National and Local
Impact of Oral Leaders
Complied & Written by Jodi Becker Kinner
Edited by Valerie G. Kinney & Bronwyn O’Hara
Published in 2016
Updated in 2021
Updated in 2023
Updated in 2024
Edited by Valerie G. Kinney & Bronwyn O’Hara
Published in 2016
Updated in 2021
Updated in 2023
Updated in 2024
Note
To avoid any confusion, on this webpage, from the 1940s until 1962, I will refer to the organization as the Utah Association of the Deaf, as they used the word "of" in their name during that time. However, in 1963, the organization's name was changed to the Utah Association for the Deaf, then back to the Utah Association of the Deaf in 2012.
The Impact of the Oral Leaders
For years, the Utah Deaf community has battled with three Utah Oral leaders, Dr. Grant B. Bitter, Steven W. Noyce, and Dr. Karl R. White, in our backyard. The Utah Oral advocates for Listening and Spoken Language, or LSL, maintained that the Utah School for the Deaf was a national model, describing it as an ideal in providing both ASL/English Bilingual and Listening and Spoken Language (replaced oral) Programs, known as the Dual Program or Two-Track Program, that were not available in other state schools for the deaf and offering Outreach Services through school districts to promote mainstreaming efforts. Furthermore, Steven W. Noyce, then-Superintendent of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind actively promoted USD as a national model (Steven W. Noyce, personal communication, March 12, 2010; Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, February 21, 2011).
On February 21, 2011, the Salt Lake Tribune published an article titled "Schools for the Deaf Grapple with Balancing Two Tracks." According to Superintendent Steven W. Noyce of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind, the Dual Track Program would empower parents and serve as a model for other state schools for the deaf nationwide (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, February 21, 2011). The two 'tracks' were ASL/English Bilingual and Listening and Spoken Language. Rather than empowering parents, the Utah Deaf Education Core Group, a group of concerned parents and members of the Utah Deaf community that advocated for and protected the ASL/English Bilingual Program, perceived this as LSL supporters attempting to decrease the ASL/English Bilingual Program and motivate more Deaf and hard of hearing children into the LSL Program. South Dakota School for the Deaf, Delaware School for the Deaf, and Indiana School for the Deaf were among the state schools with endangered ASL/English Bilingual Programs.
On February 21, 2011, the Salt Lake Tribune published an article titled "Schools for the Deaf Grapple with Balancing Two Tracks." According to Superintendent Steven W. Noyce of the Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind, the Dual Track Program would empower parents and serve as a model for other state schools for the deaf nationwide (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, February 21, 2011). The two 'tracks' were ASL/English Bilingual and Listening and Spoken Language. Rather than empowering parents, the Utah Deaf Education Core Group, a group of concerned parents and members of the Utah Deaf community that advocated for and protected the ASL/English Bilingual Program, perceived this as LSL supporters attempting to decrease the ASL/English Bilingual Program and motivate more Deaf and hard of hearing children into the LSL Program. South Dakota School for the Deaf, Delaware School for the Deaf, and Indiana School for the Deaf were among the state schools with endangered ASL/English Bilingual Programs.
Based on a personal communication with Timothy Chevalier, a former ASL/English Bilingual Specialist, on June 6, 2011, the South Dakota School for the Deaf was most likely the first state school to implement the USD Dual Track Program and the Outreach Services model after visiting and consulting with the Utah School for the Deaf to study their delivery services model. These efforts took place in 2005. Soon after, they began with a copy of its model at the school. The reality of the Two-Track Program, as implemented at SDSD, was that it separated Listening and Spoken Language students from American Sign Language/English Bilingual students. Many LSL students had cochlear implants and were not allowed to interact with students from the ASL/English Bilingual Program at any time, including recess and lunch. In addition, the school made sure that the LSL students were not exposed to sign language.
The SDSD administration eventually revised its segregation practices after collaborating with public schools to accommodate LSL students. The plan was for these Deaf and hard of hearing students in the LSL Program to be integrated with non-deaf students in public schools to learn how to hear and speak more effectively. The intense desire to enroll as many students as possible in the LSL Program into the mainstreaming system rapidly shrank the ASL/English Bilingual Program. The ASL/English Bilingual Program struggled with a drop in enrollment due to a policy that encouraged new sign language students to stay in their local school districts rather than enroll at the South Dakota School for the Deaf. In this way, the South Dakota School for the Deaf was transformed into an Outreach Services facility, similar to the USD Outreach Services approach.
South Dakota families who supported ASL fought the new system unsuccessfully in 2007, eventually moving out of state to enroll their Deaf children in other state schools for the deaf. By 2009, the South Dakota School for the Deaf was only in name, as all services were no longer provided at the school campus. The school had become an administrative rather than a viable teaching institute (Timothy Chevalier, personal communication, June 6, 2011).
South Dakota families who supported ASL fought the new system unsuccessfully in 2007, eventually moving out of state to enroll their Deaf children in other state schools for the deaf. By 2009, the South Dakota School for the Deaf was only in name, as all services were no longer provided at the school campus. The school had become an administrative rather than a viable teaching institute (Timothy Chevalier, personal communication, June 6, 2011).
Two More State Schools for the Deaf
Impacted by the Oralism Movement
Impacted by the Oralism Movement
Under the direction of Theresa Bulger and with encouragement from the Alexander Graham Bell Association, the Oral Only Option Schools Group (OOOS) attempted to copy the USD Dual Track model and its Outreach Services. Additionally, they promoted the LSL option in several states. In 2010, Dr. Karl R. White, an Utah backer of the LSL program, testified before the California Legislature, pushing the passage of AD 2072. In response to a tremendous outcry from the California Deaf community, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the AD 2072 bill.
Once more, in 2011, Delaware and Indiana wanted to make LSL a legal choice for Deaf children in their state schools for the deaf. Their mission was a success in Indiana. At the Deaf National Agenda Committee meeting conducted by the Utah State Office of Education, Superintendent Noyce enthusiastically shared that Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels contacted him for advice on implementing the Two-Track Program and Outreach Services provided by the Utah School for the Deaf during the Indiana Deaf community's protest. He further stated that the Illinois School for the Deaf and the New Jersey School for the Deaf will follow in the footsteps of the Indiana School for the Deaf by adopting the Utah School for the Deaf's delivery services model (Steven W. Noyce, personal communication, March 12, 2010). On top of that, the Delaware School for the Deaf, which provides bilingual education in both ASL and English, was pressured to give the LSL option by the LSL-promoting CHOICES Delaware organization, which was created in 2009. Fortunately, on September 10, 2010, Delaware Governor Jack Markell signed House Bill 283, known as the Delaware Hard of Hearing Children's Bill of Rights, into law. Texas, Colorado, and California enacted similar legislation (www.christina.k12.de.us/DSPDHH/DHHBillofRights.htm).
One year later, on July 12, 2011, the CHOICES Delaware organization attempted and failed to create a Listening and Spoken Language program through the Delaware School for the Deaf and Statewide Programs for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (The CHOICES Delaware Position Paper). According to Ursula Schultz, a former Deaf employee at Delaware School for the Deaf, the CHOICES Delaware organization wants DSD to implement listening and spoken language educational practices based on AGBell's principles for LSL in their early childhood classes: "They believe that all children who have a hearing aid or cochlear implants only need LSL. They have been rallying to state officials trying to make change happen" (Ursula Schultz, personal communication, February 12, 2012).
Once more, in 2011, Delaware and Indiana wanted to make LSL a legal choice for Deaf children in their state schools for the deaf. Their mission was a success in Indiana. At the Deaf National Agenda Committee meeting conducted by the Utah State Office of Education, Superintendent Noyce enthusiastically shared that Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels contacted him for advice on implementing the Two-Track Program and Outreach Services provided by the Utah School for the Deaf during the Indiana Deaf community's protest. He further stated that the Illinois School for the Deaf and the New Jersey School for the Deaf will follow in the footsteps of the Indiana School for the Deaf by adopting the Utah School for the Deaf's delivery services model (Steven W. Noyce, personal communication, March 12, 2010). On top of that, the Delaware School for the Deaf, which provides bilingual education in both ASL and English, was pressured to give the LSL option by the LSL-promoting CHOICES Delaware organization, which was created in 2009. Fortunately, on September 10, 2010, Delaware Governor Jack Markell signed House Bill 283, known as the Delaware Hard of Hearing Children's Bill of Rights, into law. Texas, Colorado, and California enacted similar legislation (www.christina.k12.de.us/DSPDHH/DHHBillofRights.htm).
One year later, on July 12, 2011, the CHOICES Delaware organization attempted and failed to create a Listening and Spoken Language program through the Delaware School for the Deaf and Statewide Programs for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (The CHOICES Delaware Position Paper). According to Ursula Schultz, a former Deaf employee at Delaware School for the Deaf, the CHOICES Delaware organization wants DSD to implement listening and spoken language educational practices based on AGBell's principles for LSL in their early childhood classes: "They believe that all children who have a hearing aid or cochlear implants only need LSL. They have been rallying to state officials trying to make change happen" (Ursula Schultz, personal communication, February 12, 2012).
In reality, the CHOICES Delaware organization pushed for speech and auditory therapy services for Deaf and hard of hearing students. They went on to argue that this was the best therapy for students who had hearing parents. They acknowledged that bilingual ASL/English educational programs for Deaf and hard of hearing children of Deaf parents were acceptable. Nonetheless, they believed speech and auditory services were being disregarded and denied to all hearing families. The administration of the Delaware School for the Deaf maintained its support for the ASL/English bilingual Program, which dissatisfied the CHOICES Delaware organization (Ursula Schultz, personal communication, February 12, 2012). The organization sought more supporters outside of Delaware to push for change. When the CHOICES Delaware organization learned about Utah and the changes made by then-USDB Superintendent Noyce in expanding the LSL Program at the Utah School for the Deaf, they opted to use Utah as an educational model. To that end, the CHOICES Delaware organization invited Superintendent Noyce to the Delaware Conference on Deaf Education on June 11, 2011, as a keynote speaker to deliver a presentation titled "Deaf Education in America: Then and Now" promoting the Two-Track Program and its Outreach Services model (Jacob Dietz, personal communication, April 21, 2011; D.T. personal communication, April 26, 2011).
The CHOICES Delaware organization did not give up trying to implement the LSL option in the Delaware School for the Deaf, leading the American Civil Liberties Union of Delaware (ACLU-DE), which is an affiliate of the nationwide ACLU organization, to file a complaint requesting the US Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights to investigate the Delaware Department of Education for lack of access to LSL therapy and over-referrals to the Delaware School for the Deaf. When the ACLU of Delaware received a response from the Deaf community articulating concerns and perspectives, they published a position statement on December 27, stating that they were reviewing it (Deaf and Hard of Hearing Education, ACLU-Delaware, December 27, 2023). Sara Nović, a Deaf professor and novelist, launched a Change.org petition calling for a complete withdrawal of the ACLU-DE's case. It had more than 25,000 signatures. Sara stated that it is false and dangerous to "choose" between English and ASL, as this can lead to language deprivation syndrome. When the ACLU-Delaware joined forces with the CHOICES Delaware organization, they were on the wrong side of history. They removed their post following pushback from Deaf community and Deaf education professionals (Abenchuchan, The Daily Moth: Deaf News, January 10, 2024). The ACLU of Delaware's case, which advocated for LSL, puts Deaf children at risk of having limited access to language during childhood years.
On May 17, 2011, three days after the CHOICES Delaware conference, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels appointed two new members to the board that governs the Indiana School for the Deaf., a national leader in bilingual education for Deaf and hard of hearing students. The concern was that the two new LSL board members were unaffiliated with bilingual education. The irony was that these two new members were parents whose Deaf children did not attend ISD, the school they were chosen to oversee. Only one Deaf person served on the board, which included five hearing members (6News, May 17, 2011). Many parents were outraged by the new appointments, believing it was a tactic to eliminate ASL at the school and return it to oralism. They were also baffled and concerned about anticipated changes in school academic instruction (6News, May 19, 2011).
Marvin T. Miller, president of the Indiana Association of the Deaf and a Deaf parent of four Deaf children, requested equal representation on the ISD School Board. Governor Daniels, however, declined to reverse the selections, prompting a rally on June 7, 2011, organized by parents and the Deaf community in collaboration with the Indiana Association of the Deaf and the Parent Teacher Counselor Organization (Marvin Miller, personal communication, July 15, 2011).
The CHOICES Delaware organization did not give up trying to implement the LSL option in the Delaware School for the Deaf, leading the American Civil Liberties Union of Delaware (ACLU-DE), which is an affiliate of the nationwide ACLU organization, to file a complaint requesting the US Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights to investigate the Delaware Department of Education for lack of access to LSL therapy and over-referrals to the Delaware School for the Deaf. When the ACLU of Delaware received a response from the Deaf community articulating concerns and perspectives, they published a position statement on December 27, stating that they were reviewing it (Deaf and Hard of Hearing Education, ACLU-Delaware, December 27, 2023). Sara Nović, a Deaf professor and novelist, launched a Change.org petition calling for a complete withdrawal of the ACLU-DE's case. It had more than 25,000 signatures. Sara stated that it is false and dangerous to "choose" between English and ASL, as this can lead to language deprivation syndrome. When the ACLU-Delaware joined forces with the CHOICES Delaware organization, they were on the wrong side of history. They removed their post following pushback from Deaf community and Deaf education professionals (Abenchuchan, The Daily Moth: Deaf News, January 10, 2024). The ACLU of Delaware's case, which advocated for LSL, puts Deaf children at risk of having limited access to language during childhood years.
On May 17, 2011, three days after the CHOICES Delaware conference, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels appointed two new members to the board that governs the Indiana School for the Deaf., a national leader in bilingual education for Deaf and hard of hearing students. The concern was that the two new LSL board members were unaffiliated with bilingual education. The irony was that these two new members were parents whose Deaf children did not attend ISD, the school they were chosen to oversee. Only one Deaf person served on the board, which included five hearing members (6News, May 17, 2011). Many parents were outraged by the new appointments, believing it was a tactic to eliminate ASL at the school and return it to oralism. They were also baffled and concerned about anticipated changes in school academic instruction (6News, May 19, 2011).
Marvin T. Miller, president of the Indiana Association of the Deaf and a Deaf parent of four Deaf children, requested equal representation on the ISD School Board. Governor Daniels, however, declined to reverse the selections, prompting a rally on June 7, 2011, organized by parents and the Deaf community in collaboration with the Indiana Association of the Deaf and the Parent Teacher Counselor Organization (Marvin Miller, personal communication, July 15, 2011).
At the rally, Howard Rosenblum, Chief Executive Officer of the National Association of the Deaf, observed by saying, "By sending [the new board members'] children to other schools, what role do they have for the Indiana School for the Deaf? We believe they are not in support of preserving the goals....of the school" (6News, June 7, 2011). For a while, the ISD school board was at odds with a long-running dispute over assimilating Deaf individuals into hearing society. Some people believed that Deaf children should use sign language and go to state schools for the deaf, where other Deaf children would surround their peers. Others believe that students would benefit more from being mainstreamed with hearing children in regular classrooms, especially now that cochlear implants are available (6News, June 7, 2011). The Utah Deaf Education Core Group suspected these two Indiana LSL board members would wish to replicate the USD's two-track model because the governor would not bend, even after the rally. Since Steven Noyce took over as superintendent of USDB in 2009, it has been transformed into one of the nation's best state-run oral programs (Jacob Dietz, personal communication, April 21, 2011). In addition, Dr. White addressed the Indiana Legislature, pushing them to pass HB 1367 during the protest of the Indiana Deaf community, which was passed. Deaf education was impacted in those states.
When Deaf adults who had attended the Utah School for the Deaf during the Dual Track Program's inception in 1962 became aware of what Superintendent Noyce, who assumed the role in August 2009, was doing at the school, they and the Utah Deaf community battled vigorously. This movement harmed our school for over 50 years, from 1962 to 2011. As the LSL program expanded, Superintendent Noyce gradually cut funding for the ASL/English Bilingual Program.
The Utah Deaf Education Core Group was reminded of the outdated and ineffective "Y" system of the 1960s by the way Superintendent Noyce revamped the Parent Infant Program, purportedly pressuring parents to choose the LSL option. His 2009–2011 limitations on educational services resulted in the manipulation of parents of Deaf children. It caused issues not only for the Utah Deaf community but also for parents. Superintendent Noyce's most noticeable changes at the Utah School for the Deaf were in the Parent Infant Program. This program provided services to parents of Deaf or hard of hearing children aged 0 to 3. It was customary for parents to wait until their child started preschool before focusing intensively on either the signing or speaking routes. Superintendent Noyce changed things by pushing the parents to choose during the PIP years. "He encouraged parents to choose either ASL/English or LSL as early as possible instead of when choosing a preschool because [those early years were] a critical period for language development" (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, February 21, 2011). As of February 2011, 74% of parents enrolled in the Parent Infant Program had chosen LSL. ASL was selected by 15% of those polled, with the remaining undecided. One hundred seventy infants and toddlers were enrolled. LSL specialists were trained in greater numbers than ASL specialists. This was done to account for parental demand for speech and auditory services (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, February 21, 2011).
"Many advocates for bilingual education fear that Mr. Noyce, whose experience as an educator is in listening and spoken language (LSL), favors the oral program at the expense of a traditional Deaf Education in American Sign Language (ASL)--more readily accessible to visual learners--unites the Deaf community and fosters a Deaf identity, advocates say" (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, February 21, 2011). While Superintendent Noyce had always stated that he supported the family's choice, the Utah Deaf Education Core Group observed that he, in action, had taken options away from them. For instance, when PIP parents chose ASL, Superintendent Noyce took away speech services. When PIP parents choose LSL, he removed the signing services. It was an "either/or" situation. They discovered that many parents wanted both options: LSL and ASL.
The Utah Deaf Education Core Group was reminded of the outdated and ineffective "Y" system of the 1960s by the way Superintendent Noyce revamped the Parent Infant Program, purportedly pressuring parents to choose the LSL option. His 2009–2011 limitations on educational services resulted in the manipulation of parents of Deaf children. It caused issues not only for the Utah Deaf community but also for parents. Superintendent Noyce's most noticeable changes at the Utah School for the Deaf were in the Parent Infant Program. This program provided services to parents of Deaf or hard of hearing children aged 0 to 3. It was customary for parents to wait until their child started preschool before focusing intensively on either the signing or speaking routes. Superintendent Noyce changed things by pushing the parents to choose during the PIP years. "He encouraged parents to choose either ASL/English or LSL as early as possible instead of when choosing a preschool because [those early years were] a critical period for language development" (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, February 21, 2011). As of February 2011, 74% of parents enrolled in the Parent Infant Program had chosen LSL. ASL was selected by 15% of those polled, with the remaining undecided. One hundred seventy infants and toddlers were enrolled. LSL specialists were trained in greater numbers than ASL specialists. This was done to account for parental demand for speech and auditory services (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, February 21, 2011).
"Many advocates for bilingual education fear that Mr. Noyce, whose experience as an educator is in listening and spoken language (LSL), favors the oral program at the expense of a traditional Deaf Education in American Sign Language (ASL)--more readily accessible to visual learners--unites the Deaf community and fosters a Deaf identity, advocates say" (Winters, The Salt Lake Tribune, February 21, 2011). While Superintendent Noyce had always stated that he supported the family's choice, the Utah Deaf Education Core Group observed that he, in action, had taken options away from them. For instance, when PIP parents chose ASL, Superintendent Noyce took away speech services. When PIP parents choose LSL, he removed the signing services. It was an "either/or" situation. They discovered that many parents wanted both options: LSL and ASL.
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 @ Deseret News, March 8, 1973. Deseret News Photo by Chief Photographer Don Groyston
While the Listening and Spoken Language and the ASL/English bilingual programs were provided at the Utah School for the Deaf in 2011, it was, however, still the same battle as in the 1960s and 1970s. It was either to train Deaf children to speak and hear or expose students to their bilingual and bicultural and allow them to become fully educated. Superintendent Noyce was proud that the Utah School for the Deaf was the only state school offering a pure oral or bilingual education. Yet, most other state schools had relied on research to shape their current programs. The Utah Deaf Education Core Group also opposed the Utah School for the Deaf for offering the Dual Track Program. This was still the same controversy that arose in 1962 when the Utah State Board of Education endorsed a two-track educational system for the deaf on June 14, 1962 (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, June 14, 1962). More information about its program is available further down.
The Utah Deaf Education Core Group acknowledged that the oral-deaf curriculum was implemented in private schools nationwide. Whether USD, as a state-funded school, should offer both programs was probably a bad move for the school because the neighboring schools could pick up those Deaf and hard of hearing students who preferred only speech services. However, because both choices were accessible in USD, they should be weighted equally. This can be accomplished by following the standards outlined in "The National Agenda: Moving Forward on Achieving Educational Equality for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students," published in April 2005. This National Agenda was created to help school systems overcome philosophical, placement, communication, and service delivery biases. However, the Utah Deaf Education Core Group felt at the time that Superintendent Noyce, a graduate of Dr. Grant B. Bitter's Oral Training Program at the University of Utah, was a major roadblock to expanding the bilingual program at the Utah School for the Deaf due to LSL bias. They intended to ensure that his successor did not go backwards with the Utah School for the Deaf as Superintendent Noyce did. The "Dr. Robert G. Sanderson's Dream" webpage has further information regarding the Utah Deaf Education Core Group's dispute with Superintendent Noyce.
In a nutshell, the LSL community looks up to the Utah School for the Deaf as a "beacon." Since the Utah School for the Deaf was an agency, as they called it, it was the opposite of the norm of the state schools for the deaf, which only offered one teaching philosophy curriculum. The USD was proud of its uniqueness in providing Listening and Spoken Language and ASL/English Bilingual options. Although Dr. Karl White was shown assisting with state legislation championing the LSL services being implemented in the state schools for the deaf, and Superintendent Noyce was promoting its Two-Track efforts and Outreach Services strategy, they escalated the situation to make matters worse by pushing toward the LSL movement. Furthermore, Noyce and White interfered with other state schools for the deaf since the LSL community aspired to model its operations after learning about the USD's Two-Track program and Outreach Services strategy. Last but not least, Noyce and White's involvement with the LSL community had an impact on state schools for the deaf, as the Deaf communities in their respective states were fighting tooth and nail to safeguard their ASL/English Bilingual curriculum. To preserve and protect the state schools for the deaf, the Deaf community must remain vigilant.
The Utah Deaf Education Core Group acknowledged that the oral-deaf curriculum was implemented in private schools nationwide. Whether USD, as a state-funded school, should offer both programs was probably a bad move for the school because the neighboring schools could pick up those Deaf and hard of hearing students who preferred only speech services. However, because both choices were accessible in USD, they should be weighted equally. This can be accomplished by following the standards outlined in "The National Agenda: Moving Forward on Achieving Educational Equality for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students," published in April 2005. This National Agenda was created to help school systems overcome philosophical, placement, communication, and service delivery biases. However, the Utah Deaf Education Core Group felt at the time that Superintendent Noyce, a graduate of Dr. Grant B. Bitter's Oral Training Program at the University of Utah, was a major roadblock to expanding the bilingual program at the Utah School for the Deaf due to LSL bias. They intended to ensure that his successor did not go backwards with the Utah School for the Deaf as Superintendent Noyce did. The "Dr. Robert G. Sanderson's Dream" webpage has further information regarding the Utah Deaf Education Core Group's dispute with Superintendent Noyce.
In a nutshell, the LSL community looks up to the Utah School for the Deaf as a "beacon." Since the Utah School for the Deaf was an agency, as they called it, it was the opposite of the norm of the state schools for the deaf, which only offered one teaching philosophy curriculum. The USD was proud of its uniqueness in providing Listening and Spoken Language and ASL/English Bilingual options. Although Dr. Karl White was shown assisting with state legislation championing the LSL services being implemented in the state schools for the deaf, and Superintendent Noyce was promoting its Two-Track efforts and Outreach Services strategy, they escalated the situation to make matters worse by pushing toward the LSL movement. Furthermore, Noyce and White interfered with other state schools for the deaf since the LSL community aspired to model its operations after learning about the USD's Two-Track program and Outreach Services strategy. Last but not least, Noyce and White's involvement with the LSL community had an impact on state schools for the deaf, as the Deaf communities in their respective states were fighting tooth and nail to safeguard their ASL/English Bilingual curriculum. To preserve and protect the state schools for the deaf, the Deaf community must remain vigilant.
The Oralism and Mainstreaming
Movements in Utah
Movements in Utah
To provide context for Deaf Education History in Utah, it should be noted that 1962 the oral and mainstreaming movements have had an impact on our deaf education since 1962. Dr. Grant B. Bitter, an outspoken proponent and champion of oral and mainstream education, was the driving force behind it. From 1962 until 1987, he was in a position of 'power' for 25 years. As a result of his effort, a new policy at the USD embraced the Dual Track Program, commonly known as the "Y" system, as a new policy in 1962, which meant that all students in the Primary Department had to begin in the Oral Program and couldn't transfer to the Simultaneous Communication Division unless they had "failed" the oral program by the age of 11 or 6th grade.
The USD in Ogden, Utah, was divided into an Oral and Simultaneous Communication Division, each with its own classrooms, dormitory facilities, recess, and extracurricular activities, except sporting programs, which were open to all students due to a shortage of players (The Utah Eagle, February 1968; The Ogden Standard-Examiner, October 19, 1970). Students at USD-Ogden went on strike in 1962 and 1969 over the Dual Division because they were dissatisfied with the segregation system. No one listened. The implementation of the Dual Track Program constituted the darkest chapter in the education of the deaf in Utah.
The Utah Deaf community and parents who supported sign language fought the "Y" system for nearly ten years, and no one listened. After the student strikes of 1962 and 1969, as well as opposition from the Parent Teacher Student Association, it fell on Ned C. Wheeler's shoulders, a 1933 USD graduate who served as chair of the USDB Governor's Advisory Council, to propose a new "Two-Track Program" to replace the "Y" system, which was sent to the Utah State Board of Education for final approval after it was approved. Finally, on December 28, 1970, the Utah State Board of Education authorized a new policy allowing the Utah School for the Deaf to operate a Two-Track Program, which Dr. Jay J. Campbell, a Deputy Superintendent of the Utah State Office of Education and an ally of the Utah Deaf community supervised. It was created to give parents the option of using either the oral or total communication method of instruction for their Deaf child aged 2 to 21 years (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011, Recommendations on Policy for the Utah School for the Deaf, 1970; Deseret News, December 29, 1970). However, parents were not given a clear picture of their child's educational and communication choices (Campbell, 1977). Inappropriate placement tactics were widely practiced despite policies issued by the Utah State Board of Education in 1970, 1977, and 1998 USDB Communication Guidelines requiring the USD to give parents a full variety of options.
On April 14, 1977, at the Utah School for the Deaf, Dr. Campbell presented his 200-page comprehensive study report to the Utah State Board of Education. He shared his findings and recommendations to improve USD's education through more equitable evaluation and placement systems. Dr. Bitter, a professor at the University of Utah at the time, spoke out against Dr. Campbell's research, claiming that it contained falsehoods and conclusions regarding the University of Utah's Teacher Education Program and educational programs throughout the state (G.B. Bitter, personal communication, March 6, 1978). Over 300 parents who supported oral applauded Dr. Bitter and Peter Viahos, an Ogden attorney and father of a Deaf daughter, as they presented (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, April 15, 1977).
On April 14, 1977, at the Utah School for the Deaf, Dr. Campbell presented his 200-page comprehensive study report to the Utah State Board of Education. He shared his findings and recommendations to improve USD's education through more equitable evaluation and placement systems. Dr. Bitter, a professor at the University of Utah at the time, spoke out against Dr. Campbell's research, claiming that it contained falsehoods and conclusions regarding the University of Utah's Teacher Education Program and educational programs throughout the state (G.B. Bitter, personal communication, March 6, 1978). Over 300 parents who supported oral applauded Dr. Bitter and Peter Viahos, an Ogden attorney and father of a Deaf daughter, as they presented (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, April 15, 1977).
Under Dr. Bitter's influence, these parents petitioned the Utah State Board of Education to suspend Dr. Campbell's comprehensive study, claiming that it was inconclusive. Because they were dissatisfied with Dr. Campbell's research findings, they demanded that he be fired from his position (Dr. Jay J. Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007). In addition to the approximately 300 parents in attendance, there were between 50 and 60 Deaf individuals in attendance as well. Dr. Bitter, a spokesperson for the oral advocates, proposed three options to Dr. Walter D. Talbot, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction: 1. Removing Dr. Campbell from his position, 2. Assigning him to another position, or 3. Requesting a grand jury investigation into the evidence demonstrating how oral Deaf individuals were being intimidated through some of the state's programs. Dr. Talbot responded to Dr. Bitter's appeal by announcing that the State Board had decided to reassign Dr. Campbell to a different position within the State Office of Education. The Deaf group became agitated, stomping their feet on the floor. Dr. Bitter said they were very emotional, and the meeting was wild. He was frightened he was going to be killed during the ordeal. Dr. Talbot indicated that those members of the Deaf community would have to leave the room (Grant Bitter: Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, March 17, 1987).
As a result, Dr. Campbell's plan came crashing down. His two-year study, which included recommendations for improving education through fair assessment and placement procedures, was buried and forgotten (Dr. Jay J. Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007). The trend at USD of establishing inappropriate placement procedures continued partly due to unshared information until the Parent Infant Program Orientation at USD was formed in 2010 under the administration of Superintendent Steven W. Noyce, an oral proponent and a long-serving teacher/director of the Utah School for the Deaf, to give fair, balanced options to parents of Deaf children. The changes in the PIP were finally taking place after being advocated by Dr. Campbell in the 1970s to develop an orientation that Dr. Bitter opposed. Despite the 2010 orientation, parents still had to choose between the two options. It was an "either/or" situation.
As a result, Dr. Campbell's plan came crashing down. His two-year study, which included recommendations for improving education through fair assessment and placement procedures, was buried and forgotten (Dr. Jay J. Campbell, personal communication, July 1, 2007). The trend at USD of establishing inappropriate placement procedures continued partly due to unshared information until the Parent Infant Program Orientation at USD was formed in 2010 under the administration of Superintendent Steven W. Noyce, an oral proponent and a long-serving teacher/director of the Utah School for the Deaf, to give fair, balanced options to parents of Deaf children. The changes in the PIP were finally taking place after being advocated by Dr. Campbell in the 1970s to develop an orientation that Dr. Bitter opposed. Despite the 2010 orientation, parents still had to choose between the two options. It was an "either/or" situation.
On February 10, 2011, a member of the USDB Advisory Council representing the Utah Deaf community, Jeff W. Pollock, requested that the guidelines titled "The National Agenda: Moving Forward on Achieving Educational Equality for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students" be implemented in USD to help solve the philosophical, placement, communication, and service delivery biases. One of the members of the Advisory Council wondered if the Deaf National Agenda was solely based on ASL. He said no; it focuses on the complete child and each child individually and supports both ASL and spoken language rather than "either/or" as the system is currently set up. Jeff then addressed Superintendent Noyce in the eyes and stated that the USD has reverted to the inefficient "Y" system of the last 30-40 years, with oral OR sign, and is not providing both ASL and LSL to parents who want both. Superintendent Noyce was deafeningly silent on the subject. It was when Michelle Tanner, the future USD Associate Superintendent, was brought in to take charge of this matter in 2014. More information is available in "The Creation of the Hybrid Program" section.
Despite the Two-Track Program, Dr. Bitter remained the dominant supporter of oralism and mainstreaming over the years. The USD alums were heartbroken to see the school and deaf education deteriorate as the number of Deaf students mainstreamed climbed. More on the mainstreaming movement can be found on the "Dr. Robert G. Sanderson's Mainstreaming Perspective" webpage.
Controversy with Dr. Grant B. Bitter,
an Impassioned Oral Advocate
an Impassioned Oral Advocate
Under the leadership of Dr. Grant B. Bitter, known as the "Father of Mainstreaming," Utah's movement toward mainstreaming evolved steadily in the 1960s throughout his mainstreaming campaign before the phrase became popular with the passage of Public Law 94-142, commonly known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, in 1975. He was a hard-core oralist and one of the top oral leaders in the country. As the father of a Deaf daughter, Colleen (b. 1954), he was also a powerful voice for oral and mainstream education. According to Dr. Stephen C. Baldwin, a Deaf man who served as the Total Communication Division Curriculum Coordinator at the Utah School for the Deaf in the 1970s, no one could match Dr. Bitter's persistent oral/mainstreaming philosophy. At every opportunity, Dr. Baldwin recalled his attacks on residential schools and his adamant opposition to the popular use of sign language in schools (Baldwin, 1990). Dr. Bitter campaigned for oral and mainstream education for Utah's Deaf and hard of hearing students and had a long-standing feud with the Utah Association for the Deaf, especially with Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, a Deaf community leader in Utah. Dr. Bitter and Dr. Sanderson were recognized as gigantic figures with animosity toward each other.
Over the years, Dr. Bitter had worked as a teacher and curriculum coordinator at the Extension Division School for the Deaf in Salt Lake City, as well as a curriculum coordinator for USD, a director, and a professor at the University of Utah's Department of Special Education's Oral Teacher Training Program, and coordinator of the Deaf Seminary Program under The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Utah.
The Implementation of the "Y" System
at the Utah School for the Deaf
at the Utah School for the Deaf
The Dual Track Program, commonly known as the "Y" System policy, was successfully pushed through USD by the Utah Council for the Deaf, founded by parents who campaigned for an oral method. Grant Bitter is believed to have been a member of this council. The oral mechanism was prioritized over the sign language approach at the USD. Superintendent Robert W. Tegeder of the USDB appeared to favor this transition away from sign language, which proved to be a disaster (The UAD Bulletin, Fall-Winter, 1962). This policy reform had also received endorsement from the Special Study Committee on Deaf Education (Wight, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, October 19, 1970). The Utah State Board of Education approved the dual-track educational system on June 14, 1962 (The Ogden Standard-Examiner, June 14, 1962). USD embraced the Dual Track Program, which meant that all students in the Primary Department started in the Oral Program and couldn't transfer to the Simultaneous Communication Program unless they had "failed" the Oral Program by the age of 11 or 6th grade.
When the Dual Track Program was created in the summer, USD's attitude toward potential teachers had shifted to oral. Speech became the primary mode of communication in the classroom for Deaf students. The USD administrators believed that the Dual Track Program offered benefits that a single track could not (The Utah Eagle, February 1968; Wight, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, October 19, 1970). According to USD, the Oral Program must have a " pure oral mindset." In 1968, the USD was one of the few residential schools in the country to offer an exclusively oral program in the primary department (elementary) (The Utah Eagle, February 1968). By 1973, USD was the only state in the United States to provide parents and Deaf students with both methods of communication through the Dual Track System (Laflamme, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, September 5, 1973).
Dr. Bitter exercised parental power and leverage to promote oralism in Deaf Education, finding it challenging for the Utah Association for the Deaf to combat him. After the Teacher Preparation Program in the Department of Special Education at the University of Utah closed in 1986, he retired in 1987 (Bitter, A Summary Report for Tenure, March 15, 1985). Even though Dr. Bitter passed in 2000, his legacy in deaf education continues.
Dr. Bitter exercised parental power and leverage to promote oralism in Deaf Education, finding it challenging for the Utah Association for the Deaf to combat him. After the Teacher Preparation Program in the Department of Special Education at the University of Utah closed in 1986, he retired in 1987 (Bitter, A Summary Report for Tenure, March 15, 1985). Even though Dr. Bitter passed in 2000, his legacy in deaf education continues.
Battling with Steven W. Noyce, an Oral Promoter
When Steven W. Noyce, a long-serving teacher and director of the Utah School for the Deaf, was elected superintendent of USDB by the Utah State Board of Education in 2009, the Utah Deaf community feared he would strive to carry Dr. Bitter's legacy endangering the ASL/English Bilingual program they fought hard to develop. The state board disregarded the protests of the Utah Deaf community.
Noyce was no stranger to the Utah Deaf Community. They were aware that he had attended the Oral Training Program at the University of Utah from 1965-1972, where he was mentored by Dr. Bitter (LinkedIn: Steven Noyce). On the recommendation of Ella Mae Lentz, co-founder of the Deafhood Foundation and well-known Deaf Education advocate, the Deaf Education Core Group was created in April 2010 to safeguard ASL/English Bilingual Education and campaign against inequality in the deaf education system through a Two-Track Program in Utah.
The Utah Deaf Education Core Group spent a year pushing to get Noyce out of his two-year contract from 2010 to 2011. The Utah State Board of Education ignored their political cries and voted to extend his contract for another two years. Two years later, in 2013, Noyce's contract was terminated. We are still trying to figure out why as of today.
Battling with Dr. Karl R. White, a Global Oral Motivator
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 intended to use Early Hearing Detection and Intervention (EHDI) programs in the United States and internationally to build an international database of causes of hearing loss and increase genetic services. Under his NCHAM leadership, his advancements in Listening and Spoken Language and cochlear implants have directly impacted the availability and accessibility of learning in American Sign Language (ASL) at the state schools for the deaf nationally and internationally.
Early Detection of Deafness in Newborns
Dr. Karl White had no experience with deaf education. However, he became interested in early hearing loss detection in newborns. He conducted clinical trials for newborn hearing tests between 1988 and 1993. His interest motivated him to establish the National Center for Hearing Assessment and Management, or NCHAM, in 1990. The National Institute of Health became interested in his studies. As a result, the NIH publicly announced in 1993 that all newborns should be screened for hearing loss. This screening program significantly improved the early detection of hearing loss in children across the United States, paving the way for the annual Conference on Early Hearing Detection and Intervention (EHDI) of the National Center for Hearing Assessment and Management at Utah State University in 2000 (National Center for Hearing Assessment and Management, Wikipedia). Dr. White found himself in high demand as a consultant for hospitals and health agencies in other states that requested to make newborn hearing screenings available to the public.
While traveling around the world as a consultant, Dr. White began noticing that Deaf and hard of hearing babies and toddlers who received a cochlear implant early in life and entered an early intervention and preschool program that focused on listening and speaking skills were able to function in a classroom without a hearing aid around the age of seven (Lambert, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, 2007, 4A). Based on his findings, Dr. White concluded that all babies with hearing loss may be surgically implanted with cochlear implants. They would not need to learn sign language or attend state schools for the deaf if they were engaged in a listening and spoken language program during infancy or toddlerhood. On May 3, 2007, he launched a preschool program on the Utah State University campus called Sound Beginnings for Deaf newborns and toddlers with cochlear implants despite opposition from the Deaf Logan community.
The Impact of Sound Beginnings on Deaf Education
Dr. White requested a $3 million grant from the Oberkotter Foundation to fund his listening and spoken language intervention, which was granted. This was the largest private foundation in America that focused on the LSL approach for children who are deaf or hard of hearing. Because of this significant support, this 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 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 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 for fear of it becoming a crutch and reducing the children's chances of mastering spoken English. This was Karl White's thinking: thinking that was not supported by linguistics research, thinking that was not validated by experts in the fields of language acquisition, thinking that did not consult with the professors of the Deaf Education Department of Utah State University, thinking that was done without reading any research in the growing field of bilingual linguistics. When the criticism began, Dr. White stated that children already using sign language in the program would not be ordered to stop (Lambert, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, 2007, 1A). He did not state that the child would eventually stop signing without a sign exchange.
Dr. White continued with his early intervention approach. If only he had checked first. According to a bilingual study, 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. He could have also discovered evidence that sign language supports and improves speech development (Graney, 1997).
Despite having no expertise or qualifications in this field, Dr. White severely impacted Utah's deaf education 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 clear line was that money talks.
He was asked to start a training program at the university for audiologists and speech-language therapists focusing on cochlear implant technology and techniques for using sound and language together in therapy. According to Kristen Mortensen's personal communication on June 26, 2009, USU provided financial support for the full-time teaching positions created for the new training program. These materials deprived of promoting a non-signing preschool education for young Deaf children. All this money was used to attract parents to enroll their children in his Sound Beginnings program by promising they would be taught to hear and talk.
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 for fear of it becoming a crutch and reducing the children's chances of mastering spoken English. This was Karl White's thinking: thinking that was not supported by linguistics research, thinking that was not validated by experts in the fields of language acquisition, thinking that did not consult with the professors of the Deaf Education Department of Utah State University, thinking that was done without reading any research in the growing field of bilingual linguistics. When the criticism began, Dr. White stated that children already using sign language in the program would not be ordered to stop (Lambert, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, 2007, 1A). He did not state that the child would eventually stop signing without a sign exchange.
Dr. White continued with his early intervention approach. If only he had checked first. According to a bilingual study, 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. He could have also discovered evidence that sign language supports and improves speech development (Graney, 1997).
Despite having no expertise or qualifications in this field, Dr. White severely impacted Utah's deaf education 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 clear line was that money talks.
He was asked to start a training program at the university for audiologists and speech-language therapists focusing on cochlear implant technology and techniques for using sound and language together in therapy. According to Kristen Mortensen's personal communication on June 26, 2009, USU provided financial support for the full-time teaching positions created for the new training program. These materials deprived of promoting a non-signing preschool education for young Deaf children. All this money was used to attract parents to enroll their children in his Sound Beginnings program by promising they would be taught to hear and talk.
The Utah Deaf community was astounded by Dr. Karl White's shortcomings. It was an insult to refer to sign language as a crutch. Viewing deafness as something to 'repair' was a denial of Deaf identity and culture. They are Deaf on multiple levels: cultural, societal, and linguistic. Dr. White's ideology did much to discount the Deaf as a people with a language. Considering Dr. White's degree in psychology, he appeared to be ignorant about the psychology of being Deaf. The Utah Deaf community, with all of its experience and expertise, was abruptly pushed out of the picture with no voice to share concerns or perspectives.
The Utah Deaf community questioned if Dr. White had ever considered the impact his Sound Beginnings program would have on the families of the children who were Deaf or hard of hearing who participated in it. Was he encouraging the parents to support any form of prejudice against the Deaf community? Was he dismissing the diversity of children in the program? Did he want to create a world without exception where everyone was the same? Was the program designed with the child's whole development in mind? The Sound Beginnings program's objectives were unacceptable to the Utah Deaf community.
The Utah Deaf community questioned if Dr. White had ever considered the impact his Sound Beginnings program would have on the families of the children who were Deaf or hard of hearing who participated in it. Was he encouraging the parents to support any form of prejudice against the Deaf community? Was he dismissing the diversity of children in the program? Did he want to create a world without exception where everyone was the same? Was the program designed with the child's whole development in mind? The Sound Beginnings program's objectives were unacceptable to the Utah Deaf community.
Conflict Arises
Dr. White's activities had an impact on the SKI-HI Institute and Deaf Mentor Outreach on the Utah State University campus, which American Sign Language services. Dr. Paula Pittman, Director of Outreach for the Deaf Mentor Program at the Ski-Hi Institute at Utah State University, expressed extreme dissatisfaction with the new movement. SKI-HI Institute was founded and 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, in Logan, Utah, in 1972. They focus on enhancing the lives of children with hearing loss and low vision. The institute's Deaf Mentor Program also works with families to communicate with their Deaf babies and toddlers through ASL. At the time, the SKI-HI Institute and its Deaf Mentor Outreach needed full-time personnel positions. When Dr. Pittman saw the Sound Beginnings program received at least three full-time positions from the university, she wondered if USU was responding to the influx of money from the Oberkotter Foundation or to the needs of its programs (Kristi Mortensen, personal communication, June 26, 2009).
Did You Know?
Millicent "Millie" Simmonds, a Deaf actress from Utah, lost her hearing as a baby. Emily, her mother, 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 created a necklace called "Millie ASL Mama" and collaborated with the Cut + Clarity company to sell it. One hundred percent of the profit goes to 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). See the link for more information: https://www.usu.edu/aggiefunded/past-projects/ski-hi
Professionals such as Dr. Paula Pittman and Dr. J. Freeman King were valued by the Utah Deaf community. What upset the Deaf adults were the misconceptions spreaded by so-called professionals such as Dr. Karl White and Dr. Todd Houston. The assertions about listening and spoken language for Deaf babies lacked research support and were misleading to hearing parents. The Utah Association for the Deaf criticized and refuted these misconceptions. Deaf adults are not unequivocally opposed to cochlear implants. The illusions claiming that cochlear implants can fix or cure deafness, as propagated by Sound Beginning professionals and others like them, disturbed Utah Deaf leaders and members of the Utah Deaf community (Lambert, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, 2007, 4A). Many hearing parents will buy this myth due to their naivety 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 the most important [end product] is access to language." "This can be achieved through the use of American Sign Language, whereby we are playing to the child's strength, which is vision, rather than their weakness, which is the inability to hear," he stated (Lambert, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, 2007, 1A).
"Speech should not be the end product of a Deaf child's education," Dr. King emphasized. It can be a valuable tool, but the most important [end product] is access to language." "This can be achieved through the use of American Sign Language, whereby we are playing to the child's strength, which is vision, rather than their weakness, which is the inability to hear," he stated (Lambert, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, 2007, 1A).
Dr. Todd Houston, a former director of the Alexander Graham Bell Association, has been appointed as the next director of Sound Beginnings. "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?" There is no time granted for guessing. There is no 'learning curve' to get it right. The crucial early years of language learning should not be lost while using this erroneous route.
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 of the Deaf Education Department at Utah State University. "We already have a strong sign-language program," she defended the inclusion. 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," Houston added. Many parents are increasingly opting for cochlear implants for their children, and these children require intentsive follow-up training and services to fully benefit from this technology" (KSL.com, April 28, 2007). What Foley and Houston fail to recognize or comprehend is the undeniable fact that Deaf and hard of hearing newborns and toddlers need a fully accessible language. Nobody knows what is being heard through a hearing aid. A cochlear implant is just a hearing aid implanted in the cochlea of the inner ear. Hearing parents understandably want to converse verbally with their Deaf or hard of hearing child. 95% of Deaf babies are born to hearing parents. Yet it is not as simple as these parents making a decision. Making a decision does not make it happen. Because a cochlear implant does not cure deafness, sign language is the most appropriate accommodation for Deaf children. The eyes of these children are ready for visual language. Their ears are not tuned in to hear spoken words. Parents must be informed of these realities and guided through the acceptance process.
When Sound Beginnings first opened its doors in 2007-2008, parents had various experiences. Taunya Paxton decided on cochlear implants for her deaf son. Her family concentrated nearly entirely on spoken English. She went on to say, "We would do sign language and he would…talk…." (Lambert, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, 1A & 4A, 2007). Jennifer Tingey, the mother of two deaf children, chose not to participate in the Sound Beginnings program. She was concerned by the presentation she attended because she felt the presenter brushed over the program's possible drawbacks. Tingey and her children decided on a total communication program (this program dissolved at the Utah School for the Deaf in 2008, leaving with two ASL/English and LSL options). She says, "They're getting speech and sign language so, when they're older, they….can choose whichever they would like." Tingey emphasized that the Sound Beginnings program does not use ASL in the classroom. "I see why they don't use ASL...If parents want [their child] to hear, but the child does not have the cochlear implant, how can you communicate with that child, since while the child is swimming or in the bathtub, the implant must be removed" (Lambert, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, 2007, 1A).
In light of Sound Beginnings' launch, the evolution of Utah's teacher-training programs overtime was briefly reviewed:
• Pre-1985: The Utah Association for the Deaf advocated for a Deaf Education college teacher's training program in a postsecondary institution in Utah that emphasized sign language.
• 1985: A new Deaf Education program at Utah State University was established with an emphasis on Total Communication expertise, using a pairing of sign language and speech, thanks to the Utah Association for the Deaf.
• Prospective teachers for the Deaf could enroll at USU for a Deaf Education degree or enroll in the University of Utah's Special Education program with a teaching endorsement for the Deaf and hard of hearing. UOU's program emphasized the Oral/Aural (non-signing) approach.
• 1991: The USU Deaf Education degree's Total Communication program was restructured into an American Sign Language/English bilingual program under Dr. J. Freeman King. By this time, there was research data to support ASL as the visual language that Deaf children needed.
• Early 1990s: A Multi-University Consortium agreement was established between the University of Utah, Utah State University, and Brigham Young University to offer classes in education and general undergraduate credits that would be recognized and accepted by the others when the prospective teacher of the Deaf needed to transfer to their actual Deaf Education program of choice.
• As of 2013, this multi-university consortium is still available at the University of Utah but no longer includes BYU (the website for the University of Utah, College of Education). As of 2013, their Special Education degree coursework requires American Sign Language classes for each prospective graduate. (Will update more later)
While Utah State University was establishing Sound Beginnings of Cache Valley in May 2007, several articles in the local Logan newspaper written by supporters of ASL/English Bilingual education raised concerns and perspectives regarding the preschool program. The concerns that concerned them were ignored. Sound Beginnings was having an impact on Deaf Education programs in Utah. It was also tearing a hole in the progress that had been made and hindering efforts toward providing an accessible language to Utah's Deaf babies.
To provide context, 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, went to the newly formed Henry C. White Educational Council to seek support from the larger Deaf community in this struggle. James and Susan were, however, told by them, "We are spreading too thin, and we can't support you as it is irrelevant to our mission." James and Susan warned them that the issue in Logan seems distant, but it is relevant to HCWEC's mission and purpose. They argued that the problem, beginning at USU, would become a statewide and eventually nationwide issue. Thus, deaf education was at stake. James and Susan petitioned this argument to HCWEC without success, and they left the meeting disappointed. They then led their campaign in Logan through a small Utah Deaf community there without success. They gave up the fight and concentrated on new ways to challenge the system. All of this turmoil spurred James to embark on a seven-year study of the Deaf Education system in Utah, and he eventually joined the UAD Education Committee, becoming its chairperson in 2013. As chairperson of this committee, he provided seven years' worth of study, data, statistics, and inventions of viable solutions to explore as a plan of action for the committee to pursue. It was rejected. James realized that his notes above might not be "counted," as they lack primary sources or evidence, but it was simply how it happened from his point of view. He emphasized that those who worked closely as part of USU's Bilingual-Bicultural Education program contributed so much behind the scenes in this effort. They were James' teachers, mentors, and advisors on his path dealing with his Deaf children's education and the Utah Deaf educational system, despite resistance from the Utah Deaf community (James Smith, personal communication, August 19, 2014).
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 of the Deaf Education Department at Utah State University. "We already have a strong sign-language program," she defended the inclusion. 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," Houston added. Many parents are increasingly opting for cochlear implants for their children, and these children require intentsive follow-up training and services to fully benefit from this technology" (KSL.com, April 28, 2007). What Foley and Houston fail to recognize or comprehend is the undeniable fact that Deaf and hard of hearing newborns and toddlers need a fully accessible language. Nobody knows what is being heard through a hearing aid. A cochlear implant is just a hearing aid implanted in the cochlea of the inner ear. Hearing parents understandably want to converse verbally with their Deaf or hard of hearing child. 95% of Deaf babies are born to hearing parents. Yet it is not as simple as these parents making a decision. Making a decision does not make it happen. Because a cochlear implant does not cure deafness, sign language is the most appropriate accommodation for Deaf children. The eyes of these children are ready for visual language. Their ears are not tuned in to hear spoken words. Parents must be informed of these realities and guided through the acceptance process.
When Sound Beginnings first opened its doors in 2007-2008, parents had various experiences. Taunya Paxton decided on cochlear implants for her deaf son. Her family concentrated nearly entirely on spoken English. She went on to say, "We would do sign language and he would…talk…." (Lambert, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, 1A & 4A, 2007). Jennifer Tingey, the mother of two deaf children, chose not to participate in the Sound Beginnings program. She was concerned by the presentation she attended because she felt the presenter brushed over the program's possible drawbacks. Tingey and her children decided on a total communication program (this program dissolved at the Utah School for the Deaf in 2008, leaving with two ASL/English and LSL options). She says, "They're getting speech and sign language so, when they're older, they….can choose whichever they would like." Tingey emphasized that the Sound Beginnings program does not use ASL in the classroom. "I see why they don't use ASL...If parents want [their child] to hear, but the child does not have the cochlear implant, how can you communicate with that child, since while the child is swimming or in the bathtub, the implant must be removed" (Lambert, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, 2007, 1A).
In light of Sound Beginnings' launch, the evolution of Utah's teacher-training programs overtime was briefly reviewed:
• Pre-1985: The Utah Association for the Deaf advocated for a Deaf Education college teacher's training program in a postsecondary institution in Utah that emphasized sign language.
• 1985: A new Deaf Education program at Utah State University was established with an emphasis on Total Communication expertise, using a pairing of sign language and speech, thanks to the Utah Association for the Deaf.
• Prospective teachers for the Deaf could enroll at USU for a Deaf Education degree or enroll in the University of Utah's Special Education program with a teaching endorsement for the Deaf and hard of hearing. UOU's program emphasized the Oral/Aural (non-signing) approach.
• 1991: The USU Deaf Education degree's Total Communication program was restructured into an American Sign Language/English bilingual program under Dr. J. Freeman King. By this time, there was research data to support ASL as the visual language that Deaf children needed.
• Early 1990s: A Multi-University Consortium agreement was established between the University of Utah, Utah State University, and Brigham Young University to offer classes in education and general undergraduate credits that would be recognized and accepted by the others when the prospective teacher of the Deaf needed to transfer to their actual Deaf Education program of choice.
• As of 2013, this multi-university consortium is still available at the University of Utah but no longer includes BYU (the website for the University of Utah, College of Education). As of 2013, their Special Education degree coursework requires American Sign Language classes for each prospective graduate. (Will update more later)
While Utah State University was establishing Sound Beginnings of Cache Valley in May 2007, several articles in the local Logan newspaper written by supporters of ASL/English Bilingual education raised concerns and perspectives regarding the preschool program. The concerns that concerned them were ignored. Sound Beginnings was having an impact on Deaf Education programs in Utah. It was also tearing a hole in the progress that had been made and hindering efforts toward providing an accessible language to Utah's Deaf babies.
To provide context, 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, went to the newly formed Henry C. White Educational Council to seek support from the larger Deaf community in this struggle. James and Susan were, however, told by them, "We are spreading too thin, and we can't support you as it is irrelevant to our mission." James and Susan warned them that the issue in Logan seems distant, but it is relevant to HCWEC's mission and purpose. They argued that the problem, beginning at USU, would become a statewide and eventually nationwide issue. Thus, deaf education was at stake. James and Susan petitioned this argument to HCWEC without success, and they left the meeting disappointed. They then led their campaign in Logan through a small Utah Deaf community there without success. They gave up the fight and concentrated on new ways to challenge the system. All of this turmoil spurred James to embark on a seven-year study of the Deaf Education system in Utah, and he eventually joined the UAD Education Committee, becoming its chairperson in 2013. As chairperson of this committee, he provided seven years' worth of study, data, statistics, and inventions of viable solutions to explore as a plan of action for the committee to pursue. It was rejected. James realized that his notes above might not be "counted," as they lack primary sources or evidence, but it was simply how it happened from his point of view. He emphasized that those who worked closely as part of USU's Bilingual-Bicultural Education program contributed so much behind the scenes in this effort. They were James' teachers, mentors, and advisors on his path dealing with his Deaf children's education and the Utah Deaf educational system, despite resistance from the Utah Deaf community (James Smith, personal communication, August 19, 2014).
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 later. The Henry C. White Educational Council, founded in 2006, consisted of Deaf individuals Jeff Pollock, Dan Mathis, Stephanie Mathis, Cynthia Plue, Trenton Marsh, Julio Diaz, and Jodi Becker Kinner, was dissolved in 2007 to join the Utah Association for the Deaf Board to support its mission, the UAD Education Committee to support the education causes of their choices, the USDB Institutional Council to oversee the Utah School for the Deaf, the USDB Legislative Task Force to update the Utah Code that regulated the school, and the Utah Deaf Education Core Group in an attempt to end then-USDB Superintendent Steven Noyce's two-year contract. Due to limited time and other obligations, particularly the challenges they faced with the merger of the Utah School for the Deaf and the Jean Massieu School of the Deaf in 2005 and its impact on the Utah Code's mainstreaming promotion and lack of a permanent school building, the HCWEC was closed.
Furthermore, creating the organization from the ground up required much work; they also stretched thin. At the time, the HCWEC members were either affiliated with the other organizations or had joined them to work within the inner system to bring about changes and improvements. While they worked within the system in Utah, the national Deaf community battled Dr. White on the outside by participating in legislative events to protect state schools for the deaf, participating in rallies outside of Early Hearing Detection and Intervention (EHDI) conferences, and registering EHDI conferences to push for ASL/English Bilingual education to be included on its agenda to balance with the LSL approach, and other activities.
Furthermore, creating the organization from the ground up required much work; they also stretched thin. At the time, the HCWEC members were either affiliated with the other organizations or had joined them to work within the inner system to bring about changes and improvements. While they worked within the system in Utah, the national Deaf community battled Dr. White on the outside by participating in legislative events to protect state schools for the deaf, participating in rallies outside of Early Hearing Detection and Intervention (EHDI) conferences, and registering EHDI conferences to push for ASL/English Bilingual education to be included on its agenda to balance with the LSL approach, and other activities.
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 scholarly, financially, politically, and legislatively impacted 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, his long-term focus is auditory and speech training. He was the chair of Early Childhood Education at Utah State University and a staff member of the Sound Beginning 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, his philosophy of pedagogy for Deaf children appears to be exclusive because he did not establish a mutual partnership with the Utah Deaf community, or rather, he refused to wholeheartedly invest in their input because they were the ones who have real-life linguistic and cultural experience in all aspects of growing up deaf.
Dr. White is being closely scrutinized by the National Association of the Deaf, the American Society for Deaf Children, the Deafhood Foundation, and the Deaf Bilingual Coalition 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.
Dr. White is being closely scrutinized by the National Association of the Deaf, the American Society for Deaf Children, the Deafhood Foundation, and the Deaf Bilingual Coalition 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.
The Closure of the ASL/English Bilingual Education at Utah State University
Coming soon!
The Implementation of the Hybrid Program
at the Utah School for the Deaf
at the Utah School for the Deaf
After over fifty years, the Utah School for the Deaf has finally found the necessary administrators in Joel Coleman, Superintendent, and Michelle Tanner, Associate Superintendent, who committed to providing an equal deaf educational system.
The Hybrid Program was finally created in August 2016 under the direction of Michelle Tanner, USD Associate Superintendent, enabling "unbiased collaboration" between the Listening & Spoken Language Program and the ASL/English Bilingual Program, better known as a personalized deaf education placement. More information can be found on the webpage "Dr. Robert G. Sanderson's Dream."
The Hybrid Program was finally created in August 2016 under the direction of Michelle Tanner, USD Associate Superintendent, enabling "unbiased collaboration" between the Listening & Spoken Language Program and the ASL/English Bilingual Program, better known as a personalized deaf education placement. More information can be found on the webpage "Dr. Robert G. Sanderson's Dream."
The Promotion of Language Equality
and Acquisition for Deaf Children (LEAD-K)
and Acquisition for Deaf Children (LEAD-K)
On a side note, California enacted Senate Bill 210 on October 8, 2015, as part of its ongoing efforts to promote the Deaf Child's Bill of Rights, passed in September of 1994. (California Department of Education, 1994; California Legislative Information, 2015). Deaf political activist Julie Rems-Smario, a former board member of the National Association of the Deaf and past president of the California Association of the Deaf, encourages the other 49 states to follow suit. All deaf and hard of hearing babies in California must have language acquisition exams every six months until they reach the age of five, according to this bill. The Senate Bill ensures that these youngsters are academically prepared for kindergarten (California Legislative Information, 2015; Deaf Nation, 2015; Endeavors, Fall 2015).
The Language Equality and Acquisition for Deaf Kids (LEAD-K) organization was founded shortly after Senate Bill 210 was passed. The LEAD-K campaign aims to ensure that deaf and hard of hearing children have equal access to language acquisition and literacy before they start kindergarten.
LEAD-K partnered with Nyle DiMarco's charity foundation, the "Nyle DiMarco Foundation," in 2016. He is the first Deaf winner of Cycle 22 of America's Next Top Model and Dancing with the Stars. In his video announcement, DiMarco said. "Through American Sign Language (ASL) and English, we will work together to raise awareness and understanding about the need to end language deprivation and provide resources and tools for early language learning."
"Early language acquisition equals a lifetime of success," said DiMarco (DiMarco, The Nyle DiMarco Foundation, August 18, 2016). The next generation of deaf and hard of hearing children will finally be able to get an appropriate and accessible education as the Utah Deaf community works to bring these same regulations to Utah.
"Early language acquisition equals a lifetime of success," said DiMarco (DiMarco, The Nyle DiMarco Foundation, August 18, 2016). The next generation of deaf and hard of hearing children will finally be able to get an appropriate and accessible education as the Utah Deaf community works to bring these same regulations to Utah.
The Establishment of the Deaf Education Advocacy Training Through the National Association
of the Deaf Education
of the Deaf Education
On another side note, the Utah Deaf community, particularly the USDB Advisory Council and the Utah Association of the Deaf, are strongly encouraged to participate in the Education Advocacy Training that was organized by Tawny Holmes Hlibok, a Deaf attorney who was affiliated with the National Association of the Deaf. In 2012, I participated in the first training offered by the National Association of the Deaf.
"History happens twice because people
don’t listen at the first time."
~http://www.coolnsmart.com~
don’t listen at the first time."
~http://www.coolnsmart.com~
Notes
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.
Kristi Mortensen, personal communication, June 26, 2009.
Marvin Miller, personal communication, July 15, 2011
Steven W. Noyce, personal communication, March 12, 2010.
Timothy Chevalier, personal communication, June 6, 2011.
Ursula Schultz, personal communication, February 12, 2012.
D.T. personal communication, April 26, 2011.
Jacob Dietz, personal communication, April 21, 2011.
James Smith, personal communication, August 19, 2014.
Kristi Mortensen, personal communication, June 26, 2009.
Marvin Miller, personal communication, July 15, 2011
Steven W. Noyce, personal communication, March 12, 2010.
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.
Baldwin, Stephen C. “Mainstreaming in retrospect: A Deaf Perception.” National Association of the Deaf (1990): 14-16.
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.
“CAD and SB 210 Senate Bill.” Deaf Nation, 2015. http://deafnation.com/news/cad-and-sb-210-senate-bill/
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.
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
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
DiMarco, Nyle. The Nyle DiMarco Foundation, August 18, 2016.
“Education of Deaf Stirs Debate; No Action Taken.” Ogden Standard-Examiner, April 15, 1977.
Graney, Sharon. “Where Does Speech Fit In? Spoken English in a Bilingual Context.” Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education Center, Gallaudet University, 1997.
Indiana School for the Deaf. 6News. June 7, 2011.
“In the News: Hands Waving Legislation.” The Endeavor, Fall 2015, p. 15.
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.
National Center for Hearing Assessment and Management, Wikipedia.
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/
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/
“Senate Bill No. 210.” California Legislative Information, October 8, 2015. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB210
Winters, Rosemary. “Utah Schools for the deaf grapple with balancing two tracks.” The Salt Lake Tribune, February 21, 2011.
Baldwin, Stephen C. “Mainstreaming in retrospect: A Deaf Perception.” National Association of the Deaf (1990): 14-16.
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.
“CAD and SB 210 Senate Bill.” Deaf Nation, 2015. http://deafnation.com/news/cad-and-sb-210-senate-bill/
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.
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
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
DiMarco, Nyle. The Nyle DiMarco Foundation, August 18, 2016.
“Education of Deaf Stirs Debate; No Action Taken.” Ogden Standard-Examiner, April 15, 1977.
Graney, Sharon. “Where Does Speech Fit In? Spoken English in a Bilingual Context.” Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education Center, Gallaudet University, 1997.
Indiana School for the Deaf. 6News. June 7, 2011.
“In the News: Hands Waving Legislation.” The Endeavor, Fall 2015, p. 15.
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.
National Center for Hearing Assessment and Management, Wikipedia.
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/
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/
“Senate Bill No. 210.” California Legislative Information, October 8, 2015. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB210
Winters, Rosemary. “Utah Schools for the deaf grapple with balancing two tracks.” The Salt Lake Tribune, February 21, 2011.