelley-King was hired by the Department in 1992 to teach undergraduate American Sign Language courses, a graduate course in the teaching of reading to the deaf child, and to serve as the Deaf Education advisor. Having previously been employed as a classroom teacher and parent advisor, she was later assigned to also teach literacy methodology in the teacher preparation Bilingual-Bicultural classes.
- At the time, Dr. Sue Watkins, a faculty member in Deaf Education and an internationally recognized authority in early intervention-parent advisor training was the director of the SKI-HI Institute housed on campus at USU. The SKI-HI Institute, begun in 1972, focuses on developing new programs, materials, and training for children who are deafblind, deaf or hard of hearing, blind or visually impaired, their families and providers. Dr. Watkins’ graduate program in early intervention was closed due to a funding problem. Dr. Watkins ultimately retired and her teaching position was not replaced.
- Dr. James Blair was appointed Department Chair in 2004 and served in that position until 2007, then returned to classroom teaching. When Dr. Blair retired in 2015, his teaching responsibilities (part-time) and management of the USU accreditation by the Council on Education of the Deaf report in the Bilingual -Bicultural Program and his teaching position was not replaced.
- In 2007, the USU Deaf Education Program received a grant from the Oberkotter Foundation for over three million dollars to set up a listening and spoken language/cochlear implant preschool and teacher training program that excluded the use of ASL. Dr. Lauri Nelson was made director of the Sound Beginnings Auditory-Oral Preschool and soon thereafter, the director of the LSL Teacher Training Program.
- Dr. Curt Radford joined the Deaf Education Program in 2007. At the time, his responsibilities focused on teaching and programming ASL classes. Shortly after joining the faculty, he developed the first nationally recognized program for the delivery of ASL as a full language online curriculum. Drawing on his extensive knowledge of Bilingual-Bicultural teaching experience (having served as a classroom teacher and principal), he was subsequently assigned to teach more methodology related classes in Bilingual-Bicultural teacher preparation classes, as well as Deaf Culture.
- Dr. Debbie Golos, was hired in 2007, as an Assistant Professor in the Bilingual-Bicultural Program with an emphasis in grant writing and research. In 2015, she accepted a position at the University of Minnesota. Her teaching position was not replaced.
- Brian Burns joined the Bilingual-Bicultural faculty in 2015 and due to his training in ASL teaching methodology was assigned to teach undergraduate courses in American Sign Language and to manage the ASL Laboratory.
- In 2017, the Chair of the Department of Communicative Disorders and Deaf Education, Dr. Kim Corbin-Lewis, removed Dr. King as the Director of Deaf Education, due to philosophical differences, and replaced him with Dr. Lauri Nelson, who at the time was director of the Listening and Spoken Language Program (LSL). Dr. King continued to teach in the Bilingual-Bicultural program.
- Dr. King retired in December 2020 and was granted the title of Professor Emeritus. His position has not been replaced.
- Felicia Dixon, the supervisor of student teaching and an instructor in Bilingual-Bicultural Deaf Education, resigned in the summer of 2021, and her position was not replaced.
- Jan Kelley-King retired in December, 2021; she agreed to stay on and teach one graduate class in the Spring semester, 2022. Her position has not been replaced.
- Dr. Curt Radford, submitted his resignation effective June, 2022.
- The Bilingual-Bicultural Deaf Education Program was closed in 2022.
All teaching loads and responsibilities of those who retired, took another teaching position, or resigned were reassigned by the Department Chair, Dr. Karen Muñoz, to the remaining professors, Dr. Curt Radford, Dr. Carolyn Ball and Jan Kelley-King. The majority of the workload fell to Dr. Radford and Jan Kelley-King.
What a lost opportunity to have fully developed and supported equally two tracks in Deaf Education that would have allowed students to choose which philosophical path they wished to pursue, Bilingual-Bicultural teaching or Listening and Spoken Language; thus meeting the critical need for teachers of the Deaf, both in Utah and nationwide.
I am afraid that the decision of the Dean, Dr. Al Smith, and the Department Chair, Dr. Karen Muñoz, to close the Bilingual-Bicultural Deaf Education Program at Utah State University will cause the university to become a pariah to the Deaf /ASL Community and students, both Deaf and hearing, whose dream was to study Bilingual-Bicultural Deaf Education at USU. The closing of the Bilingual-Bicultural program is already national and state news in the Deaf/ASL community. In my opinion, closing the Bilingual-Bicultural Deaf Education teacher training program and questioning the quality of the American Sign Language program is a travesty and the direct result of poor and weak leadership on the part of the Dean of the Emma Eccles Jones College of Education and Human Services.
This decision has opened the door for the Utah State University Deaf Education Program to become a one-dimensional teacher training program, Listening and Spoken Language only. The idea of linguistic and philosophical choice has been obliterated by the program closure. Educational equity and freedom of choice no longer exists in the Department of Communicative Disorders and Deaf Education.
Respectively submitted,
Dr. J. Freeman King, Professor Emeritus
Deaf Education
Utah State University
Logan, Utah
Jan Kelley-King and Dr. J. Freeman King
Dr Curtis Radford.Source: X (Formerly Twitter)
Dr. Carolyn Ball. Source: UNF.edu
|
Brian Burns. Source: usu.edu
|
Dr. King was not the only one speaking out against the closure of the program. Dr. David Geeslin, President of the Conference of Educational Administrators of Schools and Programs for the Deaf; Michelle Tanner, Associate Superintendent of the Utah School for the Deaf; and Janice Smith Warshaw, President of the Association of College Educators for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, all challenged USU's announcement of the program's closure. They urged the university to keep the program open (O'Hara Bergeson (O'Hara Bergeson, hellobibi.org, February 21, 2022).
Emily O'Hara Bergeson, the daughter of Bronwyn, believes that terminating this program will have a significant negative impact. "It's more than just devastating," Emily explained. "This represents years of hard work to build up the program, and now they are shutting it down. It feels like you've rolled a boulder up a mountain, and just as you reach the top, they push it over the edge. You're left wondering, 'What just happened?'"
(Caldwell & Popa II, The Utah Statesman, February 9, 2022).
Ultimately, Dr. Smith decided to dismantle the Bilingual-Bicultural Deaf Education Master's Degree Program, with the last students graduating in spring 2023. This decision was influenced by low enrollment, accreditation concerns, and quality reviews, leading to a prioritization of listening and spoken language methods. However, USU continued to offer programs in LSL Deaf Education and ASL-related areas.
In April 2025, USU announced additional program cuts, including the discontinuation of the ASL Interpreting Track and other Deaf Education/ASL-related programs. This decision significantly affected future opportunities for ASL-focused education and left the community disheartened by the loss of the state's primary Bi-Bi training program, as discussed in the section below.
Emily O'Hara Bergeson, the daughter of Bronwyn, believes that terminating this program will have a significant negative impact. "It's more than just devastating," Emily explained. "This represents years of hard work to build up the program, and now they are shutting it down. It feels like you've rolled a boulder up a mountain, and just as you reach the top, they push it over the edge. You're left wondering, 'What just happened?'"
(Caldwell & Popa II, The Utah Statesman, February 9, 2022).
Ultimately, Dr. Smith decided to dismantle the Bilingual-Bicultural Deaf Education Master's Degree Program, with the last students graduating in spring 2023. This decision was influenced by low enrollment, accreditation concerns, and quality reviews, leading to a prioritization of listening and spoken language methods. However, USU continued to offer programs in LSL Deaf Education and ASL-related areas.
In April 2025, USU announced additional program cuts, including the discontinuation of the ASL Interpreting Track and other Deaf Education/ASL-related programs. This decision significantly affected future opportunities for ASL-focused education and left the community disheartened by the loss of the state's primary Bi-Bi training program, as discussed in the section below.
Dereck Wooley (Left), Emily O'Hara Bergeson (Right). Source: The Utah Statesman, February 9, 2022
The Closure of the ASL/Deaf Education Bachelor's Degree Program
and ASL Interpreting Program at Utah State University
and ASL Interpreting Program at Utah State University
The Master's Bilingual-Bicultural track in the Department of Communicative Disorders and Deaf Education at Utah State University has been closed. Furthermore, there were plans to transition the Bilingual-Bicultural Deaf Education program into an online bachelor's degree program (O'Hara Bergeson, hellobibi.org, June 28, 2022).
Unfortunately, during the interim presidency of Dr. Alan L. Smith, the Dean of USU's Emma Eccles Jones College of Education and Human Services, the university announced plans to close several programs as part of the "Higher Education Strategic Reinvestment" Legislation (H.B. 265). This announcement was made on April 18, 2025, and it included the elimination of the ASL/Deaf Education Teacher Preparation Program, Bachelor's Degree, the Deaf and Elementary Education, Bachelor's Degree, and the ASL Interpretation Program, Bachelor's Degree. In total, this legislation led to the discontinuation of 14 programs, including the Bilingual-Bicultural Deaf Education Bachelor's Program.
The decision to eliminate these Bilingual-Bicultural Bachelor's Degrees and the ASL Interpretation Programs has left the Utah Deaf community feeling disappointed and reflects a concerning trend in postsecondary institutions. This situation is particularly troubling given the historical context; previously, the University of Utah maintained an oral program that lacked a well-rounded curriculum in sign language. In response, the Utah Association for the Deaf advocated for a sign language program at USU, which was successfully established in 1985 with the university's support.
Unfortunately, during the interim presidency of Dr. Alan L. Smith, the Dean of USU's Emma Eccles Jones College of Education and Human Services, the university announced plans to close several programs as part of the "Higher Education Strategic Reinvestment" Legislation (H.B. 265). This announcement was made on April 18, 2025, and it included the elimination of the ASL/Deaf Education Teacher Preparation Program, Bachelor's Degree, the Deaf and Elementary Education, Bachelor's Degree, and the ASL Interpretation Program, Bachelor's Degree. In total, this legislation led to the discontinuation of 14 programs, including the Bilingual-Bicultural Deaf Education Bachelor's Program.
The decision to eliminate these Bilingual-Bicultural Bachelor's Degrees and the ASL Interpretation Programs has left the Utah Deaf community feeling disappointed and reflects a concerning trend in postsecondary institutions. This situation is particularly troubling given the historical context; previously, the University of Utah maintained an oral program that lacked a well-rounded curriculum in sign language. In response, the Utah Association for the Deaf advocated for a sign language program at USU, which was successfully established in 1985 with the university's support.
The USU's website features programs in Audiology, Speech-Language Pathology, and Deaf Education, with a focus on Listening and Spoken Language. Emma Eccles Jones College of Education and Human Services at Utah State University. Source: https://cehs.usu.edu/comdde/
The closure of the American Sign Language Interpreting program (ASL-I), founded in 2014 under the leadership of Dr. Carolyn Ball, is especially disappointing. Despite community efforts to preserve these programs, their removal is a major setback. The loss of ASL/English bilingual offerings raises concerns about the future of ASL/English bilingual training in Utah. While both the University of Utah and Utah State University continue to support programs focused on listening and spoken language, the elimination of these programs leaves the community disheartened and anxious about the future of ASL education.
On August 26, 2025, the Department of Communicative Disorders and Deaf Education was officially renamed the Department of Speech and Hearing Science. This change was made to better reflect the department's focus on listening and spoken language. The program prepares students with the academic knowledge necessary to pursue graduate studies in speech-language pathology, audiology, or Deaf education (Payne, Utah State Today, August 26, 2025).
The decisions to close the BA and MA programs in Deaf Education, which emphasize Bilingual and Bicultural approaches, have faced significant opposition from the Deaf community. Many view these closures as "audist" and discriminatory, especially since the Listening and Spoken Language Program continues to operate. Critics argue that this change represents a loss of educational choices for Deaf children.
This situation raises urgent questions: Where can Deaf individuals find meaningful employment opportunities when teaching and interpreting positions are scarce? Will they continue to encounter discrimination outside of these roles? What are the broader implications for their employment prospects? For example, are there ongoing efforts to increase the number of qualified Deaf educators fluent in ASL or interpreters? How can state policies better support Deaf students' access to quality education and employment? We must act decisively to ensure that Deaf students receive the enriching education they deserve and advocate for effective solutions.
We commend the ongoing efforts of the Utah Association for the Deaf in advocating for policies that fund Deaf education, recruit more skilled Deaf teachers, and enhance interpreter training programs. Community members play a crucial role in this mission by participating in local advocacy events, reaching out to policymakers, and supporting or volunteering with relevant organizations. Together, we can create meaningful change. Your involvement is essential.
These pressing issues point to the urgent need for systemic reforms that guarantee equitable access to education and employment for the Deaf community. By intensifying our advocacy efforts, we can work together to build an inclusive environment that genuinely respects and supports Deaf individuals in all aspects of society, inspiring collective action towards lasting positive change.
On August 26, 2025, the Department of Communicative Disorders and Deaf Education was officially renamed the Department of Speech and Hearing Science. This change was made to better reflect the department's focus on listening and spoken language. The program prepares students with the academic knowledge necessary to pursue graduate studies in speech-language pathology, audiology, or Deaf education (Payne, Utah State Today, August 26, 2025).
The decisions to close the BA and MA programs in Deaf Education, which emphasize Bilingual and Bicultural approaches, have faced significant opposition from the Deaf community. Many view these closures as "audist" and discriminatory, especially since the Listening and Spoken Language Program continues to operate. Critics argue that this change represents a loss of educational choices for Deaf children.
This situation raises urgent questions: Where can Deaf individuals find meaningful employment opportunities when teaching and interpreting positions are scarce? Will they continue to encounter discrimination outside of these roles? What are the broader implications for their employment prospects? For example, are there ongoing efforts to increase the number of qualified Deaf educators fluent in ASL or interpreters? How can state policies better support Deaf students' access to quality education and employment? We must act decisively to ensure that Deaf students receive the enriching education they deserve and advocate for effective solutions.
We commend the ongoing efforts of the Utah Association for the Deaf in advocating for policies that fund Deaf education, recruit more skilled Deaf teachers, and enhance interpreter training programs. Community members play a crucial role in this mission by participating in local advocacy events, reaching out to policymakers, and supporting or volunteering with relevant organizations. Together, we can create meaningful change. Your involvement is essential.
These pressing issues point to the urgent need for systemic reforms that guarantee equitable access to education and employment for the Deaf community. By intensifying our advocacy efforts, we can work together to build an inclusive environment that genuinely respects and supports Deaf individuals in all aspects of society, inspiring collective action towards lasting positive change.
'Utah State University: More than a dozen degrees and programs being cut to comply with HB265.' Source: Deseret News
Part VII: The Surprise Proposal from
the Public Education Appropriations
for the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind
the Public Education Appropriations
for the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind
COMING SOON!
Notes
Doug Stringham, personal communication, June 2, 2011.
Dr. Jay J. Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007.
D.T. personal communication, April 26, 2011.
Jacob Dietz, personal communication, April 21, 2011.
James Smith, personal communication, August 19, 2014.
Jean Greenwood Thomas, personal communication, August 8, 2024.
Jodi Christel Becker, personal communication, April 14, 2007. Utah Code 53A – 25- 104: Impacts USDB/JMS’s ability to provide services. Paper presented at the 2007 USDB Institutional Council, Salt Lake City, UT.
Kristi Mortensen, personal communication, June 26, 2009.
Marvin T. Miller, personal communication, July 15, 2011.
Michelle Tanner, personal communication, October 17, 2021.
Sara Menlove Doutre, personal communication, September 12, 2024.
Steven W. Noyce, personal communication, March 12, 2010.
Robert G. Sanderson, personal communication, October 21, 2006.
Timothy Chevalier, personal communication, June 6, 2011.
Ursula Schultz, personal communication, February 12, 2012.
Dr. Jay J. Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007.
D.T. personal communication, April 26, 2011.
Jacob Dietz, personal communication, April 21, 2011.
James Smith, personal communication, August 19, 2014.
Jean Greenwood Thomas, personal communication, August 8, 2024.
Jodi Christel Becker, personal communication, April 14, 2007. Utah Code 53A – 25- 104: Impacts USDB/JMS’s ability to provide services. Paper presented at the 2007 USDB Institutional Council, Salt Lake City, UT.
Kristi Mortensen, personal communication, June 26, 2009.
Marvin T. Miller, personal communication, July 15, 2011.
Michelle Tanner, personal communication, October 17, 2021.
Sara Menlove Doutre, personal communication, September 12, 2024.
Steven W. Noyce, personal communication, March 12, 2010.
Robert G. Sanderson, personal communication, October 21, 2006.
Timothy Chevalier, personal communication, June 6, 2011.
Ursula Schultz, personal communication, February 12, 2012.
References
Abenchuchan, Alex. "Recap of ACLU-DE complaint and Deaf community pushback." The Daily Moth: Deaf News, January 10, 2024.
“A Sunday School Organized for the Deaf Mutes.” The Daily Enquirer, February 11, 1892.
“All Sorts.” The Silent Worker, vol. 13, no. 9 (May 1901): 139.
"Beth Ann Stewart Campbell Interview." YouTube, October 15, 2010.
Baldwin, Stephen C. “Mainstreaming in retrospect: A Deaf Perception.” National Association of the Deaf (1990): 14-16.
Becker, Jodi Christel. "The Closure of the ASL/Deaf Education and ASL Interpreting Program at Utah State University." UAD Bulletin. (April 2025): 3-4.
Bitter, Grant B. “Recommendations to the Utah State Board of Education for the Improvement of Statewide Services for the Hearing Impaired.” Grant B. Dr. Bitter Papers, Accn #1072. Manuscripts Division, J. Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, August 19, 1977.
Bitter, Grant B. “Summary Report for Tenure.” Grant B. Bitter Papers, Accn #1072. Manuscripts Division, J. Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1985.
Bress, Sophie. "'If we cut it off, the community dies:' USU suspends Utah's only ASL education program indefinitely, devastating students, Deaf community." ABC 4 News, February 10, 2022. https://www.abc4.com/news/digital-exclusives/if-we-cut-it-off-the-community-dies-usu-suspends-utahs-only-asl-education-program-indefinitely-devastating-students-deaf-community/
Buchanan, Robert M. “Illusion of Equality: Deaf Americans in school and factory: 1850 -1950.” http://books.google.com/books?id=Tahfhls7TKYC&pg=PA28&sig=VbCZINlmYggHd34t9GD_udkD_dY&dq=this+of+utah+school+for+the+Deaf+%221894%22+%22In+1894,+Portland%27s+newspapers+carried+a+series+of+exchanges+that+pitted+American+School+officials+and+Deaf+activists+against+Bell+and+Yale.%22
“CAD and SB 210 Senate Bill.” Deaf Nation, 2015. http://deafnation.com/news/cad-and-sb-210-senate-bill/
Caldwell Jacee & Popa II Michael. "Suspension of Deaf Education program leaves members of the Deaf community upset." The Utah Stateman, February 7, 2022, p. 8-10.
Caldwell Jacee & Popa II Michael. "Suspension of Deaf Education program leaves members of the Deaf community upset." The Utah Stateman, February 9, 2022. https://usustatesman.com/suspension-of-deaf-education-program-leaves-members-of-the-deaf-community-upset/
Campbell, Jay J. Education of the Deaf in Utah: A Comprehensive Study. Utah State Board of Education. Office of Administration and Institution Services, February 15, 1977.
Chronology of USDB.
Clark, John H. The Eaglet, vol. 1, no. 1 (February 15, 1894): 1-2.
Clarke, Edward, P. “Under Quarantine.” The Utah Eagle, vol ix, no. 2 (October 15, 1897): 12.
Clark, Keven & Riker, Tim. “Tony Mendoza Califonia Eugenices-Style Bill Creates Uproars Among the Deaf Community.” The Cutting Edge, June 7, 2010. http://www.speroforum.com/a/34359/California-EugenicsStyle-Bill-Creates-Uproar-Among-the-Deaf-Community#.VruQCLyzVsM
“Communication – First Step to Cooperation.” The UAD Bulletin (Spring 1961): 2.
Cummins, John. “Deaf Education Methods Best Served by ‘Re-Channeling Energy.’” The Salt Lake Tribune, April 15, 1977.
"Deaf & Hard of Hearing Education." ACLU-Delaware, December 20, 2023. https://www.aclu-de.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/ddoe_ocr_complaint_12.20.23__0.pdf
"Deaf & Hard of Hearing Education. "ACLU-Delaware, December 27, 2023. https://www.aclu-de.org/en/press-releases/under-review
Driggs, Frank, M. “Utah School for the Deaf and the Blind.” The Utah Eagle, vol. XIII, no. 2 (November 1, 1901): 16.
Driggs, Franks, M. “Rules and Regulations.” The Utah Eagle, vol. XVI, no, 9 (June 6, 1905): 140.
“Education of Deaf Stirs Debate; No Action Taken.” Ogden Standard-Examiner, April 15, 1977.
Erting, Carol J, Johnson, Robert C., Smith, Dorothy L, & Snider, Bruce D. The Deaf Way: Perspectives from the International Conference on Deaf Culture: Papers. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press, 1989. http://books.google.com/books?id=bqJxAcmA9yEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Deaf+bilingual+education+in+Sweden+and+Denmark+in+1981&source=gbs_sum mary_r&cad=0#PPR26,M1
Evans, David S. A Silent World In The Intermountain West: Records From The Utah School For The Deaf and Blind, 1884-1941. Utah State University: Logan, Utah. 1999.
Fay, Edward Allen. History of the Utah School for the Deaf - History of American Schools for the Deaf. 1817 – 1893. School of Education Library; Stanford University Libraries: The Volta Bureau, 1893.
http://books.google.com/books?id=tjEWAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA21-PA10&lpg=RA21-PA10&dq=Frank+M.+Driggs,+Deaf&source=web&ots=il1POQSsle&sig=5L_Ewyv3YcTrbGyafwB4psnD-k0&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result#v=onepage&q=Frank%20M.%20Driggs%2C%20Deaf&f=false
“For Blind, Deaf, and Dumb.” Deseret News, November 21, 1896.
“From Other Schools.” The Silent Worker, vol. 3, no. 18 (November 28, 1889): 3.
Gannon, Jack R. Deaf Heritage: A Narrative History of Deaf America. Siler Spring, Maryland: National Association of the Deaf, 1981.
Graney, Sharon. “Where Does Speech Fit In? Spoken English in a Bilingual Context.” Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education Center, Gallaudet University, 1997.
Groce, Nora Ellen. Everyone Here Spoke Sign Language. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1985.
“Henry C. White.” The Utah Eagle, vol. 33, no. 5 (February 1922): 1-2.
Historical and Program Summary Program book.
Indiana School for the Deaf. 6News. June 7, 2011.
“In the News: Hands Waving Legislation.” The Endeavor, Fall 2015, p. 15.
King, Freeman. "Rebuttal to Program Closure by Dr. Freeman King." Save Utah State University's Bilingual Bicultural Program, February 25, 2022. https://hellobibi.org/blog/
Lambert, Karen. “Sound Beginnings.” Ogden Standard-Examiner, 1A & 4A, July 23, 2007.
Lambert, Karen. “Cochlear implants controversial, require long thought by parents.” Ogden Standard-Examiner, 4A, July 23, 2007.
Lane, Harlan, Hoffmeister, Robert, & Bahan, Ben. A Journey into the DEAF-WORLD. San Diego, CA: Dawn Sign Press, 1996.
“Laron Pratt and HCB at Brighton Ward.” Des News, vol. 49 no. 13 (September 15, 1894): 399.
"Latest Updates." Save Utah State University's Bilingual Bicultural Program, February 21, 2022. https://hellobibi.org/blog/
Kinner Becker, Jodi. “USDB: Update on eligibility protocol.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 31.11 (April 2008): 1.
Linkedin: Sara Menlove Doutre.
Linkedin: Steven W. Noyce.
Lowell, Jessica. "Utah State University announces bilingual-bicultural program closure." KSL News Radio: 102.7 FM. https://kslnewsradio.com/1963796/utah-state-university-announces-bilingual-bicultural-program-closure/
Metcalf, Frank. “Dr. John R. Park.” The Utah Eagle, vol. xii, no. 2 (October 15, 1900): 12.
National Center for Hearing Assessment and Management, Wikipedia.
O'Hara Bergeson, Emily. "Summary of the Meeting with the Dean." Save Utah State Bilingual-Bicultural Program, February 24, 2022. https://hellobibi.org/2022/02/24/summary-of-the-meeting-with-the-dean/
O'Hara, Bronwyn. "Faces of the Movement." Save Utah State University's Bilingual Bicultural Program, March 10, 2022. https://hellobibi.org/blog/
O'Hara Bergeson, Emily. "Updates - June 2022." Utah State University's Bilingual Bicultural Program, June 28, 2022. https://hellobibi.org/blog/
O'Hara Bergeson, Emily. "Update - August 2022." Utah State University's Bilingual Bicultural Program, August 8, 2022. https://hellobibi.org/blog/
O'Hara Bergeson, Emily. "What Happened." Utah State University's Bilingual Bicultural Program, 2022. https://hellobibi.org/what-happened-and-a-little-context/
Pace, Irma Acord. “A History of the Utah School for the Deaf.” The Utah Eagle, vol. 58, no. 1 (October 1946): 1-33.
Parker Maggie. "Actress Millicent Simmonds's Mission to Smash a Problematic Norm for Deaf Children and Hearing Parents." Katie Couric Media, May 5, 2022. https://katiecouric.com/entertainment/movies-tv/millicent-simmonds-mom-sign-language/
Parasnis, Ila. “On interpreting the Deaf Experience Within the Context of Cultural and Language Diversity.” Cultural and Language Diversity and the Deaf Experience. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Peters, Collen. State Will be Back Logan Schools. Deseret News, April 15, 1977.
"Position paper #2: Expanding Options for Early Deaf Education in Delaware-The Solution." https://hearingchoicesdelaware.com/position-papers/
Roberts, Elaine M. “The Early History of the Utah School for the Deaf and Its influence in the Development of a Cohesive Deaf Society in Utah, circa. 1884 – 1905.” A thesis presented to the Department of History: Brigham Young University. August 1994.
Sanderson, R.G. (1992, July). My Dream. UAD Bulletin, Vol. 17, No. 2, p. 8.
Sanderson, Robert. G. “The Institutional Council of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 24.11 (April 2001): 4.
Sanderson, Robert.G. “Deaf Opinion Printed in Ogden Newspaper.” Ogden Standard-Examiner, May 13, 2001.
Shapiro, Joseph P. No Pity: People with Disabilities Forging a New Civil Rights Movement. New York: Random House Publishers, 1994.
“Senate Bill No. 210.” California Legislative Information, October 8, 2015. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB210
Smith, Al. "Announcement of Program Closure." Utah State University, February 2, 2022. https://cehs.usu.edu/news/2022/announcement-of-bibi-program-closure#:~:text=The%20bilingual%2Dbicultural%20(Bi%2D,American%20Sign%20Language%20(ASL)
Stringham, Doug & Leahy, Anne. ‘Far Away, In the West:’ The Emergence of Utah’s Deaf Community, 1850-1910, January 2013.
“The Kinetoscope and Telephone” The Silent Worker, vol. 12 no. 7 (March 1900): 101. http://dspace.wrlc.org/view/ImgViewer?url=http://dspace.wrlc.org/doc/manifest/2041/32729
Uncle Tom’s Cabin. The Silent Worker, vol. 10 no. 1 (September 1897): 7. http://dspace.wrlc.org/view/ImgViewer?url=http://dspace.wrlc.org/doc/manifest/2041/31945
“Utah School.” American Annals of the Deaf and Dumb, vol. 33, no. 1 (January 1888): 72. (Hooper Place).
Utah School for the Deaf Alumni Reunion: 125th Anniversary “Golden Memories of the Deaf, 1884-2009.
Utah School for the Deaf Brochure.
Van Cleve, John Vickery & Crouch, Barry A. A Place of Their Own: Creating the Deaf Community in America. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press, 1989.
Walker, Rodney W. My Life Story, 2006.
“What is Going On With Our Sister Institutions?” (December 19, 1889). The Silent Worker vol. 3 no. 19 (December 19, 1889): 4. http://dspace.wrlc.org/view/ImgViewer?url=http://dspace.wrlc.org/doc/manifest/2041/30169
Winefield, Richard. Never the Twain Shall Meet: Bell, Gallaudet, and the Communications Debate. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press, 1987.
“With the Advent of Statehood.” The Silent Worker, vol. 8, no. 7 (March 1896): 4.
Winters, Rosemary. “Utah Schools for the deaf grapple with balancing two tracks.” The Salt Lake Tribune, February 21, 2011.
“A Sunday School Organized for the Deaf Mutes.” The Daily Enquirer, February 11, 1892.
“All Sorts.” The Silent Worker, vol. 13, no. 9 (May 1901): 139.
"Beth Ann Stewart Campbell Interview." YouTube, October 15, 2010.
Baldwin, Stephen C. “Mainstreaming in retrospect: A Deaf Perception.” National Association of the Deaf (1990): 14-16.
Becker, Jodi Christel. "The Closure of the ASL/Deaf Education and ASL Interpreting Program at Utah State University." UAD Bulletin. (April 2025): 3-4.
Bitter, Grant B. “Recommendations to the Utah State Board of Education for the Improvement of Statewide Services for the Hearing Impaired.” Grant B. Dr. Bitter Papers, Accn #1072. Manuscripts Division, J. Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, August 19, 1977.
Bitter, Grant B. “Summary Report for Tenure.” Grant B. Bitter Papers, Accn #1072. Manuscripts Division, J. Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1985.
Bress, Sophie. "'If we cut it off, the community dies:' USU suspends Utah's only ASL education program indefinitely, devastating students, Deaf community." ABC 4 News, February 10, 2022. https://www.abc4.com/news/digital-exclusives/if-we-cut-it-off-the-community-dies-usu-suspends-utahs-only-asl-education-program-indefinitely-devastating-students-deaf-community/
Buchanan, Robert M. “Illusion of Equality: Deaf Americans in school and factory: 1850 -1950.” http://books.google.com/books?id=Tahfhls7TKYC&pg=PA28&sig=VbCZINlmYggHd34t9GD_udkD_dY&dq=this+of+utah+school+for+the+Deaf+%221894%22+%22In+1894,+Portland%27s+newspapers+carried+a+series+of+exchanges+that+pitted+American+School+officials+and+Deaf+activists+against+Bell+and+Yale.%22
“CAD and SB 210 Senate Bill.” Deaf Nation, 2015. http://deafnation.com/news/cad-and-sb-210-senate-bill/
Caldwell Jacee & Popa II Michael. "Suspension of Deaf Education program leaves members of the Deaf community upset." The Utah Stateman, February 7, 2022, p. 8-10.
Caldwell Jacee & Popa II Michael. "Suspension of Deaf Education program leaves members of the Deaf community upset." The Utah Stateman, February 9, 2022. https://usustatesman.com/suspension-of-deaf-education-program-leaves-members-of-the-deaf-community-upset/
Campbell, Jay J. Education of the Deaf in Utah: A Comprehensive Study. Utah State Board of Education. Office of Administration and Institution Services, February 15, 1977.
Chronology of USDB.
Clark, John H. The Eaglet, vol. 1, no. 1 (February 15, 1894): 1-2.
Clarke, Edward, P. “Under Quarantine.” The Utah Eagle, vol ix, no. 2 (October 15, 1897): 12.
Clark, Keven & Riker, Tim. “Tony Mendoza Califonia Eugenices-Style Bill Creates Uproars Among the Deaf Community.” The Cutting Edge, June 7, 2010. http://www.speroforum.com/a/34359/California-EugenicsStyle-Bill-Creates-Uproar-Among-the-Deaf-Community#.VruQCLyzVsM
“Communication – First Step to Cooperation.” The UAD Bulletin (Spring 1961): 2.
Cummins, John. “Deaf Education Methods Best Served by ‘Re-Channeling Energy.’” The Salt Lake Tribune, April 15, 1977.
"Deaf & Hard of Hearing Education." ACLU-Delaware, December 20, 2023. https://www.aclu-de.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/ddoe_ocr_complaint_12.20.23__0.pdf
"Deaf & Hard of Hearing Education. "ACLU-Delaware, December 27, 2023. https://www.aclu-de.org/en/press-releases/under-review
Driggs, Frank, M. “Utah School for the Deaf and the Blind.” The Utah Eagle, vol. XIII, no. 2 (November 1, 1901): 16.
Driggs, Franks, M. “Rules and Regulations.” The Utah Eagle, vol. XVI, no, 9 (June 6, 1905): 140.
“Education of Deaf Stirs Debate; No Action Taken.” Ogden Standard-Examiner, April 15, 1977.
Erting, Carol J, Johnson, Robert C., Smith, Dorothy L, & Snider, Bruce D. The Deaf Way: Perspectives from the International Conference on Deaf Culture: Papers. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press, 1989. http://books.google.com/books?id=bqJxAcmA9yEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Deaf+bilingual+education+in+Sweden+and+Denmark+in+1981&source=gbs_sum mary_r&cad=0#PPR26,M1
Evans, David S. A Silent World In The Intermountain West: Records From The Utah School For The Deaf and Blind, 1884-1941. Utah State University: Logan, Utah. 1999.
Fay, Edward Allen. History of the Utah School for the Deaf - History of American Schools for the Deaf. 1817 – 1893. School of Education Library; Stanford University Libraries: The Volta Bureau, 1893.
http://books.google.com/books?id=tjEWAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA21-PA10&lpg=RA21-PA10&dq=Frank+M.+Driggs,+Deaf&source=web&ots=il1POQSsle&sig=5L_Ewyv3YcTrbGyafwB4psnD-k0&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result#v=onepage&q=Frank%20M.%20Driggs%2C%20Deaf&f=false
“For Blind, Deaf, and Dumb.” Deseret News, November 21, 1896.
“From Other Schools.” The Silent Worker, vol. 3, no. 18 (November 28, 1889): 3.
Gannon, Jack R. Deaf Heritage: A Narrative History of Deaf America. Siler Spring, Maryland: National Association of the Deaf, 1981.
Graney, Sharon. “Where Does Speech Fit In? Spoken English in a Bilingual Context.” Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education Center, Gallaudet University, 1997.
Groce, Nora Ellen. Everyone Here Spoke Sign Language. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1985.
“Henry C. White.” The Utah Eagle, vol. 33, no. 5 (February 1922): 1-2.
Historical and Program Summary Program book.
Indiana School for the Deaf. 6News. June 7, 2011.
“In the News: Hands Waving Legislation.” The Endeavor, Fall 2015, p. 15.
King, Freeman. "Rebuttal to Program Closure by Dr. Freeman King." Save Utah State University's Bilingual Bicultural Program, February 25, 2022. https://hellobibi.org/blog/
Lambert, Karen. “Sound Beginnings.” Ogden Standard-Examiner, 1A & 4A, July 23, 2007.
Lambert, Karen. “Cochlear implants controversial, require long thought by parents.” Ogden Standard-Examiner, 4A, July 23, 2007.
Lane, Harlan, Hoffmeister, Robert, & Bahan, Ben. A Journey into the DEAF-WORLD. San Diego, CA: Dawn Sign Press, 1996.
“Laron Pratt and HCB at Brighton Ward.” Des News, vol. 49 no. 13 (September 15, 1894): 399.
"Latest Updates." Save Utah State University's Bilingual Bicultural Program, February 21, 2022. https://hellobibi.org/blog/
Kinner Becker, Jodi. “USDB: Update on eligibility protocol.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 31.11 (April 2008): 1.
Linkedin: Sara Menlove Doutre.
Linkedin: Steven W. Noyce.
Lowell, Jessica. "Utah State University announces bilingual-bicultural program closure." KSL News Radio: 102.7 FM. https://kslnewsradio.com/1963796/utah-state-university-announces-bilingual-bicultural-program-closure/
Metcalf, Frank. “Dr. John R. Park.” The Utah Eagle, vol. xii, no. 2 (October 15, 1900): 12.
National Center for Hearing Assessment and Management, Wikipedia.
O'Hara Bergeson, Emily. "Summary of the Meeting with the Dean." Save Utah State Bilingual-Bicultural Program, February 24, 2022. https://hellobibi.org/2022/02/24/summary-of-the-meeting-with-the-dean/
O'Hara, Bronwyn. "Faces of the Movement." Save Utah State University's Bilingual Bicultural Program, March 10, 2022. https://hellobibi.org/blog/
O'Hara Bergeson, Emily. "Updates - June 2022." Utah State University's Bilingual Bicultural Program, June 28, 2022. https://hellobibi.org/blog/
O'Hara Bergeson, Emily. "Update - August 2022." Utah State University's Bilingual Bicultural Program, August 8, 2022. https://hellobibi.org/blog/
O'Hara Bergeson, Emily. "What Happened." Utah State University's Bilingual Bicultural Program, 2022. https://hellobibi.org/what-happened-and-a-little-context/
Pace, Irma Acord. “A History of the Utah School for the Deaf.” The Utah Eagle, vol. 58, no. 1 (October 1946): 1-33.
Parker Maggie. "Actress Millicent Simmonds's Mission to Smash a Problematic Norm for Deaf Children and Hearing Parents." Katie Couric Media, May 5, 2022. https://katiecouric.com/entertainment/movies-tv/millicent-simmonds-mom-sign-language/
Parasnis, Ila. “On interpreting the Deaf Experience Within the Context of Cultural and Language Diversity.” Cultural and Language Diversity and the Deaf Experience. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Peters, Collen. State Will be Back Logan Schools. Deseret News, April 15, 1977.
"Position paper #2: Expanding Options for Early Deaf Education in Delaware-The Solution." https://hearingchoicesdelaware.com/position-papers/
Roberts, Elaine M. “The Early History of the Utah School for the Deaf and Its influence in the Development of a Cohesive Deaf Society in Utah, circa. 1884 – 1905.” A thesis presented to the Department of History: Brigham Young University. August 1994.
Sanderson, R.G. (1992, July). My Dream. UAD Bulletin, Vol. 17, No. 2, p. 8.
Sanderson, Robert. G. “The Institutional Council of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 24.11 (April 2001): 4.
Sanderson, Robert.G. “Deaf Opinion Printed in Ogden Newspaper.” Ogden Standard-Examiner, May 13, 2001.
Shapiro, Joseph P. No Pity: People with Disabilities Forging a New Civil Rights Movement. New York: Random House Publishers, 1994.
“Senate Bill No. 210.” California Legislative Information, October 8, 2015. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB210
Smith, Al. "Announcement of Program Closure." Utah State University, February 2, 2022. https://cehs.usu.edu/news/2022/announcement-of-bibi-program-closure#:~:text=The%20bilingual%2Dbicultural%20(Bi%2D,American%20Sign%20Language%20(ASL)
Stringham, Doug & Leahy, Anne. ‘Far Away, In the West:’ The Emergence of Utah’s Deaf Community, 1850-1910, January 2013.
“The Kinetoscope and Telephone” The Silent Worker, vol. 12 no. 7 (March 1900): 101. http://dspace.wrlc.org/view/ImgViewer?url=http://dspace.wrlc.org/doc/manifest/2041/32729
Uncle Tom’s Cabin. The Silent Worker, vol. 10 no. 1 (September 1897): 7. http://dspace.wrlc.org/view/ImgViewer?url=http://dspace.wrlc.org/doc/manifest/2041/31945
“Utah School.” American Annals of the Deaf and Dumb, vol. 33, no. 1 (January 1888): 72. (Hooper Place).
Utah School for the Deaf Alumni Reunion: 125th Anniversary “Golden Memories of the Deaf, 1884-2009.
Utah School for the Deaf Brochure.
Van Cleve, John Vickery & Crouch, Barry A. A Place of Their Own: Creating the Deaf Community in America. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press, 1989.
Walker, Rodney W. My Life Story, 2006.
“What is Going On With Our Sister Institutions?” (December 19, 1889). The Silent Worker vol. 3 no. 19 (December 19, 1889): 4. http://dspace.wrlc.org/view/ImgViewer?url=http://dspace.wrlc.org/doc/manifest/2041/30169
Winefield, Richard. Never the Twain Shall Meet: Bell, Gallaudet, and the Communications Debate. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press, 1987.
“With the Advent of Statehood.” The Silent Worker, vol. 8, no. 7 (March 1896): 4.
Winters, Rosemary. “Utah Schools for the deaf grapple with balancing two tracks.” The Salt Lake Tribune, February 21, 2011.
