controversies surrounding communication/educational ... · by 1973, the utah school for the deaf...
TRANSCRIPT
Controversies Surrounding Communication/Educational Methods and Educational
Placement Regarding the Interpretation of “Least Restrictive Environment”
Compiled & Written By Jodi Becker Kinner Edited By Bronwyn O’Hara
2014
The Creation of the “Y” System
Since 1902, the Utah School for the Deaf (USD) had been utilizing a teaching
method where the deaf children were placed in an oral classroom environment which
prohibited signing. The children were, however, allowed to sign after school and in the
dormitories. This situation continued until the 1950’s. As these oral students moved into
the high school grades, they were allowed to sign in the classroom where deaf teachers
were employed (Celia May Baldwin, personal communication, April 15, 2012). It is
interesting to note that USD only hired teachers who were deaf to teach at the high school
level.
In 1962, USD announced a new policy. It was called the Dual Track Program but
was nicknamed the “Y” system. Similar to previous USD policy, all the deaf children
coming into the state school had to start in the Oral Division. But, by the time a child
turned 11 years old or was in 6th grade, another option opened up. At that time it was
made possible for the student to enter the Simultaneous Communication Division after
evaluation or by parental decision.
It seemed this new policy was the work of the Utah Council for the Deaf which
was formed by Dr. Grant B. Bitter, under the direction of USD Superintendent Tegeder.
Bitter had a following among parents who advocated the oral communication method and
they were successful in pushing this policy through USD (UAD Bulletin, Fall-Winter,
1962, p. 3).
Once this communication policy change was endorsed by USD, the Utah State
Office of Education formed a Special Study Committee on the Education of the Deaf.
This committee approved the USD Ogden campus as the place where the school
programs could be divided into two
completely separate divisions. This split
occurred once the students had completed the
elementary grades (Wight, Ogden Standard-
Examiner, October, 19, 1970).
It was the last meeting of the 1962
school year, before summer break, where the
Utah State Board of Education (USBE)
approved the two-track educational system at
USD (Ogden Standard-Examiner, June 14,
1962). This decision would be implemented
for the 1962-63 school term (The Utah Eagle,
February 1968).
In its defense, USD felt this Dual Track program or Y-system could provide
certain advantages that a one educational track could not offer. There was the feeling that
if all deaf children began in the Oral Track, they could begin working on their speech and
listening skills immediately. Otherwise, this philosophy believed, the deaf children would
never put the work into mastering these spoken and listening skills if they were allowed
to sign from a young age.
By 1968, USD was one of the very few state residential schools that offered an
entirely oral program (The Utah Eagle, February 1968).
To recap, in 1962, USD had two communication divisions for deaf instruction.
One was called the Simultaneous Communication Division which carried out instruction
Dr. Grant B. Bitter
via the manual alphabet, signing, spoken English, and speech reading. The other division
was called the Oral Division which provided a spoken atmosphere relying heavily on
amplified sound with the use of spoken English and speech-reading skills. USD
emphasized that the Oral Division must follow the “pure oral” philosophy and not ever
allow any manual signing (The Utah Eagle, February 1968). It should be mentioned that
these policy changes were initiated by USD administration and not by the Utah State
Office of Education. It was only after the changes were endorsed by USD that the State
Office of Education ratified and approved them.
Because of the previous shift in policy as mentioned above, most students were
placed in the oral division while a few students continued in the simultaneous
communication division. This was the beginning of student segregation. When it came
time to assess whether a student should continue in the Oral Track, it was through a
committee review of the student’s first 6 years of school performance and test results that
determined if that student should continue in the Oral program or should transfer to the
Simultaneous Communication Division (The Utah Eagle, February 1968; Wight, Ogden
Standard-Examiner, October, 19, 1970).
Oddly enough it was the USD Extension Satellite program in the Salt Lake area
that pushed for this Dual Track program. Nearly as large as the residential school itself,
the Salt Lake satellite program was entirely oral (Ogden Standard-Examiner, October, 19,
1970). If parents did not wish their child to be placed in an exclusively oral deaf
education placement, they had to wait until the child turned 11 or was in 6th grade before
the Simultaneous Communication option was available (The Utah Eagle, February 1968).
The high numbers of USD oral students in the Salt Lake area greatly influenced the
course the residential school in Ogden was taking.
This new policy created a new need. When the Dual Track Program was initiated
in August 1962, the qualifications for prospective teachers for USD changed. The school
sought a greater number of teachers with training in the oral methods of teaching deaf
children. Not only must the teacher candidate have a diploma in Deaf Education from an
accredited college/university but those hired for the Oral Program also had to have
special accreditation and have experience working in oral deaf education. Simultaneous
Communication teachers also needed a Deaf Education degree with special preparation in
sign language and finger spelling (The Utah Eagle, February 1968).
The University of Utah stepped forward, with Dr. Bitter’s help, to provide a new
teacher training program in the oral methods for teachers of the deaf. The purpose of this
new program was to bring relief to Utah’s critical oral/aural teacher shortage
(Christopulus, The Utah Eagle, November 1962). The University of Utah took the lead in
training the oral/aural techniques required. By comparison, Gallaudet College in
Washington, D.C. maintained itself as a source of information and guide for the
Simultaneous Communication Division (The Utah Eagle, February 1968).
There seemed to be a great deal of similarity between the new program in place at
USD and the Lexington School for the Deaf in New York City. Dr. Bitter graduated from
Columbia University and this university had a working relationship with the Lexington
School. Could there be some persuasive influence here?
By 1973, the Utah School for the Deaf was the only state school in the union to
have both instructional modalities of sign and spoken language offered to students
(Laflamme, Ogden Standard-Examiner, September 5, 1973).
The 1962 Student Protest
Backing up to the end of the 1962 school year, remember, the Utah State Board of
Education had just approved the Dual Track Program. Over the summer the Ogden
campus was quickly divided into an Oral Division and Simultaneous Communication
Division, each with its separate classrooms, dormitory facilities, recess times, and extra-
curricular activities (The Utah Eagle, February 1968; Ogden Standard-Examiner,
October, 19, 1970). The only exception was the athletic program. Because each division
did not have enough students for their own athletics, it was necessary to combine the
students for their competitive sports schedule (The Utah Eagle, February 1968).
All these changes had been done without the deaf students’ awareness of what
would be happening for the 1962-63 school year. When the first day of school dawned
that seemingly normal August day, the students were surprised with what had taken place
at their school (Ogden Standard-Examiner, June 14, 1962; Diane Williams, personal
communication, 2007). The changes created an intense protest among the older USD
students. In addition, there arose a great deal of controversy between veteran teachers at
USD and the deaf community (Jeff Pollock, personal communication, May 4, 2005).
More than half the high school students held a spontaneous strike that very day on
the USD-Ogden campus (Jeff Pollock, personal communication, May 4, 2005). Johnny
Murray emerged as a leader in protesting the changes (Ronald Burdett, personal
communication, 2007). Looking back, he
remembered a strange visit from Tony
Christopoulos, principal of the Utah School
for the Deaf and oral advocate, to his home
shortly before school started. Tony asked
John’s parents if they would like to place
him in the oral program. Apparently John’s
parents didn’t give Tony an answer
because, after Tony left, they asked John if
he wanted to enroll in the oral program. He
said, “No.” They probably conveyed that
information to Tony as they respected their
son‘s decision. The reason behind this
unusual visit became clear to John only
after school had started (Johnny Murray,
personal communication, August 14, 2009). Because the new policy change included the
criteria of parent-preference-for-placement, it seemed that the administration contacted
all the parents to find out their preferences. Those who were naïve or ignorant regarding
Johnny Murray
their deaf child’s learning style or best instructional choice for their deaf child were
willing to follow the administration’s lead and put their children into the Oral program. It
seemed most of the parents did not ask their children what they wanted, like the Murrays
did.
Following these hastily-gathered parental permissions prior to school start-up that
fateful August of 1962, the students were compelled to be or, to use a bolder word, forced
to be separated into the Oral and Simultaneous Communication Divisions. An invisible
wall was immediately imposed upon the students
that had not existed before. Now deaf students in
the oral division were not allowed to interact with
deaf students in the signing division. Best friends,
who were unlucky enough to be in separate
programs, were denied access to each other during
class time or recess. If high school sweethearts
were placed in separate programs, they were
forbidden to interact with each other on the school
campus.
To add to the concern over what else the
dual track program would mess up, the students
feared they would also lose their well-respected
and well-loved deaf teachers: Donald Jensen, Jerry Taylor, Kenneth C. Burdett (father of
USD sophomore, Ronald Burdett) and Dora B. Laramie (mother of USD sophomore,
Celia Mae Laramie Baldwin) (Johnny Murray, personal communication, August 14,
2009; Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011).
Senior, Johnny Murray, president of the Student Council, spearheaded a protest
among the students. He had the backing of the twenty-five high school students who were
in the Simultaneous Communication Program (Ogden Standard Examiner, September 14,
1962). For a week, Johnny and the other students worked diligently to make protest
Tony Christopoulos
posters. They used shoe polish to write their message and wooden sticks to hold them up.
None of the USD teachers, including the four deaf teachers, were aware of their plan to
strike (Nellie Sausedo, personal communication, 2007).
The secret preparations were completed. The students did not show up for classes
on Friday, September 14, 1962 at 8:30 A.M., after attending the seminary class of the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints taught by G. Leon Curtis. The students
wanted the teachers to know they were there,
so they appeared in their classroom doorways
for a moment and then left (Ogden Standard
Examiner, September 14, 1962). They went to
the old gym where they picked up their posters
and marched onto the USD campus. Some of
the placards asked for a meeting with the State
Board of Education (Ogden Standard
Examiner, September 14, 1962).
During the protest, Ron spotted his
father, Kenneth C. Burdett, standing off to the
side. Kenneth smiled a little because he
understood the reason for the protest but he
didn’t feel he could actively participate because
he wanted to protect his job (Ronald Burdett, personal communication, 2009). Some
hearing teachers were disgusted and astonished at the students. They thought the high
schoolers were being silly to go on strike. One teacher, Thomas VanDrimmelen, was so
upset that he attempted to pull Celia May Laramie Baldwin out of the march. Her mother,
Dora B. Laramie, ran to stop him, yelling, “Don’t touch C.M.! Let her go!” (Nellie
Sausedo, personal communication, 2007).
Kenneth C. Burdett
Around noon, nobody knew where the students were (Ogden Standard Examiner,
September 14, 1962). The students left the USD campus and walked to Lorin Farr Park.
They hid behind trees while two teachers drove
around looking for them. The students thought
to escape to a movie theatre but, at 10 am, it
was closed. The group then went to hang out in
the Burdett’s backyard. Being hungry, they
chipped in their money and sent someone to
the local grocery store on 26th and Quincy
Avenue to buy cookies and punch for their
lunch (Nellie Sausedo, personal
communication, 2007; Ronald Burdett,
personal communication, 2007).
When Kenneth C. Burdett returned
home from work, he was astonished to find the students at his home. Concerned for their
safety, he quickly brought them back to USD. The students went home from there for the
weekend (Ronald Burdett, personal communication, 2007).
The following Monday, Johnny and a few other students were called in to meet
with Superintendent Robert W. Tegeder. When he asked why they went on strike, the
students countered with questions of their own: “Why do we have two departments on the
school campus?” and “Why does the Oral Department
have more students than the Simultaneous
Communication Department?”
The Superintendent was obligated at the time
to endorse the new policy. He had no other answer for
them than "Oh well!"
The students expressed to him their deep
Dora B. Laramie
Thomas VanDrimmelen
distress and disappointment over this policy where the oral and simultaneous
communication students were being split up into separate dormitories, dining rooms,
physical education classes, cooking classes, sewing classes, printing classes, workshop
classes, and various events. The students
missed the old way where everyone was all
together. The students explained they were
protesting the restrictions on their signing.
They felt the situation had become
intolerable. No one listened (Nellie Sausedo,
personal communication, 2007)
After the student strike and protest,
USD principal, Tony Christopoulos, told the
Ogden Standard Examiner newspaper that he
thought the strike was the result of some
unhappy parents. He felt the parents had
influenced the students to pull that stunt. He
told the reporter that the 52 deaf students of
the same age group who were in the Oral Program did not participate in the strike. It was
the smaller deaf student group from the Simultaneous Communication program who were
dissatisfied with the changes (Ogden Standard Examiner, September 14, 1962). The latter
group of students wanted everyone together as before and had not acted under the
direction of any disgruntled parents.
The oral advocates suspected that the UAD was behind the plan for the 1962
student strike. The Utah State Board of Education investigated but failed to see the
connection between the students and the UAD (Sanderson, UAD Bulletin, Summer
1963). Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, UAD president (1960-63), denied having anything to do
with it. He stated that the strike was spontaneous – a reaction of the students against
conditions, restrictions, and personalities which they felt had become intolerable (7).
UAD noted, in the Fall-Winter 1962 UAD Bulletin issue, that they supported a fair test of
Superintendent Robert W. Tegeder
the two-track or dual program at the Utah School for the Deaf as a classroom matter.
However, they had a strong disapproval of the
attempt at complete social segregation,
interference with religious activities, crippling
of the sports program, and the severe
pressure on the children in the oral department
to enforce the “no signing” rule (UAD
Bulletin, Fall-Winter 1962, p. 2-3). The
implementation of dual tracking constituted the
darkest chapter in the education of the deaf in
Utah.
The Negative Impact of the “Y” System
Despite the student protest, the “Y” system was officially established at the Utah
School for the Deaf, both at the residential school in Ogden and the satellite schools
throughout the Salt Lake area. As all deaf and hard-of-hearing children had to start in the
oral program at the age of 3 years old, this was the entry point, much like the stem of the
letter, ‘Y‘. There were no other options from which parents could choose. If, after 6-8
years of working within the oral program, there was failure on the part of the student to
achieve good speech and listening skills, then the deaf child was transferred to the
simultaneous communications program. This transition happened during the middle
school ages, that is, between 10-12 years old (First Reunion of the Utah School for the
Deaf Alumni, 1976). While some students successfully continued in the oral program,
others were shifted to the signing program. This became like the arms of the ‘Y’, as the
Dr. Robert G. Sanderson
children were branched off into the one or the other program. During the middle school
years, the parents could also decide to place
their children in the signing program but they
had to wait until then to move them out of the
Oral Division (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal
communication, May 14, 2011).
Barbara Bass, who is deaf and
formerly taught at USD, explained, “This
physical and methodological separation of the
students created wide and painful
repercussions: classmates were isolated from
one another; many teachers lost friendships
with colleagues over philosophical disagreements; and administrators [who managed
both programs] found it difficult to divide their loyalties” (Bass, 1982).
Barbara Bass
Notes
Celia May Baldwin, personal interview, April 15, 2012.
Diane Williams, personal communication, 2007.
Jeff Pollock, personal communication, May 4, 2005.
Johnny Murray, personal communication, August 14, 2009.
Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011.
Nellie Sausedo, personal communication, 2007.
Ronald Burdett, personal communication, 2007.
Ronald Burdett, personal communication, 2009.
Bibliography
Bass, Barbara. “Profile: Teacher Dora Laramie. “Perspectives for Teachers of the
Hearing Impaired, vol. 1, no.1.” (September 1982).
Christopulos, Tony. “Utah School for the Deaf Announces Program Change.” The Utah Eagle, vol. 74, no. 2 (November 1962): 1 & 6.
“Deaf School Students on ‘Strike.’” Ogden Standard Examiner,1B, September 14, 1962.
First Reunion of the Utah School for the Deaf Alumni, 1976.
Laflamme, Lon. “Two Methods for Teaching Deaf Offered.” Ogden Standard Examiner, September 5, 1973.
“New Developments in Utah’s Educational Programs for the Deaf.” The Utah Eagle, vol.
79, no. 5 (February 1968): 13 – 15. Sanderson, Robert G. “The President’s Corner.” UAD Bulletin vol., no. (Fall-Winter
1962): 2-3
“Two-way program to be instituted this fall at Utah School for the Deaf.” Ogden Standard-Examiner, June 14, 1962.
“Utah Council for the Deaf.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 2, no. 8 (Fall-Winter 1962): 3.
Wight, Ray. “Deaf Teaching Methods Debated.” Ogden Standard-Examiner, October 19,
1970.