Signs versus Whispers: The Methods debate within Deaf Education in Historical Perspective
with the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind (FSDB) as a case study.
Melissa Klatzkow
Klatzkow 2
Table of Contents:
Introduction: 3
Chapter One: Prelude to the oralist movement: 9
Chapter Two: The Changes In Sentiments: 16
Chapter Three: The “Rise” of Oralism: 23
Chapter Four: The Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind; St. Augustine: 33
Epilogue: 51
Conclusion: 57
Glossary: 63
Bibliography: 64
Klatzkow 3
Introduction
Mr. and Mrs. Cole were like any couple, living in a typical town at the turn of the century. They lived in an average house and worked normal jobs. They attended church and were, for all intents and purposes, model citizens. Several years into their marriage, they had a daughter they named Susan. At first, the Coles’ were delighted—they had wanted a child for some time now—but soon they began noticing that their daughter was developmentally behind.
Mrs. Cole noticed it first. She realized that, where her friend’s babies had begun to babble, her own was silent. At first, she brushed it off and decided to ignore it, but as Susan grew older and no speech became apparent, the Coles’ concern grew. Eventually, they took Susan to a doctor, only to have their worst fears confirmed—Susan was deaf. This shocked the Coles—neither had a deaf relative and Susan had always been very healthy. Their doctor began telling them about how their daughter would enter a residential school, where she would have little contact with them for most of the year. The Coles began worrying that their daughter would belong to a different world than their own and asked to know what they could do to make Susan’s life easier.
Their doctor recommended oralism and the Coles, excited by the prospect of hearing their daughter speak, began looking for a program.
The story above is fictional. It does, however, represent a common story. Prior to modern medicine, the causes of deafness were not always readily apparent. What was apparent, however, was that a deaf child could be born to any family. Deafness could be present at birth, or it could afflict a person in childhood or even in adulthood. Hearing parents, filled with hopes and dreams for their newborn child would, often gradually, realize that their infant son or daughter was not reacting to sound or learning to speak properly. Other parents would rear a perfectly normal child until illness or accident struck, deafening that child. In some cases, deaf children were born to Klatzkow 4 deaf parents. In many cases, deaf children were born to hearing parents. Deafness has always existed.1 What has changed is how society treats and educates (or does not educate) deaf individuals. Where the early and mid-1800s witnessed the genesis of American deaf education, the turn of the century would witness a revolution in that system.
This paper will consider the historical context of deaf education before introducing a case study. This establishes the rhetoric and national trends before analyzing how the case study followed, or, as this paper will show, deviated from national trends. This case study of the
Florida School for the Deaf and Blind (FSDB) reveals that, while following many of the national trends in methodology, FSDB adopted anti-sign language rhetoric significantly later than the nations average.
In the late 1800s deaf educators were profoundly divided over two different methods of education—the oral method and the combined method. The oral method was not new—it had been practiced in Europe for decades—but it had failed to take root in the Unites States.
However, in the late 1800s, the method became increasingly popular. Oralists, in general, believed that deaf children should be taught to speak and read lips and that sign language of any form should be banned.2 The combined method was, in many ways, a compromise. This method sought to educate the deaf with oral methods, but acknowledged that there was a portion of the deaf population who could not benefit from these methods. Proponents of the combined method compromised by allowing a manual method to be used by those deaf students who had failed to learn the oral method. This method, however, frequently changed and in its meaning.3
1 Susan Burch, Signs of Resistance: American Deaf Cultural History, 1900 to World War II (New York University Press, 2002), 134–138. 2 Richard Winefield, Never the Twain Shall Meet : Bell, Gallaudet, and the Communications Debate, 15th ed. (Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press, 1987), 2–8. 3 Douglas Baynton, Forbidden Signs : American Culture and the Campaign Against Sign Language (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), 26. Klatzkow 5
This paper will look at these historical trends in deaf education and focus on residential schools. It will begin with a brief history of deaf education. This history will begin in Europe.
Though the European aspect of this paper will be brief, it is essential in the discussion of the methods debate because these debates and the philosophy surrounding them were first articulated by Europeans. Abbe Charles Michel de l’Eppe began the first school designed to teach poor deaf children in the 18th century. This school used a style of sign language that l’Eppe created using a native sign language as a base and altering it to fit French grammar more closely. The oral method was largely pioneered by Samuel Heinicke of Germany in the 18th century. Heinicke believed that oralism was manadatory because speech was necessary for thought. He believed that oralism needed to be pure—there could be no sign language involved. Though his rhetoric would be used later in history, his methods were lost due to secrecy. l’Eppe and Heinicke’s debates and the rhetoric surrounding them would set the parameters for the later debate.4 The paper will then turn to a discussion of deaf life in America, beginning with a discussion of the lives of deaf individuals before the 1800s, to the first attempts at deaf schools.
After setting up the historical background of deaf education, this paper will then turn to the pedagogical ideals that drove the changes in methods in the second half of the 19th century.
Forces such as progressivism, Darwinism and eugenics combined to increase the influence of oral education on the masses and replace the original religious based justifications for deaf education.5 Oralism did not succeed without intense debate. Understanding the debate requires an examination of the two men who led the debates—Edward Gallaudet and Alexander Graham
4 Winzer, Margret A., The History of Special Education: From Isolation to Integration (Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press, 1993), 48–56. 5 Burch, Signs of Resistance, 7–14; Baynton, Forbidden Signs, 36–41; Susan Burch, “Reading Between the Signs: Defending Deaf Culture In Early Twentieth-Century America,” in The New Disability History: American Perspectives, ed. Paul K. Longmore and Lauri Umansky (New York: New york University Press, 2001), 216; Winefield, Never the Twain Shall Meet : Bell, Gallaudet, and the Communications Debate, 82. Klatzkow 6
Bell. Gallaudet spent his career arguing for both manualism and oralism in the classroom and
Alexander Graham Bell advocated for pure oralist education.6 This paper will also look at, however briefly, the way the Deaf community reacted to the changes in the residential schools to try to determine the scope of influence they had on national changes.
This paper will also examine the medicalization of deafness. Increasingly by the mid 19th century, society began to define pathologies based on what was not “normal.” Deafness was not considered normal and was thus looked at in a pathological sense of needing to be normalized— oralists considered their methods a solution.7 Medicalization, along with oralism, was greatly aided by the advent of specific technologies. Audiograms and hearing aids, in all their various forms, would greatly support oralist education by increasing the efficacy of oralism for some, but those without residual hearing received no benefit.8
Secondary sources, however, only go so far in describing the day-to-day lives of deaf children. The primary research will focus on the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind
(FSDB) in an attempt to determine how it relates to the historical trends. FSDB is an unusual deaf school, in that it was formed after the debates for oralism had begun. By the 1880’s, most states had their own deaf school, but Florida did not open FSDB until 1885.9 Indeed, FSDB would also be a combined school for the deaf, blind, and black (the school was segregated).10
This section of the paper will begin with a brief historical outline of the school’s foundation. It will then examine the rhetoric of school administrators and how the viewed the education of their
6 Winefield, Never the Twain Shall Meet : Bell, Gallaudet, and the Communications Debate, 4, 33–36. 7 Jan Branson and Miller, Don, Damned for Their Difference the Cultural Construction of Deaf People as “Disabled” : a Sociological History (Washington D.C.: Gallaudet, 2002), 39, 87, 170. 8 Burch, “Reading Between the Signs: Defending Deaf Culture In Early Twentieth-Century America,” 216; Branson and Miller, Don, Damned for Their Difference the Cultural Construction of Deaf People as “Disabled,” 200–201. 9 Douglas Mikutel, “From ‘Silence and Darkness’: Historical Origins of the Florida School for the Deaf and Blind” (Florida State University, 2004), 50; “How I Came to Found the Florida School: An Address by Thos. H. Coleman Before the Florida Association of the Deaf at Its 1920 Meeting”, May 1923, 116–117. 10 Mikutel, “From ‘Silence and Darkness’: Historical Origins of the Florida School for the Deaf and Blind,” 34–35, 41. Klatzkow 7 students. For the period this paper will cover (in the case of FSDB 1885 through 1950) the school taught students using the combined method. There was a significant shift in the mid-
1920’s that demonstrates that, while eventually utilizing the negative rhetoric towards sign language that was common nationally, FSDB’s oralist stance did not shame or forbid sign language until much later in the historical context, revealing a significant delay in anti-manual rhetoric.11
While FSDB displayed a delay in anti-sign language discussion, it proved to be consistent with many of the educational trends nationally. Possibly owing to its late foundation and the influence of a deaf founder, FSDB relied on a combined system from the beginning.12 There was an early focus on a vocational education and FSDB stressed in its mission statement that oral methods would be used until they proved insufficient.13 This emphasis on oralism would grow in importance after the 1920’s, once more showing that major rhetorical shifts occurred later in the school’s history than they did nationally. Thus, the primary research shows that FSDB was consistent in many national education practices, but not so when compared to the national rhetoric.14
The conclusion of this paper will briefly look at the modern communication debate in deaf education, because this debate is founded on many of the same oralist principles of earlier deaf education. The contemporary debate now often focuses on the use of cochlear implants, which are devices designed to promote speech—just like oral methods.15 The device is implanted
11 The Florida School Herald 1907-1950; Biennial Reports of the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind 1914- 1950 12 Mikutel, “From ‘Silence and Darkness’: Historical Origins of the Florida School for the Deaf and Blind,” 49. 13 Walker, Albert H., “Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind,” The Florida School Herald, November 1907, back of front cover; Woodward, Calvin M., “Manual Training,” The Florida School Herald, November 1907, 11. 14 Biennial Reports 1914-1950; The Florida School Herald 1907-1950 15 Brenda Brueggemann, Lend Me Your Ear Rhetorical Constructions of Deafness (Washington D.C.: Gallaudet University Press, 1999), 135–139. Klatzkow 8 before the age of one and intense speech therapy follows. These methods are often pushed by hearing parents. Today, 83% of deaf children are born to hearing parents and many profoundly deaf children are receiving cochlear implants (which artificially allow for hearing by bypassing the cochlea to induce sound into the brain).16 Thus, this paper concludes by looking at how the debate has shifted to incorporate new technology and the controversies surrounding it.
16 Deborah Smith and Naomi Tyler, Introduction to Special Education: Making a Difference, 7th ed. (Upper Saddle River N.J.: Merrill, 2010), 340, 346–347. Klatzkow 9
Chapter One: Prelude to the oralist movement: the history of deaf education
in the Americas and in Europe
Inequality has long been a fact of history. Sometimes, this inequality has little rationale behind it, but often there is an individual characteristic that causes societies to treat one group significantly different then another. In the course of history, disability, in all its various forms, has been a common and “prevalent justifications for inequality.”17
One of these disabilities is deafness. The word “deaf” is defined, by the Oxford English
Dictionary, as “Lacking, or defective in, the sense of hearing.”18 While this definition appears to be rather ahistorical—dividing the deaf from the hearing by lack of a sense—the concept of deafness is more complex in nature and subject to change over the course of time as the meaning deafness itself changes. This is because the concept of deafness can been seen as both a lack of hearing and a “cultural construction.”19
Though earlier thinkers such as Socrates and Aristotle looked at the malady of deafness,20 the first recorded efforts to educate the deaf began in early modern Spain. The Spanish faced a peculiar problem—a significant number of Spanish noblemen were being born deaf and, without speech, these children could not legally inherit family lands and fortunes. A Benedictine monk named Pedro Ponce de Leon (1520-1584) met this need by serving as a special education teacher. Though his method is largely unknown, he apparently taught his pupils how, among
17 Douglas Baynton, “Disability and the Justification of Ineqaulity in American History,” in The New Disability History: American Perspectives, ed. Paul K. Longmore and Lauri Umansky (New York: New York University Press, 2001), 33–57. 18 “Deaf, Adj. : Oxford English Dictionary,” OED: Oxfore English Dictionary, n.d., http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/47690?rskey=YdrB10&result=1&isAdvanced=false#eid. 19 Baynton, Forbidden Signs, 1–2. 20 Winefield, Never the Twain Shall Meet : Bell, Gallaudet, and the Communications Debate, 4. Klatzkow 10 other things, to speak.21 His recognition that “disability did not hinder learning” marks him as the
“first successful special educator.”22
Differing methods of deaf education existed from the beginnings of the practice. The first book discussing a method of deaf education can be traced to 1620 and was written by Juan Pablo
Bonet.23 Unlike Pedro Ponce de Leon, Bonet believed in using oral methods to educate his pupils so that they “could be successfully integrated with hearing society.”24 His educational method focused on speech and literacy, but he did not teach his pupils to speech-read because he saw this method as implausible.25 However, unlike true oralists, Bonet did not separate his oral education method from manualism. He utilized signs, especially a signed alphabet, to educate his pupils.
However, Bonet’s methods were “long-term, individualized, and costly,” thus limiting accessibility and practicality.26
Though there were other educators for the deaf after Pedro Ponce de Lion and Juan Pablo
Bonet, it was not until the Enlightenment in the 18th century that special education movements for the deaf began in earnest.27 Before this time, there were limited efforts to educate the deaf and
“efforts touched the lives of very few deaf people.”28 Educators such as Abbe Charles Michel de l’Eppe would change that.29
In 1755, Abbe de l’Eppe founded the first school for the deaf in Paris, France. Abbe de l’Eppe hoped to educate the deaf for religious purposes—he viewed this education as necessary
21 Winzer, Margret A., The History of Special Education: From Isolation to Integration, 31–32; Winefield, Never the Twain Shall Meet : Bell, Gallaudet, and the Communications Debate, 4–5. 22 Winzer, Margret A., The History of Special Education: From Isolation to Integration, 31–32. 23 Ibid., 32; John Van Cleve and Barry Crouch, A Place of Their Own : Creating the Deaf Community in America (Washington D.C.: Gallaudet University Press, 1993), 12. 24 Van Cleve and Crouch, A Place of Their Own, 12. 25 Ibid., 12–15. 26 Winefield, Never the Twain Shall Meet : Bell, Gallaudet, and the Communications Debate, 5. 27 Winzer, Margret A., The History of Special Education: From Isolation to Integration, 32–37, 39. 28 Ibid., 36. 29 Ibid., 48–52. Klatzkow 11 to get deaf children to know God and thus save their souls.30 His school was formed to service
“poor deaf children” in France—a class of children who would never have had access to private tutoring.31 When Abbe de l’Eppe began searching for a method of educating the deaf, he was drawn to sign language. Fortunately, there was no need for Abbe de l’Eppe to completely develop his own sign language. Rather, he utilized the rudimentary sign his students were already using when attempting to communicate, editing the language to correspond with French grammar so that the sign language would be closer to a manual equivalent of spoken French. He included a manual alphabet to the sign language. Abbe de l’Eppe reasoned that sign language was the natural language of the deaf.32
Abbe de l’Eppe’s method of deaf education was challenged by Samuel Heinicke’s (1729-
1790) very different form of teaching. Heinicke began teaching in his native Germany in 1778.
He believed in oral education and rejected sign language in its entirety.33 In teaching, Heinicke had the “stated goal of integrating them [deaf students] into German society”34 and wanted “to enable his pupils to communicate orally…to understand others, and be understood by them.”35
While rejecting sign language as a teaching strategy, his particular oralist methods remain unknown.36
Abbe de l’Eppe and Heinicke had open, written debates on their methods of education, both believing that their method was superior to the other. They are notable because their debates would serve as the foundation for the oralist/manualist debates. These debates frequently
30 Winefield, Never the Twain Shall Meet : Bell, Gallaudet, and the Communications Debate, 5. 31 Winzer, Margret A., The History of Special Education: From Isolation to Integration, 49. 32 Ibid., 49–51; Winefield, Never the Twain Shall Meet : Bell, Gallaudet, and the Communications Debate, 5–6. 33 Winefield, Never the Twain Shall Meet : Bell, Gallaudet, and the Communications Debate, 6; Winzer, Margret A., The History of Special Education: From Isolation to Integration, 55. 34 Winefield, Never the Twain Shall Meet : Bell, Gallaudet, and the Communications Debate, 6. 35 Greenberger, D., “Hill’s Method,” American Annals of the Deaf 21 (1876): 104. 36 Winzer, Margret A., The History of Special Education: From Isolation to Integration, 55. Klatzkow 12 discussed not just educational strategies but also the meaning of deafness itself and how it should be viewed by society. Manualists, like Abbe de l’Eppe, generally believed that the deaf required their own, manual, language while oralists, like Heinicke, believed the deaf needed to use spoken language. This debate would have significant ramifications for generations of deaf students.37
For a long time, there were limited educational opportunities in American for deaf individuals. During the colonial period, poverty was considered natural and disability was seen as related to poverty, because disability often led a need for charity. Colonial Americans abhorred the thought of government intervention into the amelioration of poverty and considered it the duty of family, friends, and local communities to take care of those individuals who were deemed incapable of taking care of themselves.38 An example of an integrated deaf community in early American history was Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts, where everyone knew sign language and thus integrated deaf individuals into the wider community rather seamlessly.39
During early American history, a lack of local schools meant that most deaf children lacked the opportunity to obtain an education. Those parents who did educate their children tended to be very wealthy and sent their children to Europe for an education.40 By the beginning of the 19th century, however, the country was undergoing vast changes. Population was increasing, the economy was gradually shifting from agricultural to industrial, and urbanization was increasing.
These processes caused individuals with disabilities to have a greater amount of difficulty
37 Ibid., 55–57. 38 Ibid., 85–90. 39 Van Cleve and Crouch, A Place of Their Own, 1; Lane, Harlan, Pillard, Richard C., and French, Mary, “Origins of the American Deaf-World: Assimilating and Differentiating Societies and Their Relation to Genetic Patterning,” in The Deaf History Reader, ed. Van Cleeve, John Vickrey (Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press, 2002), 48– 57. 40 Crouch, Barry A. and Greenwald, Brian H., “Hearing with the Eye: The Rise of Deaf Education in the United States.,” in The Deaf History Reader, ed. Van Cleeve, John Vickrey (Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press, 2007), 25; Van Cleve and Crouch, A Place of Their Own, 18. Klatzkow 13 supporting themselves—many disabilities which did not prevent someone from performing agricultural tasks caused problems in an industrialized setting.41
The first school for the deaf in America was started by the Bolling family in 1815.
Thomas and Elizabeth Bolling were wealthy Virginians with four children—three deaf and one hearing. Thomas and Elizabeth had sent their deaf children to Scotland to study at the famous
Braidwood School under the oralist method.42 This school was far away, “private, expensive, and secretive.”43 Their hearing child, William Bolling, would eventually marry and have deaf children of his own.44
Unlike his father, William Bolling was loathe to part with his deaf children to send them to Europe for an education. This was possibly for financial reasons—it was very expensive to send children to the English Braidwood school.45 The Bolling family’s previous experience with oral education caused William Bolling to want to give his children an oralist education.
Eventually, he came into contact with John Braidwood, a member of the family that founded and ran the Braidwood school for the deaf. In 1812 John Braidwood headed to America.46
Braidwood came to America with the intention of opening a school for the deaf. This attracted significant attention from people like William Bolling interested in establishing a school in their local area. Dr. Mason Cogswell—a New Englander with a deaf daughter—also tried to convince Braidwood to teach in his locale. Cogswell went so far as to apply to the state of Connecticut’s for funding to finance the school and even had several students lined up,
41 Winzer, Margret A., The History of Special Education: From Isolation to Integration, 85–90. 42 Crouch, Barry A. and Greenwald, Brian H., “Hearing with the Eye: The Rise of Deaf Education in the United States.,” 25–29. 43 Ibid., 26. 44 Ibid., 29. 45 Van Cleve and Crouch, A Place of Their Own, 24. 46 Crouch, Barry A. and Greenwald, Brian H., “Hearing with the Eye: The Rise of Deaf Education in the United States.,” 29. Klatzkow 14 including his own daughter. However, Braidwood rejected Cogswell’s offer. Braidwood seemed interested in setting up his school in either Philadelphia or Baltimore, but both options fell through.47 Eventually, at William Bolling’s behest, Braidwood opened the Cobbs school on the
Bolling plantation in 1815 with five students.48
Unfortunately for the Bolling’s, Braidwood was an alcoholic who did not apparently enjoy educating the deaf. The original Cobbs school closed in 1816, when Braidwood officially left the school. Braidwood taught John Kirkpatrick his oralist methods in 1817, but a second attempt to open an unnamed school failed in 1818, thus completing that attempt at forming an oral school. The Cobbs school did not last long, because of major limitations. It was a private school, thus it only served those wealthy enough to afford the tuition. The oral method
Braidwood employed necessitated a small class, thus contributing to the school’s financial difficulties. Braidwood’s personal failings seriously hampered any attempt for the school to prosper and grow. 49 Despite this, however, the Cobbs school represents an early attempt at oralist education, revealing that there was a demand for such a methodology early in the history of American deaf education. It also represents the many difficulties of forming and maintaining a deaf school.
Mason Cogswell did not give up when Braidwood turned his request for a school down.
A Christian minister, Thomas Gallaudet had impressed Cogswell by teaching Cogswell’s deaf daughter, Alice. Cogswell commissioned Thomas Gallaudet to learn how to teach the deaf and establish a deaf school in America. In 1815, Thomas Gallaudet arrived in England, with the
47 Van Cleve and Crouch, A Place of Their Own, 24–26; Crouch, Barry A. and Greenwald, Brian H., “Hearing with the Eye: The Rise of Deaf Education in the United States.,” 29–34. 48 Van Cleve and Crouch, A Place of Their Own, 26; Crouch, Barry A. and Greenwald, Brian H., “Hearing with the Eye: The Rise of Deaf Education in the United States.,” 37. 49 Van Cleve and Crouch, A Place of Their Own, 26–27; Crouch, Barry A. and Greenwald, Brian H., “Hearing with the Eye: The Rise of Deaf Education in the United States.,” 32, 36–38. Klatzkow 15 intention to learn the Braidwood oralist method. However, the Braidwoods demanded that
Thomas Gallaudet spend seven years in their school and keep the method secret by pledging to not teach it—neither of which were amenable to the needs of Thomas Gallaudet’s employer,
Mason Cogswell. After this failure, Thomas Gallaudet accidentally happened upon a demonstration Abbe Sicard that showcased the French school in Paris and his method of deaf education.50 Impressed with what he saw, Thomas Gallaudet proceeded to travel to the French school to learn more about the method Abbe Sicard employed—manualism.51 The Royal
Institution for the Deaf, headed by Abbe Sicard, was open to Thomas Gallaudet learning their methods and invited him to their school in Paris. Fortuitously, Laurent Clerc, a deaf man who taught at Parisian school, taught Gallaudet sign language and agreed to teach at the new
American school. In the end, the two opened the American Asylum for the Education of the Deaf and Dumb in Hartford, Connecticut in 1817. It is important to note that Thomas Gallaudet originally wanted to utilize both oral and manual elements in his teaching, while Clerc was adamantly against the use of any oral methods in the school.52 Furthermore, the nature of the decision to use manualism over oralism would lend an argument to the oralist leaders, who would argue that the use of manualism was not due to a superior method, but rather the consequence of circumstance. These circumstances were related to how Gallaudet refused to accept the limitations of the Braidwoods, to a chance encounter with Sicard and the willingness of the French to teach Gallaudet their method.53
50 Abbe Sicard took over Abbe de l’Eppe’s school 51 Crouch, Barry A. and Greenwald, Brian H., “Hearing with the Eye: The Rise of Deaf Education in the United States.,” 38–39; Van Cleve and Crouch, A Place of Their Own, 32–34. 52 Winefield, Never the Twain Shall Meet : Bell, Gallaudet, and the Communications Debate, 6–7; Crouch, Barry A. and Greenwald, Brian H., “Hearing with the Eye: The Rise of Deaf Education in the United States.,” 39; Van Cleve and Crouch, A Place of Their Own, 37. 53 Baynton, Forbidden Signs, 7. Klatzkow 16
Chapter Two: The Changes in Sentiments: Why Oralism Took Hold
Prior to 1800, “the great majority of disabled persons had no occupation, no source of income, limited social interaction, and little religious comfort.”54 Between the formation of the first schools for the deaf and 1860, the main concern of educators like Gallaudet was bringing
Christianity to the deaf. Manualists believed that sign language was the instrument that allowed the deaf to understand and learn about the Bible, thus making their view of sign language positive in nature.55 These manualists romanticized sign language, believing that it was “a direct expression of nature itself,” unlike spoken language, which they viewed as a creation of culture.56
Early 19th century deaf educators supported this belief with the observation that newcomers to a deaf school would, if they did not already know sign language, quickly learn to utilize the language.57 In line with both these philosophical and functional arguments, the schools founded between 1817 and 1860 were manualist in orientation.58
This was the environment that the famous American educator Horace Mann entered into when he attempted to bring oralism to the United States. In 1843, Mann visited German schools for the deaf and returned convinced that American schools should implement German oralist methods.59 Mann’s call for oralism is in line with his more generalized beliefs about education.
Mann’s educational beliefs considered children as a whole and placed the good of the whole of society over that of the good of the child. Mann sought to use school to create a “common culture” so that all students would be “properly equipped to work together” to create a better
54 Winzer, Margret A., The History of Special Education: From Isolation to Integration, 8; Edwards, R. A. R., “‘Speech Has an Extraordinary Humanizing Power’: Horace Mann and the Problem of Nineteenth-Century American Deaf Education,” in The New Disability History: American Perspectives, ed. Longmore, Paul K and Umansky, Lauri (New York: New York University Press, 2001), 68–69. 55 Baynton, Forbidden Signs, 9, 15. 56 Ibid., 109. 57 Edwards, R. A. R., “‘Speech Has an Extraordinary Humanizing Power’: Horace Mann and the Problem of Nineteenth-Century American Deaf Education,” 64–65. 58 Burch, “Reading Between the Signs: Defending Deaf Culture In Early Twentieth-Century America,” 215. 59 Winefield, Never the Twain Shall Meet : Bell, Gallaudet, and the Communications Debate, 7. Klatzkow 17 world.60 The deaf naturally created a problem—they were in separate schools with a separate language and thus a separate culture. Mann believed that the only way for the deaf to become part of the American mass culture was for them to learn with the oralist method and thus be integrated into mainstream life.61 Men like Lewis Weld, who visited the German schools as a representative of the American Asylum and came to very different conclusions over the efficacy of oralism, would criticize Mann heavily for these beliefs. Weld thought that the demonstrations put on by oral schools were designed to “dupe” visitors and saw the successes of selective schools, such as the German school Mann visited, as deceptive as to the true potential of oralism.62 Mann, who died in 1859, would not live to see oralism become popular, but he
“provided the essential framework for all oralist arguments that would follow.”63
However, Mann did see an increased demand for oralist instruction. By the 1860’s, The
New York Institution for the Improved Instruction of Deaf-Mutes and the Clarke Institution for
Deaf-Mutes would opened using oral methods only.64 By 1900, approximately “40% of
American deaf students were without the use of sign language”—a rate that increased to 80% by the conclusion of World War I.65
This change in educational methods would be accompanied by a complex change in
American thought. After the Civil War, Americans began to redefine what it meant to be
American as industrialization and immigration became important, lending a feeling that a
60 Edwards, R. A. R., “‘Speech Has an Extraordinary Humanizing Power’: Horace Mann and the Problem of Nineteenth-Century American Deaf Education,” 69. 61 Ibid., 69–71. 62 Winefield, Never the Twain Shall Meet : Bell, Gallaudet, and the Communications Debate, 7–8. 63 Edwards, R. A. R., “‘Speech Has an Extraordinary Humanizing Power’: Horace Mann and the Problem of Nineteenth-Century American Deaf Education,” 71. 64 Winefield, Never the Twain Shall Meet : Bell, Gallaudet, and the Communications Debate, 8. 65 Baynton, Forbidden Signs, 4–5. Klatzkow 18 generalized American unity was necessary to cope with the problems created by these issues.66
Furthermore, at the turn of the century, there was an increasing belief that not being a member of the majority culture was un-American. Deaf people had long used some form of sign language both to communicate and to mark their own community and culture, but sign language was a factor that set them apart from the English-speaking majority culture. Sign language became a point of constant contention as a variety of social movements, such as progressivism and eugenics, would threaten the deaf community and culture.67
Progressivism was an ideology that appeared in the late 19th century as a reaction to increased immigration and perceived loss of American unity. Progressive educators used schools to instill their ideal of an American identity in children. To these educators, “common values” and the use of English by all students was an absolute necessity.68 Congruent with this new pedagogy, “educators, policy makers, and medical professionals increasingly likened Deaf people…to foreigners” in the 1900s.69 Progressives wanted to curtail the separatist culture fostered in residential schools for the deaf and instead “assimilate Deaf people into mainstream
[hearing] America.”70 This was combined with a “new education” that focused on practical education designed to prepare children for life outside of school.71
Charles Darwin published “The Origin of the Species” in 1859, sparking an unprecedented change in the intellectual climate in this period. Social scientists used Darwinian thoughts on evolution and natural selection to explain the success of some over others. They viewed language as the key to the human experience, therefore the use of sign language by the
66 Burch, Signs of Resistance, 7. 67 Ibid., 42, 45. 68 Ibid., 7. 69 Ibid., 10. 70 Ibid., 10. 71 Ibid., 12–13. Klatzkow 19 deaf became increasingly looked down upon—by using it, deaf individuals lacked the spoken language so vital to the definition of humanity itself. Signs were no longer seen in a positive, forgiving light—they were now being classified as evidence of savagery and seen as a lower stage in the evolutionary process.72 By viewing manual languages in this negative evolutionary light, educators increasingly viewed sign language as inappropriate for the modern world.73
These educators also viewed the concept of normality as not simply a social issue, but as a medical one as well. Backed by the medical community, they began viewing the proper functioning of the five senses as a necessary component of normality.74 A medical view of deafness that called for a cure was not new. There were early attempts to treat deafness. Jean-
Marc Itard, a late 18th century French educator, experimented on deaf children in an attempt to
“fix” them. In an attempt to restore hearing, he created lesions, applied electricity, pierced eardrums, fractured skulls and preformed a litany of other experiments on the students of the
Paris Deaf school in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.75 Where it proved impossible to cure deafness, medical professionals began viewing it as a pathology in need of treatment to overcome the “symptoms” of deafness.76 Oralist teaching methods and newly developed technologies, such as hearing aids, were utilized for this end.77
The science of eugenics also impacted how deaf individuals were viewed. The goal of eugenics was to create a better, more able society which could be accomplished by preventing those who were not deemed as fit from having children. Eugenic supporters viewed handicapped
72 Branson and Miller, Don, Damned for Their Difference the Cultural Construction of Deaf People as “Disabled,” 25–28. 73 Ibid., 150–151. 74 Ibid., 39; Burch, Signs of Resistance, 13. 75 Brueggemann, Lend Me Your Ear Rhetorical Constructions of Deafness, 108–110. 76 Branson and Miller, Don, Damned for Their Difference the Cultural Construction of Deaf People as “Disabled,” 148. 77 Ibid. Klatzkow 20 individuals as “debased stock” and some advocated sterilization for these individuals, including deaf people.78 Both eugenicists and progressives characterized the deaf as “defectives” and described them as “dangerous”, “afflicted”, “socially inadequate”, and “unfit.”79 Leaders in the oralist movement, such as Alexander Graham Bell, were afraid that marriages between deaf individuals would create a deaf version of humanity and that, to prevent this, the deaf should be discouraged if possible and prevented if necessary from forming their own segregated community.80
Deafness was, however, particularly difficult for eugenicists to understand because of the various causes of deafness. While some deafness was hereditary, it was well known that a large amount of deafness was caused by disease. Furthermore, it was often difficult to determine which one—disease or heredity—had caused a particular case of deafness. In the late 19th century, it was estimated that only a third of the cases of deafness was caused by genetic abnormalities.81 To the extent that it could be determined, there was a larger stigma associated with being born deaf than becoming deaf later in life because, in the medical view of deafness, those whose deafness was caused by illness or injury could be theoretically cured, whereas individuals with congenital deafness were viewed as “genetic incurables.”82 Eugenic supporters linked deafness to mental retardation and classified the deaf as “undesirable.”83 However, the pronounced ability of the deaf to self-advocate and to be self-sufficient potentially helped mitigate eugenic movements against the deaf. The deaf community fought against eugenics,
78 Winefield, Never the Twain Shall Meet : Bell, Gallaudet, and the Communications Debate, 82. 79 Burch, Signs of Resistance, 103–104. 80 Branson and Miller, Don, Damned for Their Difference the Cultural Construction of Deaf People as “Disabled,” 152–153. 81 Burch, Signs of Resistance, 134–135. 82 Branson and Miller, Don, Damned for Their Difference the Cultural Construction of Deaf People as “Disabled,” 31, 44. 83 Burch, Signs of Resistance, 135. Klatzkow 21 proclaiming that they were just as “normal” as hearing people were. 84 As the eugenics movement grew in importance, the deaf community increasingly separated themselves from those with other disabilities, insisting that they were more like the hearing population than those with disabilities.85
The social forces described above collaborated to create an environment that fostered the growth of oralism at the cost of manual education. Generally, oralists considered deafness a
“handicap to be overcome” through oral methods.86 Oralism was not just related to education methods—it appealed to the “larger argument about language and national community that was occurring in the wake of civil war and in the face of massive immigration” by arguing that sign language was un-American and isolationist.87 The general success of oralism may be attributed to the way advocates made their rhetoric match progressive thought, by tying oral methods into the ideas of acculturation and emphasizing that speech was normal and thus vital to becoming a normal member of society. Oralists blamed sign language for making the deaf seem like an
‘other’ and an outsider with the American body politic. By linking speech to normalcy, oralists also appealed to the medical and scientific communities who were seeking to cure deafness.88
Practicality was a major concern in deaf education and oralism emphasized the practicality of teaching deaf children to speak, because it would allow potential employers to understand the deaf employee.89 By focusing on preparation for life after schooling, by emphasizing the ability of speech to “normalize” deaf individuals, and by casting sign language as causing the deaf to
84 Ibid., 135–136. 85 Ibid., 133. 86 Winzer, Margret A., The History of Special Education: From Isolation to Integration, 126. 87 Baynton, Forbidden Signs, 26–28. 88 Burch, Signs of Resistance, 12–13; Baynton, Forbidden Signs, 32. 89 Baynton, Forbidden Signs, 95–99. Klatzkow 22 be abnormal, oralists garnered support from members of the progressive movement.90 Oralism also benefitted from large amounts of financial and public support, allowing oralists to disseminate information and publicize their message. Alexander Graham Bell, for example, donated a large amount of the profits from his invention of the telephone to the oralist campaign. The message put forth by oral advocates- the importance of family, the need for a similar culture, and the keeping of deaf children within a family’s mainstream culture appealed to parents of deaf children.91
90 Burch, “Reading Between the Signs: Defending Deaf Culture In Early Twentieth-Century America,” 216–217; Winefield, Never the Twain Shall Meet : Bell, Gallaudet, and the Communications Debate, 108. 91 Burch, “Reading Between the Signs: Defending Deaf Culture In Early Twentieth-Century America,” 217–218; Burch, Signs of Resistance, 13–15. Klatzkow 23
Chapter Three: The “Rise” of Oralism
Under the leadership of Edward Gallaudet, a prominent deaf educator, many manual educators converted to a combined method of deaf education. Combined education, unlike manual education, allowed for oral education though unlike oralism, combined methods also permitted manual education techniques. By the late 19th century, the methods debate would center on oralism and the combined method of education.92 The education debate between oral and combined methods was based on differing opinions on the best method of educating the deaf. The debate centered on the use of sign language, or a manual language, in education and involved “policymakers, teachers, linguists and parents.”93
The combined system was eclectic in nature, with no constant definition.94 In 1893, the
American Annals of the Deaf defined the combined method as:
“IV. The Combined System.—Speech and speech-reading are regarded as very important but mental development and the acquisition of language are regarded as still more important. It is believed that in many cases mental development and the acquisition of language can be best promoted by the Manual method, and, so far as circumstances permit, such method is chosen for each pupil as seems best adapted for his individual case. Speech and speech-reading are taught where the measure of success seems likely to justify the labor expended, and in some of the schools a part of the pupils are taught wholly by the Oral method. The schools in American using some form of the Combined System are fifty-eight in number…”95
In practice, the combined method was “articulation, fingerspelling and specialized…signs” and focused on helping children learn the English language to the best of their abilities.96
In contrast, the American Annals defined the oral method as:
92 Winefield, Never the Twain Shall Meet : Bell, Gallaudet, and the Communications Debate, 34–35. 93 Ibid., 1–2. 94 Branson and Miller, Don, Damned for Their Difference the Cultural Construction of Deaf People as “Disabled,” 182, 185. 95 Fay, Edward Allen, ed., “Methods of Instruction in American Schools,” American Annals of the Deaf 38 (n.d.): 64. 96 Branson and Miller, Don, Damned for Their Difference the Cultural Construction of Deaf People as “Disabled,” 185–186. Klatzkow 24
“II. The Oral Method.—Speech and speech-reading together with writing, are made the chief means of instruction, and facility in speech and speech-reading, as well as mental development and written language is aimed at. Signs are used as little as possible, and the manual alphabet is generally discarded altogether. There is a difference in different schools in the extent to which the use of natural signs is allowed in the early part of the course, and also in the prominence given to writing as an auxiliary to speech and speech-reading in the course of instruction; but they are differences only of degree, and the end aimed at is the same in all.”97 Though each method had many supporters, the primary proponent of the combined method was Edward Gallaudet and the most notable advocate for the oral method was Alexander Graham Bell.98
“Within the field of deaf education, no name carried greater prestige, commanded more respect, or invoked greater awe than did the name Gallaudet”99—a reputation that Edward
Gallaudet would be born to and uphold as he garnered his own reputation in deaf education and which would help him convince many former manualist educators to use the combined method.100 Edward Gallaudet spent his life working with and surrounded by deaf individuals. His mother was a deaf woman who depended on sign language for communication and his father was the famous educator Thomas Gallaudet. While in college, Edward Gallaudet worked at the
American Asylum for the Deaf. Later, he would become the Superintendent at the Columbia
Institution for the Instruction of the Deaf and Dumb and Blind in Washington D.C.. Edward
Gallaudet would be responsible for the foundation of a deaf college in Washington D.C. in 1864, giving the deaf an opportunity for a post-secondary education in an all-deaf environment. Over the course of his lifetime, Edward Gallaudet would not only be a deaf educator but would also become extremely important in the political arena, allowing him to work with policy makers.101
97 Fay, Edward Allen, “Methods of Instruction in American Schools,” 63. 98 Winefield, Never the Twain Shall Meet : Bell, Gallaudet, and the Communications Debate, 4. 99 Ibid., 32. 100 Ibid., 32, 34–35. 101 Ibid., 25–32. Klatzkow 25
In regards to deaf education, Edward Gallaudet believed “that one method was not best for all children and that the individual needs of the children were of primary importance”—the underpinning to his belief that combined education, which allowed for oralism where possible and manualism where necessary, was preferable.102
Edward Gallaudet’s opinion that a combined method of education was preferable began when he visited oral schools. His “1867 report (on oral schools) is generally credited with effecting the changeover from manual to combined education in U.S. schools for deaf children.”103 In the report, Gallaudet determined that the best course of action was to utilize oral methods unless a child could not benefit from the instruction.104 He would come to believe that the “combined system meant preserving sign language but using it in the classroom” only when necessary.105 He also believed that while many deaf children benefited from oral methods there were some children who received no benefit—thus warranting access to manual methods for these children. In this way, Edward Gallaudet placed the needs of the individual child before the needs of society.106
On the other hand, Alexander Graham Bell “popularized and legitimized the oral philosophy in the United States.”107 Bell’s mother, Eliza Bell, was severely deaf, but used speech in her daily conversations. His father, Melville Bell, was an elocutionist who invented visible speech (which was not originally intended to be used in oralism, but it would be the basis of oral education in America). Alexander Graham Bell married Mabel Hubbard, a deaf woman who relied on lip-reading and speech. However, her oral skills were atypical and there is some
102 Ibid., 34. 103 Ibid., 33. 104 Ibid., 33–34. 105 Baynton, Forbidden Signs, 26. 106 Winefield, Never the Twain Shall Meet : Bell, Gallaudet, and the Communications Debate, 33–34. 107 Ibid., 11. Klatzkow 26 evidence that she was post-lingually deaf. Despite her atypical abilities and circumstances,
Alexander Bell used her as an example of the possibilities of the oral method. In 1870, Bell successfully taught visible speech to a class of thirty students at the Boston School for Deaf-
Mutes. However, these children were not congenitally deaf. He considered sign language detrimental to the family unit and was a supporter of day schools as opposed to residential facilities. Bell believed that, unlike in traditional residential schools, day schools were suited for pure oralist instruction, allowed students to remain at home, and would ensure that deaf children would communicate in the same language as their parents by using oral methods.108
Perhaps one of the most disturbing aspects of deafness to Bell was Deaf culture. In 1883,
Bell wrote “Memoir Upon The Formation of A Deaf Variety of the Human Race” in which he noted that deaf culture was “growing at an alarming rate and that steps should be considered to halt this state of affairs.”109 This was distressing for oralists, because they sought integration.
However, there was a thriving Deaf culture in the United States, centered around traditional residential deaf schools.110 Deaf individuals not only used sign language to communicate, but also “to define themselves principally as a linguistic group.”111 To Bell, sign language was problematic—he believed strongly in the integration of deaf individuals into the majority culture and, because the majority spoke, deaf people needed to as well. He saw sign language as a barrier to integration. Furthermore, he had a strong belief that his method worked and that all
108 Ibid., 11–16, 20–21, 73–77; Van Cleeve, John Vickrey, “The Academic Integration of Deaf Children: A Historical Perspective,” in The Deaf History Reader, ed. Van Cleeve, John Vickrey (Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press, 2007), 120–124. 109 Winefield, Never the Twain Shall Meet : Bell, Gallaudet, and the Communications Debate, 91–92. 110 Burch, Signs of Resistance, 11–12. 111 Ibid., 45. Klatzkow 27 deaf children could learn to speak and lip-reading—anyone who required a manual method was defined by oralism as a “failure.”112
Oralism, however, was not perfect. Its representation of the deaf as abnormal was often harmful, in that the rhetoric of the movement was paternal at best, and insulting at worst.
Oralists “reinforce[d] the perception of Deaf people as inferior, dependent, even mentally deficient,” in their process of gaining control over deaf education. Members of the Deaf community fought vigorously against this interpretation.113 A popular criticism of oralism was that placed the needs of society before the individual. Conversely, educators under the combined method were willing to sacrifice speech for the benefit of the child and language acquisition.114 Furthermore, deaf individuals believed that oralism was based on propaganda and that only those who were post-lingually deaf (or rather, already had speech abilities) or hard-of- hearing were capable of learning oralism. They felt that all the presentations provided by oralists which showcased marvelous speaking abilities represented “intense coaching” on the part of oralists before the presentation began.115 Later research would reveal that these criticism were based on some fact—“…recent research has concluded that the oralist approach was devastating for generations of deaf people” in their language development.116 Perhaps worse than this was the reality that oralists would often disregard research that did not support, or worse indicated a problem with, their methodology.117
The turning point in the debates between the two methods was the 1880 Milan conference, which “gave the oral movement considerable credibility and infused its leaders
112 Winefield, Never the Twain Shall Meet : Bell, Gallaudet, and the Communications Debate, 22–24. 113 Burch, Signs of Resistance, 21, 23. 114 Winefield, Never the Twain Shall Meet : Bell, Gallaudet, and the Communications Debate, 91, 107. 115 Burch, Signs of Resistance, 14. 116 Baynton, Forbidden Signs, 5. 117 Branson and Miller, Don, Damned for Their Difference the Cultural Construction of Deaf People as “Disabled,” 169. Klatzkow 28 with…belief in the rightness of their approach.”118 According to the British report on the conference, delegates voted 160-4 in favor of oralism, passing a resolution that said:
“The Congress—
“Considering the incontestable superiority of speech over signs in
restoring the deaf-mutes to society, and in giving him a more perfect knowledge
of language,
“Declares—
“That the Oral method ought to be preferred to that of signs for the
education and instruction of the deaf and dumb.”119
However, while the idea of teaching the deaf to speak had become fundamental to the rhetoric and practice of deaf education by 1880, pure oralism was not entirely accepted. Though largely ignored and lacking the financial resources to support their opinion against well-funded oralists, members of the Deaf community, in particular, would criticize oralism, claiming that
“oral failures” were being poorly treated and mocked by educators and peers alike.120 Worse, those deemed uneducable by oral methods were given only a “basic education” by deaf schools.121 Deaf leaders also contended that oralism caused students to have “underdeveloped skills.”122 Deaf children, however, often ignored to oralist rhetoric. They continued using sign language in their schools and taught one another the often covert language. Georgia superintendent James Coffey Harris, an oralist, acknowledged this problem in 1925: “despite
118 Winefield, Never the Twain Shall Meet : Bell, Gallaudet, and the Communications Debate, 35. 119 International congress on the education of the deaf, Report of the Proceedings of the International Congress of the Education of the Deaf, Held in Milan, September 6th-11th, 1880; Taken From the English Official Minutes Read by A.A. Kinsey, Secretary of the English-Speaking Section of the Congress: Principal of the Training College for Teachers of the Deaf on the “German” System, Ealing, London (London, 1880), 4–5, 19–20. 120 Burch, Signs of Resistance, 27; Branson and Miller, Don, Damned for Their Difference the Cultural Construction of Deaf People as “Disabled,” 168; Baynton, Forbidden Signs, 4–6. 121 Branson and Miller, Don, Damned for Their Difference the Cultural Construction of Deaf People as “Disabled,” 207. 122 Burch, “Reading Between the Signs: Defending Deaf Culture In Early Twentieth-Century America,” 225. Klatzkow 29 these efforts, the pupils insistently used sign in communicating with each other…which deprives the people of the use of speech outside the schoolroom.”123 Superintendents of deaf schools themselves remained one of the most important factors in determining teaching methodologies.
Though some states like Massachusetts and Nebraska legally required oralism, often the superintendent was crucial to the education method utilized. The Deaf community would work to ensure that superintendents favorable to manualism would lead the school. For example, in
Georgia the deaf community argued against an oral superintendent and eventually won the appointment of Clayton Hollingsworth, who permitted sign language in his school’s classroom by 1939.124
Under oralism, deaf individuals would often be prevented from working within deaf schools, despite struggling to keep their positions, and oralists actively argued against deaf educators. This was problematic, because deaf education was a traditional form of employment for the deaf—in the 1850’s-1860’s, 40% of all deaf educators were deaf. Still, deaf teachers managed to find jobs in combined schools—primarily because they were paid less. Between
1915-1940, 54% of Gallaudet deaf graduates would enter deaf education, but the percentage of deaf educators had fallen to only 16% of teachers in deaf schools in 1899. Deaf women, suffered the most from this discrimination—while deaf men could sometimes find jobs in deaf schools, it became increasingly difficult for deaf women.125 Deaf women were largely replaced by hearing women who taught small, oral classes. Hearing women were paid less than hearing men, which
123Harris, James Coffey “Hand-Signs for Ideas Should Not Be Used in the Education of the Deaf” Georgia School pamphlet (1925): 13 as cited in Burch, Signs of Resistance, 28. 124 Burch, “Reading Between the Signs: Defending Deaf Culture In Early Twentieth-Century America,” 223–224; Burch, Signs of Resistance, 26–30; Winefield, Never the Twain Shall Meet : Bell, Gallaudet, and the Communications Debate, 10. 125 Burch, Signs of Resistance, 11, 17–21; Baynton, Forbidden Signs, 25. Klatzkow 30 caused the number of women in deaf education to skyrocket—from 33% female in 1870 to 73% in 1910.126
“Oralists…never succeeded as completely as their propaganda might suggest” as sign language continued to be used and the deaf community flourished.127 Combined schools dominated the field. In the 1920’s two factors decreased the prominence of oralism. First, the philosophy of education shifted once more to support John Dewey’s pedagogy—education should focus on the needs and abilities of the individual child. Secondly, scientific studies revealed that success with oral methods was related to the amount of residual hearing an individual retained. Both these factors would cause a “weakening” of “the oralist position” in favor of the combined method.128 Furthermore, society began to demand proven success in the individual, which supported the combined method.129 However, despite the resurgence of
“sanctioned sign language…in deaf schools” in the late 1930s, oralism would predominate in residential schools through World War II.130
The 1920s would see another alteration in deaf education—this time in the form of technology. The first audiometer was invented in the late 1920’s, which allowed schools to accurately test children’s hearing for the first time. This technology actually helped reduce the effect of oralism, when scientists conducted a survey of deaf schools and noted that oral schools had a higher rate of retained hearing in their students.131 On the other hand, hearing aids helped oral educators in their methods. Though they weren’t standard in schools until the 1930s, around
126 Baynton, Forbidden Signs, 58–59. 127 Burch, “Reading Between the Signs: Defending Deaf Culture In Early Twentieth-Century America,” 215. 128 Burch, Signs of Resistance, 32–33. 129 Ibid., 30–32. 130 Ibid., 39–40. 131 Burch, “Reading Between the Signs: Defending Deaf Culture In Early Twentieth-Century America,” 225–226; Burch, Signs of Resistance, 33; Branson and Miller, Don, Damned for Their Difference the Cultural Construction of Deaf People as “Disabled,” 201. Klatzkow 31 the same time as wearable hearing aids were developed. They were used in classes to support oralism. This technology boom allowed schools to divide students based on residual hearing, with preference to those who were capable of learning by oral methods (though all were taught this way). 132 By promoting hearing, technology allowed oralism to undergo “consolidation” after
World War II.133
Often the sticking point between the methods, oralists viewed sign language as inferior and inhibiting to speech. However, the Deaf community supported it and continue using it to communicate—viewing it as the best language to ensure their own survival. The deaf would use sign language as a way to set their culture apart and bring members together, often publicly advocating for the continued survival of the language and utilizing mediums like film to preserve sign language. 134 The Deaf community lobbied for their language, married among one another, taught their children sign, and learned it themselves.135 Ironically, by pitting the deaf against oralism, oralists managed to actually increase the strength of Deaf culture—the very thing Bell and oralists were attempting to dismantle in support of integration.136
An important aspect of deaf education, no matter the methodology used, was vocational education, “defined as training programs geared toward preparing students for future trades in manual labor.”137 Vocational education had a long history in deaf schools beginning in the 1820s.
By 1905, 95% of state schools featured some sort of vocational educational programs. These
132 Burch, “Reading Between the Signs: Defending Deaf Culture In Early Twentieth-Century America,” 216; Branson and Miller, Don, Damned for Their Difference the Cultural Construction of Deaf People as “Disabled,” 200–205. 133 Branson and Miller, Don, Damned for Their Difference the Cultural Construction of Deaf People as “Disabled,” 200–205. 134 Baynton, Forbidden Signs, 9–10; Burch, Signs of Resistance, 45, 56, 61–62. 135 Baynton, Forbidden Signs, 149–150. 136 Burch, Signs of Resistance, 10–12. 137 Leakey, Tricia A., “Vocation Education in Deaf American and African-American Communities,” in Deaf History Unveiled: Interprestations from the New Scholarship, ed. Van Cleeve, John Vickrey (Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press, 2002), 75. Klatzkow 32 often provided jobs for deaf teachers, with 40% of those vocational jobs going to non-hearing instructors in 1940.138 Vocational education seemed to be a fail-safe, catch-all for “oral failures”, who were shunted into vocation classes.139 Though vocational education was motivated by the necessity of employment, it had the flaw of preventing upward mobility.140
The late 19th century witnessed a pedagogical and methodological shift in deaf education.
Oralism tailored its rhetoric to meet the national needs and manual education was largely replaced by the combined method in deaf education.141 Proponents of the oral and of the combined education methods debated the best method of education.142 However, despite oralist propaganda and the national support for oralism, the combined method dominated in public schools. The 1920’s and 1930’s brought a weakening of the oralist position, and by the late
1930’s sign language was making a reappearance in deaf classrooms. 143 Technology would curtail the reemergence and rhetorical acceptance of the combined method, as technology designed to promote residual hearing re-strengthened oralism.144 However, despite its best efforts, oralism did not succeed in eliminating Deaf culture—the Deaf community maintained sign language for communication and retained their identity, fighting against oralist propaganda and methods. 145
138 Burch, Signs of Resistance, 23–24; Leakey, Tricia A., “Vocation Education in Deaf American and African- American Communities,” 76. 139 Baynton, Forbidden Signs, 25. 140 Leakey, Tricia A., “Vocation Education in Deaf American and African-American Communities,” 8081, 84–85. 141 Winefield, Never the Twain Shall Meet : Bell, Gallaudet, and the Communications Debate, 33–35; Burch, Signs of Resistance, 12–13; Baynton, Forbidden Signs, 32. 142 Winefield, Never the Twain Shall Meet : Bell, Gallaudet, and the Communications Debate, 1–3. 143 Burch, Signs of Resistance, 30–32, 39–40; Burch, “Reading Between the Signs: Defending Deaf Culture In Early Twentieth-Century America,” 215. 144 Branson and Miller, Don, Damned for Their Difference the Cultural Construction of Deaf People as “Disabled,” 200–205. 145 Burch, Signs of Resistance, 10–12. Klatzkow 33
Chapter Four: The Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind; St. Augustine146
The Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind (FSDB) admitted its first class of deaf students in the 1885-1886 school year, with a total of 11 students. By 1909-1910 there was 105 students and by the 1948-1950 school year, FSDB rolls showed 371 deaf students, showing remarkable growth over the school’s history.147 The face of the school changed as well, as different presidents rotated in and out and FSDB added new buildings to the campus. During this period, the school featured a combined education for deaf students, although the rhetoric and practices involved in this education method altered significantly from 1907-1950.148
Thomas Hines Coleman spearheaded the campaign to create FSDB. Coleman was a deaf man who had been educated at the South Carolina School for the Deaf and Blind and Gallaudet
College. Original correspondence on the idea began in 1882, four years before the school would officially open. At the time, there were 119 reported deaf individuals in the state—about 78 of whom were eligible for public education.149 In an address by Coleman on the matter of forming
FSDB, he stated that Thomas Gallaudet had inspired him to form a deaf school. Florida, at the time, was one of the few states still lacking a school for the deaf and Coleman had family living if Florida to further attract him to the state. At Coleman’s behest, Dr. E. M. Gallaudet supported
146 This section of the paper is based primarily on The Florida School Heralds, The Biennial Reports from the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind, and the American Annals of the Deaf. The American Annals of the Deaf offers a look at the school in its earliest years, where sources are limited. The Biennial Reports went by various titles and were the written reports of the various heads of FSDB over the years to the Florida state government (the president’s title and school’s name varied over the years). I only had access to these reports beginning in 1914. The Florida School Herald was a magazine that was edited by the schools President and covered a vast variety of topics relevant to FSDB and the deaf community as a whole. This magazine grew in what it covered, beginning as a school publication and expanding to include news and politics from the Deaf community. While an excellent source for determining the public beliefs of the school, I only had access to this source beginning in 1907. 147 “A Short History of the School,” The Florida School Herald, January 1911, 10; The Biennial Report of the President of the Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind to the Board of Control, 1948-1950 (Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind, 1950 1948), 17; Mikutel, “From ‘Silence and Darkness’: Historical Origins of the Florida School for the Deaf and Blind,” 50. 148 Though the school was formed in 1886, the sources available to me for research limited my comprehensive study of the school to 1907 and later as earlier material was limited. 149 Mikutel, “From ‘Silence and Darkness’: Historical Origins of the Florida School for the Deaf and Blind,” 30–32. Klatzkow 34 the Florida school. Governor William Bloxham, after receiving the census data on the number of deaf people reported in the state, supported Coleman’s drive to create the school.150 In 1883,
Bloxham approved legislation officially founding FSDB.151 Florida held a bid to determine the location of the new school. St. Augustine won the bid for the location because they offered five acres of land and $1,000 for the right to build the school. Though offered the position of
President of the school, Coleman refused citing health problems. Instead, he served as the first head teacher for the new school.152
The financial and demographic situation in Florida was suited to the opening of a residential school in the 1880’s. Compared to most states, Florida was late in receiving a school for the deaf. Florida made provisions for public schools as early as 1822, but these institutions were poorly funded and uncommon until legislative changes began in 1845. Though Florida made steady gains in the number of public schools between 1850 and 1860, the school system was disorganized until after the Civil War. Furthermore, the public school system had significant financial problems from 1868-1884, making funding difficult.153 The state of Florida funded
FSDB, 154 making an “influx of desperately needed funds made the support of education a reality for Florida” in the 1880’s. 155 Economics also explain why the school was mixed—it supported
150 “How I Came to Found the Florida School: An Address by Thos. H. Coleman Before the Florida Association of the Deaf at Its 1920 Meeting,” 116–117; Mikutel, “From ‘Silence and Darkness’: Historical Origins of the Florida School for the Deaf and Blind,” 32; Walker, Albert H., Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind Report, 1914-1916 (St. Augustine: Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind, 1916), 24–26. 151 Folsom, Moses, “I Congratulate You (Originally Delivered Before the Florida Association of the Deaf in Convention, St. Augustine, May 18, 1923).,” The Florida School Herald, November 1923, 23–25. 152 “How I Came to Found the Florida School: An Address by Thos. H. Coleman Before the Florida Association of the Deaf at Its 1920 Meeting,” 116–117; Mikutel, “From ‘Silence and Darkness’: Historical Origins of the Florida School for the Deaf and Blind,” 32; Walker, Albert H., Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind Report, 1914- 1916, 24–26. 153 Thomas Cochran, History of the Public School Education in Florida (Press of the New Era Printing Company, 1921), 11–54, 253–254. 154 Ibid., 238. 155 Mikutel, “From ‘Silence and Darkness’: Historical Origins of the Florida School for the Deaf and Blind,” 33. Klatzkow 35 deaf, blind and, at the time, separate education for African American children156—because a mixed school was less expensive.157 Furthermore, with a limited deaf population reported in
Florida, officials likely saw state-sponsored education for a separate school as impractical.158
Coleman’s role of founder and original teacher in FSDB affected the educational pedagogy of the school. In 1886, there were only three adults at the school—Coleman as the teacher, President Park Terrell and Matron Mrs. M. D. Taylor. This meant that Coleman was responsible for the direct education of students and taught everything from articulation to the manual alphabet.159 Furthermore, “FSDB employed a combined method of instruction because their founder and first instructor of the deaf had been instructed via this method.”160
In 1911, The Florida School Herald designated county commissioners as the ones responsible for defining eligibility to attend FSDB, by determining if hearing loss is severe enough for admittance.161 If necessary, the state provided tuition for families who could not afford to send their child to the school and there was an emphasis on early attendance.162
Educable children between the ages of six through 21 were permitted to study at FSDB.163
Parents were constantly reminded that the school was not “an asylum, or home, or hospital, or reformatory.”164 Publically emphasizing this point, a series of letters were published by The
Florida School Herald, under the title of “An Illuminating Correspondence.” This
156 African American students were segregated from white students. As there is a significant lack of information on their education available, I did not include them in this paper because I did not want to risk extrapolating on educational conditions I was unfamiliar with. 157 Florida School for the Deaf and Blind Report (St. Augustine: Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind, 1916- 1918), 48. 158 Mikutel, “From ‘Silence and Darkness’: Historical Origins of the Florida School for the Deaf and Blind,” 30–34. 159 Ibid., 47; Cochran, History of the Public School Education in Florida, 105; Fay, Edward Allen, “School Items.,” American Annals of the Deaf 30, no. 2 (April 1885): 169–173. 160 Mikutel, “From ‘Silence and Darkness’: Historical Origins of the Florida School for the Deaf and Blind,” 49. 161 “A Short History of the School,” The Florida School Herald. January 1911, 9. 162 Florida School for the Deaf and Blind Report, 1916-1918, 47. 163 “Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind: Historical Sketch,” The Florida School Herald, March 1925, 86. 164 Florida School for the Deaf and Blind Report, 1916-1918, 47. Klatzkow 36 correspondence began when a member of the Federal Board for Vocation Education asked
FSDB to send information on the school to the government. However, the initial correspondence angered President Walker so much that he published a response to the request by stating: “This school does not furnish any information whatever where we classified with penal, charitable, or custodial institutions” and stressing that they are not to be classified “…with Penal, Reform,
Insane or Feeble-minded Institutions” because FSDB was a part of the public school system in
Florida.165 For this reason, FSDB continually turned away children who lacked the intelligence required for education, who had “incurable diseases” or who had “vicious or bad habits” that would prevent education.166
Precisely what was taught at FSDB changed throughout the years, even if the mission to
“fit these children to become good and useful citizens,” remained basically the same.167 Oral education began early in the school’s history. In 1891, the American Annals of the Deaf noted that “one of the teachers of articulation” had resigned her position—indicating that there were dedicated oral teachers very early in the school’s foundation.168 A later issue of the 1891 volume of the American Annals of the Deaf revealed that a manual department existed and therefore children were not taught by the oral method exclusively in their early years. This issue also noted that if “greater progress can be made by transfer to the manual department, where instruction in speech will not be discontinued, but will be supplemented by manual instruction” then children
165 Franks, E.T. and Walker, Albert H., “An Illuminating Correspondence,” The Florida School Herald, January 1923, 51–52. 166 “The Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind: St. Augustine, Florida,” The Florida School Herald, October 1916, 18. 167 Ibid. 168 Fay, Edward Allen, “School Items,” American Annals of the Deaf 36, no. 1 (January 1891): 70–71. Klatzkow 37 will be transferred when they are older. This indicates that the school was a combined school from the start, even though there was an early emphasis on oral education.169
Another very telling aspect of the school’s education methods were the educational mission statements published by the school in public documents. In 1907, the educational mission statement of FSDB stated that “Every deaf child is given an opportunity, as far as possible, to learn speech and lip-reading. Every possible effort is made, with the limited instructors at command, to encourage and promote speech.”170 By 1918, this had changed to
“especial attention is given to oral instruction and every pupil, upon entering school for the first time, is placed under this method of instruction. If, after a fair trial, he shows no adaptability or progress, he is transferred to a manual class” revealing the combined nature of the school.171 In
1916, FSDB taught elementary/grammar school subjects, had vocational education, and, for those capable of reaching the levels required, the school offered high school subjects and made preparation available for Gallaudet.172
In the school’s early years, The Florida School Herald published articles relevant to the methods debate. In 1907, an unnamed article was published based on Mr. Barnes “Report Upon a
Visit of Enquiry to American Schools for the Deaf” which argued against the combined method and for the oral method by declaring: “the Attempt to combine these two methods in the instruction of the same pupil, under what is styled the ‘combined’ system, is, in my opinion, for the production of the best speech results—a demonstrated failure; they do not, will not, cannot combine.”173 The publication of this article might suggest FSDB was turning towards oralism,
169 Fay, Edward Allen, “School Items,” American Annals of the Deaf 36, no. 4 (October 1891): 300. 170 Walker, Albert H., “Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind,” 12. 171 Florida School for the Deaf and Blind Report, 1916-1918, 13. 172 “The Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind: St. Augustine, Florida,” 18. 173 Mr. Barnes, “Extracted from ‘Report Upon a Visit of Enquiry to American Schools for the Deaf’,” The Florida School Herald, December 1907, 7. Klatzkow 38 because it was published by the school with the approval of the President and staff of the school.174 However, in March of 1908, a pro-sign language article was published declaring:
“Now the sign language being the vernacular of the deaf, it stands to reason that it can be made one of the most effective aids in their instruction when used at the right time and in the right way. The harm lies only in its abuse or excessive use;” indicating an acceptance of sign language within the school, to some degree.175 The support for the use of sign language is also apparent in an article entitled “The Sign-Language” where the author argues that sign language does not hinder children in learning English. Furthermore, the author of this article argues that people should:
“Cease to look upon the sign-language as some thing to be suppressed, cease to regard it with suspicion and distrust, cease this senseless talk of the harm is may do if used in the school-room, cease to regard it as an evil thing to be kicked and cuffed about, cease to instill into the minds of your pupils that it is wrong for them to use the sign-language, cease to impress upon them the falsehood that they cannot acquired a “command” of the English language unless they stop using signs, cease to regard the deaf child as a dull uninteresting brat, to whom an unkind fate has picked you out to teach a “command’ of the English language. Look upon the sign-language as your friends….”176
Furthermore, FSDB actively attempted to provide parents and other readers of their magazine with information on the pedagogical debate. A 1909 article called “We Submit That This is
Grossly Misleading to the Public” attempted to curb oralist propaganda among readers by arguing against the idea that the majority of deaf children, if taught exclusively by the oral method from the age of two, will succeed in normal schools. Still, while clearly arguing against
174 Multiple editions of the Florida School Herald list the editor as the current president of the school. See The Florida School Herald 1907-1950. 175 Mr. Warren Robinson, “Unnamed Article from the Wisconsin School Paper,” The Florida School Herald, March 1908, 6. 176 Speak, A. R., “The Sign-Language,” The Florida School Herald, March 1909, 11. Klatzkow 39 what they saw as misinformation, FSDB leaders continued to stress the importance of oral education in their curriculum.177
There is some early evidence that, despite oral leanings, sign language was being utilized and accepted within FSDB until the mid-1920s. Early editions of The Florida School Herald included a fingerspelling guide on the front cover of the magazine.178 In 1910, “Miss Roxie
Jordan, a deaf pupil gave the declamation, ‘The Marseillaise’ in signs” during “the program celebrating the opening of the new administration building for the State School for the Deaf and the Blind…” showing the use of sign language in a public, school run event and demonstrating official acceptance of signs.179 The use of sign language also appeared in the commencement ceremony in 1922, where songs were signed in front of guests at the school.180 Another article advised parents to learn sign language, in case their children should prefer/need to use sign language for communication. It notes that “….No matter how proficient [in oral methods] the boy the father who would be a true companion must have a working knowledge of the sign language.”181 The same edition advertises “A Handbook of the Sign Language of the Deaf” for parents.182 This combination of material suggested that FSDB was somewhat supportive of sign language as late as the 1920s, despite the national shifts away from manualism.
FSDB would, however, eventually turn its back on sign language. One step towards the limitation of sign language in FSDB began with separate facilities for younger children. In 1919, the American Annals of the Deaf notes that the Florida legislature approved $45,000 for the
177 “We Submit That This Is Grossly Misleading to the Public,” The Florida School Herald, April 1909, 6. 178 See “Manual Alphabet,” The Florida School Herald, October 1907, back of front cover. 179 “‘Splendid Program’ from the St. Augustine Record,” The Florida School Herald, January 1910, 6–7. 180 “Commenting on Our Last Commencement Exercises,” The Florida School Herald, October 1922, 10. 181 Anderson, Tom L., “‘A Deaf Son Not a Liability’ from The Iowa Hawkeye,” The Florida School Herald, November 1923, 25–27. 182 Rev. Michales, J. W., “Book On Sign Language,” The Florida School Herald, November 1923, 29. Klatzkow 40 construction of separate, purely oral, cottages for the youngest students.183 These cottages were designed to promote a “home environment atmosphere.”184 However, they also served to separate the younger students from the older ones, in order to avoid the influence of sign language among the pure oral children.185 This indicates a strengthening of oralist policies at FSDB during the
1920s.
By May of 1926, FSDB’s position on sign language had clearly shifted. Where before there was an indication that sign language was accepted, by 1926 The Florida School Herald was publishing articles that clearly advised parents against sign language. In the article, “Important
Notice to Parents of Deaf Children” FSDB officials took the position that “the greatest hindrance to the acquisition of good English and of practically useful lip-reading and speech is the use of the sign language during the years when education is being acquired.”186 This article also advised parents to enforce oral methods or, where necessary, manual spelling at home, noting that though
“sign language is easily learned” it would limit oral acquisition and English.187 However, while the Herald is noting a rhetorical change, the 1924-1926 “Biennial Report” insisted that there was no policy change within the school.188
Further supporting the change in the school’s policy was the ““No Sign” Honor Roll” introduced in November 1925.189 An explanation for the honor roll was not given until January
1926, presumably to answer questions in regards to its formation. In “Our ‘No Sign’ Honor Roll” the author explained that policies were enacted in the September of that school year to “deal with
183 Fay, Edward Allen, ed., “School Items,” American Annals of the Deaf 64 (1919): 325–326. 184 Walker, Albert H., Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind Saint Augustine: President’s Biennial Report, 1924-1926 (St. Augustine: Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind, 1926), 25. 185 “Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind: Historical Sketch,” 91. 186 “Important Notice to Parents of Deaf Children,” The Florida School Herald, May 1926, 123. 187 “Important Notice to Parents of Deaf Children.” 188 Walker, Albert H., Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind Saint Augustine: President’s Biennial Report, 1924-1926, 13. 189 “‘No Signs’ Honor Roll,” The Florida School Herald, November 1925, 24. Klatzkow 41 the suppression of signs among our deaf pupils” in order to improve English among the pupils.190
In order to accomplish their goal, the use of sign was monitored, and benefits were enacted for those who only communicated with “speech and speech-reading, or manual spelling, in school and out.”191 There is some indication that this policy change may have been a result to a visit to a
Rochester School in 1924, when several teachers toured various deaf schools in an attempt to improve upon FSDB’s educational method. Furthermore, there is some indication of some initial difficulty for the students with the new policy—prior to it, sign language was utilized in chapel services and literary societies, and now only manual spelling was permitted in these areas.192 This new policy indicates a methodology of shame, where, by singling out and praising students who succeeded in not using sign language in a public manner, it became clear to readers of the Herald and to the students who was using sign language. Furthermore, there were significant benefits to students who managed to be on the honor roll. For example, in 1932 FSDB permitted those on the “Better English Honor Roll” and the “advanced department” to go on a trip to Orlando— showing that honor roll students, who avoided sign language, were able to go on trips their signing peers might not be invited on.193 In 1933, there is a note, in the Herald that indicates that
FSDB president Dr. Settles went on an outing with the honor students and spoke with them. It should be noted, however, that while the honor roll listed those students who managed not to use sign for a given period of time, the roll listed only a limited number of students—even when enrollment was in the hundreds. For example, the record in 1933 for the number of students on
190 “Our ‘No Sign’ Honor Roll,” The Florida School Herald, January 1926, 54. 191 Ibid. 192 “Our ‘No Sign’ Honor Roll”; Underhill, O.W., “A Tour of Visits to Sister Schools,” The Florida School Herald, May 1924, 127–129. 193 Crawford, Ethel, “Our Trip to Orlando,” The Florida School Herald, March 1932, 5. Klatzkow 42 the honor roll was only 83 out of 124 pupils in Walker Hall194—indicating that approximately 40 students did not meet the standards.195 Furthermore, the classrooms which won the prize for having the least amount of sign language in their class were often below 100%. This clearly indicates that, while the honor roll was not entirely ineffective, it certainly did not prevent sign language usage within FSDB, instead it merely merely served as a reward/shame system designed to set some students apart from others.196
Honor rolls were not, of course, new to FSDB when the “No Sign” honor roll was instituted. They had appeared and disappeared with different formulations over time. However, the focus of these honor rolls appears to change with the rhetoric and beliefs of the school. In
1907, the Honor Roll was called “Roll of Honor” and was “based on Deportment, Neatness and
Punctuality”—thus having nothing to do with academic success or oral methods in the slightest.
This indicates that the school was, at the time, focused on rewarding proper behavior, not language.197 A brief mention of the honor roll indicates the existence of one in 1922, though no explanation is given for its type. At the time, it was not published in the Herald, though plans to publish it began in March 1924. This indicates that although the school had an honor roll, at the time, but it was not actively being used to shame students in a wider public medium, even if plans were in place to do so.198 November of 1925 “No Signs” honor roll was introduced and by
January of 1932 an honor roll entitled “The Greater English Honor Roll” existed, presumably similar to the “No Sign” honor roll, though no explanation is published.199 An article in 1933
194 The students were divided into different buildings for education/living purposes. Walker Hall was one such building. 195 L. L. M., “The Weekly Honor Roll in the Department for the Deaf,” The Florida School Herald, January 1933, 6. 196 See “‘No Sign’ Honor Roll,” The Florida School Herald, December 1932, 6. 197 “Roll of Honor,” The Florida School Herald, October 1907, 8. 198 “Items From the School Rooms,” The Florida School Herald, October 1922, 14; “News and Comments,” The Florida School Herald, March 1924, 92–93. 199 “The Greater English Honor Roll,” The Florida School Herald, January 1932, 4; “‘No Signs’ Honor Roll,” 1925, 24. Klatzkow 43 does indicate that, if it is the same honor roll as mentioned in 1932, this honor roll concerns the use of sign language and “punctuality, neatness or deportment; and unexcused absences,” showing an expansion of what the school considered important—method and behavior.200 In
1936, the Honor Roll was publically edited to denote those who had “perfect records in punctuality * neatness * deportment” by placing a star next to those who had achieved the honor roll (being included on the honor roll still required a lack of sign language).201 In 1941, students were “awarded Honor Pins for maintaining an average of S in citizenship, C in scholarship, and
B on examinations”—indicating that the school was reducing the importance in sign language in receiving an honors award in favor of other requirements.202 That year also saw an honor night, with awards in “…academic scholarship; for excellence in the various vocational classes; for meeting the standards in athletics’ for outstanding sportsmanship in athletics’ for Girl and Boy
Scout work; and for outstanding school citizenships.”203 In 1948, the honor roll shifted to reward academic excellence—the achievement of a “B” average.204 The changes in the 1940s reveal a dramatic shift away from publically shaming those students who used sign language towards awarding academic achievement.
Despite the oralist leanings of the honors roll and articles in The Florida School Herald, the school did have a manual education department, because not all of FSDB students appeared to benefit from oral instruction.205 The manual department relied on “manual spelling and writing.”206 In 1915, the manual department clearly had an “advanced” section of classes. In
200 L. L. M., “The Weekly Honor Roll in the Department for the Deaf,” 6. 201 “Honor Roll,” The Florida School Herald, January 1936, 12. 202 “Honor Pins,” The Florida School Herald, March 1941, 7. 203 “Can Honor Night Be More Effective?,” The Florida School Herald, November 1941, 9. 204 “Honor Roll,” The Florida School Herald, January 1949, 9. 205 “Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind: Historical Sketch,” 83–91. 206 Settles, Clarence J., Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind, Saint Augustine: Presidents Biennial Report, 1934-1936 (St. Augustine: Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind, 1936), 15. Klatzkow 44
1925 and in 1938, the manual department clearly had grade levels. Many of these children wrote their own excerpts, indicating literacy.207 For example, one excerpt was signed: “H. Hovsepian, grade VII—Manual” indicating that Hovsepian wrote the excerpt himself, which grade
Hovsepian in, and that Hovsepian was in a manual class.208 Though there is little written on the manual department itself, there is some evidence that, at least by the 1940’s, this department was looked upon poorly. In a letter by Alyce A. Thompson, the Supervising Teacher of the Advanced
Department, in the Biennial Report in 1944, she notes that there are “two opportunity classes of very slow children.” Opportunity classes were the manual classes, which, in 1940 included 37 children.209 Furthermore, a letter by Lucy More indicates that manual classes in the 1940s were limited in education—not offering course work beyond 5th grade (earlier, in 1938, there appears to be manual classes beyond 5th grade).210 Thus, although manual classes existed, high-ranking educators at FSDB in the 1940s appear to have viewed the students in them as failures with an overarching negative opinion of manual classes. Furthermore, in the 1940s there were only limited educational opportunities available to manual students. Interestingly, this shift towards negativity in the 1940’s is accompanied by patriotic rhetoric such as “the chief function of the
207 “From the Class-Rooms of the Intermediate Department for the Deaf,” The Florida School Herald, February 1938, 8–12; “Two New Teachers,” The Florida School Herald, November 1925, 23; Winston, L.A., “A Visit to the Florida School for the Deaf and Blind” by Mrs. L.A. Winston in the Deaf Carolinian,” The Florida School Herald, October 1915, 1–2. 208 “From the Class-Rooms of the Intermediate Department for the Deaf,” 8–12. 209 Moore, Lucile M., “Letter,” in Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind, Saint Augustine: Presidents Biennial Report, 1938-1940, by Settles, Clarence J. (St. Augustine: Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind, 1940); Thompson, Alyce A., “Letter,” in Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind, Saint Augustine: Presidents Biennial Report, 1940-1942, by Settles, Clarence J. (St. Augustine: Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind, 1942); Thompson, Alyce A., “Letter,” in Biennial Report of the President of the Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind to the Board of Control for the Biennium: , 1942-1944, by Settles, Clarence J. (St. Augustine: Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind, 1944). 210 Moore, Lucy, “Letter by Lucy Moore: On Intermediate and Advanced Dept.,” in Biennial Report of the President of the Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind to the Board of Control for the Biennium 1946-1948, by Settles, Clarence J. (St. Augustine: Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind, 1948), 20–26; “From the Class- Rooms of the Intermediate Department for the Deaf.” Klatzkow 45 schools of American is to transmit the principles of democracy to succeeding generations…”— possibly indicating a link between patriotism and negative rhetoric towards manual education. 211
Vocational education played a prominent part of the overall pedagogical mission of
FSDB. In the early years of the school, however, there were no vocational education courses, but by 1891 there were plans in place to open the first vocational class.212 By 1892, printing classes were in place and the students gained experience by printing the Institute Herald.213 The department grew to include nine different vocations by 1916 (though some were designed for the blind department) and new vocational classes were occasionally added.214 Vocational education was seen, by the 1920’s, as necessary for future employment. The 1926-1928 Biennial Report, stated that: “…vast importance of having our manual arts as near perfection as possible in order that each boy or girl attending them may be taught some vocation upon which they can depend as a means to earn their livelihood.”215 This indicates that educators understood that an academic education alone would not ensure the financial survival of FSDB’s deaf students.216 Indeed, there appears to be some belief that increased time in vocational was preferable for those who failed in academic classes. For example, an article published in The Florida School Herald in 1933 called
“Vocational Training” details the author’s belief that as much as 2/3rds of these students time should be devoted to vocational education.217 This is further supported by an article in 1938,
211 Settles, Clarence J., Biennial Report of the President of the Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind to the Board of Control for the Biennium 1944-1946 (St. Augustine: Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind, 1946), 11. 212 Fay, Edward Allen, “School Items,” 71. 213 Fay, Edward Allen, “School Items,” American Annals of the Deaf 37, no. 1 (1892): 74. 214 Walker, Albert H., Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind Report, 1914-1916; Brown, Alfred L., Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind, Saint Augustine: Presidents Biennial Report, 1928-1930 (St. Augustine: Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind, 1930). And other Biennial Reports 1914-1950 and Florida School Heralds 1907-1950 215 Brown, Alfred L., Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind, Saint Augustine: President’s Biennial Report, 1926-1928 (St. Augustine: Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind, 1928), 22. 216 Ibid. 217 The Vocational Teacher, “Vocational Training,” The Florida School Herald, February 1933, 1. Klatzkow 46 which states that “Frequently a student who has done very poor work in our Academic
Department completes the work in the Vocational Department in a highly satisfactory manner and goes out into our state and obtains a good position,” as well as a mention of this in the 1944-
1946 “Biennial Report”.218 In 1940, vocational education was renamed pre-vocational, and all students took part in it to some extent.219 This reinforced the idea that the school’s ultimate goal was to educate students to succeed in the world, even at the cost of academic education.
The faculty of FSDB was primarily female, with the female teaching staff growing as the school became larger. It also was primarly hearing—matching the national trend.220 However, there were some prominent deaf educators within FSDB. Odie W. Underhill worked at FSDB and taught in the academic department, despite being deaf, for many years. In 1915, a former teacher of his noted that he was teaching the “Advanced Manual Classes” by way of fingerspelling and that at least two of his former students had gone on to Gallaudet College— despite being in the manual classes.221 A notation in The Florida School Herald in 1922 indicated that he was a member of the “literary department” faculty as well as the linotype instructor at the school, and that he served as the editor of The Florida School Herald.222 He was not only active in the student’s education, but participated in the tour of other deaf schools in 1924, which may
218 “The Florida School Herald,” The Florida School Herald, February 1938, 6; Settles, Clarence J., Biennial Report of the President of the Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind to the Board of Control for the Biennium 1944-1946, 30–34. 219 Settles, Clarence J., Biennial Report of the President of the Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind to the Board of Control for the Biennium 1944-1946, 30–34; Settles, Clarence J., Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind, Saint Augustine: President’s Biennial Report, 1940-1942 (St. Augustine: Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind, 1942), 16. 220 Biennial Reports 1914-1950 and The Florida School Herald 1907-1950. 221 Winston, L.A., “A Visit to the Florida School for the Deaf and Blind” by Mrs. L.A. Winston in the Deaf Carolinian,” 1–2; Underhill, Odie W., “The Making of a Teacher of the Deaf,” The Florida School Herald, October 1914, 2 and 5. 222 “Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind: St. Augustine,” The Florida School Herald, October 1922, 9. Klatzkow 47 have influenced FSDB to alter their program. He would leave the school in 1926.223 Clearly, while Underhill was at the school he served as a prominent example of a deaf educator who could influence students and show them that deaf men could succeed. Notably, however, he was not alone. Teachers such as Miss Meta Hansman, Miss La Reine Roper, Mr. Tiovo a. Linholm,
Miss Emma Sandberd, Mr. Charles J. Falk, Miss Lalla Wilson (an alum of FSDB), Alfred
Caligiuri (also an alum of FSDB), Mr. Edward C. Carney, and Mr. Byron E. Hunziker all attended Gallaudet College, indicating that they were deaf. Furthermore, there is other evidence
(such as alumni to FSDB and weddings held in sign language) to indicate that at least some of the above were deaf. Many of them taught in the vocational or athletic departments, but some crossed into the realm of academics. They were hired throughout the period, between 1907 and
1949.224 While they were outnumbered by female, hearing teachers, their presence indicated the influence of well-educated deaf individuals in FSDB.
Prior to the mid-1920s, oral training provided oral classes, cottages and rhythmic training designed for “…developing the rhythmic sense in deaf children by the correlation of voice training, physical training and language” and utilized a piano to improve speech.225 They also had auricular training, for those students who had some hearing, a method that tried to utilize that hearing as much as possible given the limitations of technology at time.226 The aural department came with new technology in 1926—at first, an audiometer and electrophone, but it would
223 Underhill, O.W., “A Tour of Visits to Sister Schools,” 127; “The Opening of a New Session 1926-1927,” The Florida School Herald, October 1926, 1. 224 Eigle, Marjorie, “Items From the School Rooms,” The Florida School Herald, December 1922, 45–47; “Changes in Faculty,” The Florida School Herald, October 1923, 10; Mikwaukee Sentinel, “Bodden--Lindholm,” The Florida School Herald, October 1924, 5; “Opening of the New Session,” The Florida School Herald, October 1925, 9; “The Opening of a New Session 1926-1927,” 1; “The Florida School Herald,” The Florida School Herald, October 1940, 4; “The Florida School Herald,” The Florida School Herald, September 1949, 8; “School Directory, 1949-1950,” The Florida School Herald, September 1949. 225 Walker, Albert H., Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind, Saint Augustine: President’s Biennial Report 1918-1920 (St. Augustine: Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind, 1920), 15–17. And many other Biennial Reports1914-1950 and The Florida School Heralds1907-1950 226 Ibid., 17. Klatzkow 48 grow.227 Soon, FSDB would be using radio-ears (1930) and hearing aids (first mentioned in the
1936-1938 “Biennial Report”). They used audiometers to test the hearing of students for residual hearing and used this technology to increase the efficiency of oral education.228 Hearing aids were praised—even for those with limited residual hearing—because they reduced the amount of time necessary to teach children orally.229 There is some indication that the success of oral methods did increase with technology—by 1944, 88% of students were being taught successfully by oral methods—this may be because, in 1946 they estimated that a third of FSDB students had some hearing.230 A published article warned parents against buying a hearing aid without consulting the school—claiming that, without proper testing, parents can easily buy a hearing aid that does not suit (or work for) their child.231 With technology, the oral department appears to have grown and success rates in oral methods appear to have increased. The 1950-1952
“Biennial Report” mentioned nine children who were placed in St. Agnes school—a hearing school—despite their disability, a reality not noted before in the Biennial reports and highly indicative of technological success.232
FSDB appeared to have had a general difficulty getting their students above grade 3—in
1948-1949, only 27% of the students were above grade three and only 4% above grade six. This progress would improve, showing 41% of students above grade three and 10% above grade six in
227 “The Opening of a New Session 1926-1927,” 1. 228 Settles, Clarence J., Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind, Saint Augustine: Presidents Biennial Report, 1936-1938 (St. Augustine: Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind, 1938), 18; McNeilly, Charles, “The Radio-Ear,” The Florida School Herald, November 1930, 1; Moore, Lucile M., “Letter,” 17. 229 Thompson, Alyce A., “Letter,” 12; Settles, Clarence J., Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind, Saint Augustine: President’s Biennial Report, 1940-1942, 15. 230 Settles, Clarence J., Biennial Report of the President of the Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind to the Board of Control for the Biennium 1942-1944 (St. Augustine: Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind, 1944), 23; Settles, Clarence J., Biennial Report of the President of the Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind to the Board of Control for the Biennium 1944-1946, 30. 231 “The Florida School Herald,” The Florida School Herald, October 1937, 6. 232 Settles, Clarence J., Biennial Report of the President of the Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind to the Board of Control for the Biennium 1950-1952 (St. Augustine: Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind, 1952), 31. Klatzkow 49
1949-1950 and 45% above grade three and 10% above grade six in 1950-1952. This provided an explanation for why, in the 1940’s, there were no manual classes above grade 5—there may not have been any manual students progressed far enough to warrant those classes.233 It should be noted, however that when children arrived at the school, they were often “without any means of communication,” and it may have taken a considerable amount of time before they connected writing to meaning.234 Given that students entered the school at the age of six, this means that, especially for the congenitally deaf who had no previous experience with language, the children were significantly behind hearing students and teachers had to educate them first in language and then in course material.235
FSDB was, throughout the entire period, a combined school. Though the school always favored oralism where possible, and admitted that it was not always possible, it varied in its rhetoric and responses to sign language. Policies of shame were instituted and designed to reduce the amount of sign language in the mid-1920s, considerably later than the shift from manual education to oral education and the rhetoric justifying that shift. Rhetoric that was clearly, truly against manual classes did not appear in published works until the 1940s, when hearing aids and increased patriotism gripped the school, even if oralism was always favored. The deaf community maintained a voice within the school, with prominent Deaf educators there to assist and influence the students. Sign language, though frowned upon after the 1920s (also considerably later than the national trend), still existed within the school and was still being learned by the students at FSDB. In many ways, FSDB was a combined school that appears to
233 Ibid., 19; Moore, Lucy, “Letter by Lucy Moore: On Intermediate and Advanced Dept.,” 20–26. 234 Walker, Albert H., Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind, Saint Augustine: President’s Biennial Report 1918-1920, 12–13; ibid., 13. 235 Settles, Clarence J., Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind, Saint Augustine: Presidents Biennial Report, 1932-1934 (St. Augustine: Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind, 1934), 15; Walker, Albert H., Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind Report, 1914-1916, 7. Klatzkow 50 have permitted sign language and deaf culture to exist to an extent that national rhetoric did not allow for a much longer period and never going beyond shame and education policies to remove it.
Klatzkow 51
Epilogue
Deaf education would change significantly over the next fifty years. A cornerstone of change was issued by the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare in 1965 and entitled:
“Education of the Deaf.” The Secretary had commissioned the report from the Advisory
Committee on the Education of the Deaf, to “conduct a study of the problems of education of the deaf and of the programs in the nation which are directed to meeting them.”236 The committee did not seek to solve the methods debate, finding benefit in both oral and manual methods, but noted that most schools would not introduce manual instruction until oral methods had failed and a significant amount of time had passed—generally waiting until the fourth grade.237 The findings of the committee were anything but positive and painted a bleak picture for the status of deaf education in America. The committee noted that the average deaf students left school with an 8th grade education, that a disproportionate percentage of the deaf population was working in manual labor when compared to their hearing peers, that the “basic problems of language learning were not being addressed “through experience or well-planned and adequately supported research,” that the deaf required “higher levels of educational preparation.”238 In sum, the report found that: “the American people have no reason to be satisfied with their limited success in educating deaf children and preparing them for full participation in our society.”239
The authors further noted that “for 100 years emotion has been accepted as a substitute for research in the education of the deaf,”240 and called for more research on the subject.241
236 Babbidge, Homer D. et al., Education of the Deaf, a Report to the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare by His Advisory Committee on the Education of the Deaf (U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare Office of Education, 1965), v, Education Resources Information Center, http://www.eric.edu.gov. 237 Ibid., XXIX–XXX, 11. 238 Ibid., xv. 239 Ibid., xvi. 240 Ibid. 241 Ibid., 102. Klatzkow 52
In general, research in the 1960’s would reveal an overall failure of oralism to educate the deaf.242 Research also supported American Sign Language (ASL) as a language. In the 1960’s
William Stokoe conducted the first scientific analysis of ASL. At the time, the world generally believed that ASL was not, in fact, a language. In 1960, Stokoe published Sign Language
Structure and in 1965 he published A Dictionary of American Sign Language—showing that
ASL “satisfied every linguistic criterion of genuine language” and legitimatizing the use of the language.243
Legislatively, the world of special education has altered dramatically in the past 50 years.
An off-shoot of the Civil Rights movement, the Disability Rights Movement would begin, calling for new legislation as “American society struggled to define appropriate services, policies, and practices…” for the disabled.244 During the 1960’s-1980’s, significant changes in disability rights would occur. Brown v. Board of Education paved the way for litigation surrounding disability rights in education, with court cases occurring in the early 1970s which would lead to greater protections for disabled children.245 For example, Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania “established the standard of appropriateness…and established a clear preference for the least restrictive placement for each child.”246 The call for increased educational services for the disabled would lead to Public Law
94-143: “The Education for all Handicapped Children Act,” which would be re-named in 1990 to
242 Baynton, Forbidden Signs, 155. 243 Oliver Sacks, Seeing Voices: A Journey into the World of the Deaf, Reprint. (New York: Vintage Books, 2000), 61–63, 112–113. 244 Osgood, Robert L, The History of Special Education: A Struggle for Equality in American Public Schools, Growing Up: History of Children and Youth (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 2008), 99–100. 245 Edwin Martin, Reed Martin, and Donna Terman, “The Legislative and Litigation History of Special Education,” The Future of Children 6, no. 1 (1996): 26–28; Osgood, Robert L, The History of Special Education: A Struggle for Equality in American Public Schools, 99. 246 Martin, Martin, and Terman, “The Legislative and Litigation History of Special Education,” 28. Klatzkow 53 the more familiar: “Individuals with Disabilities Education Act” (IDEA).247 This law ensured
“free, appropriate public education”248 and that parents have a say and must be a part of the decision making process in their children’s education, while calling for the least restrictive environment possible—generally considered the regular classrooms.249 However, as Board of
Education v. Rowley shows, this education does not need “to obtain the maximum possible benefit to the child.”250
The concept of least restrictive environment and the accommodations available under
IDEA has led to a mainstreaming of deaf children. Using manual sign language, mainstreaming is possible with interpreters leading to 80% of deaf children attending regular schools. While this allowed deaf children to remain at home, critics note that it can lead to isolation—there is limited interaction with the Deaf community, minimal to no interaction with other deaf children, and it isolates the child because only his interpreter is capable of communicating with the deaf child.251
Technology would also become an increasingly common factor in deaf education. The research that would lead to cochlear implants began in 1957, but would make rapid progress in the 1980’s-1990’s.252 Human trials would not begin until 1975, when “13 patients in the United
States” were given cochlear implants.253 By 1995, 12,000 people had cochlear implants and in
2008, 120,000 people globally had them. The devices, currently, were hailed as a success— research shows that “many patients achieve 90 to 100% scores on standard tests of sentence
247 Ibid., 29. 248 Ibid. 249 Ibid., 29, 31, 34–37. 250 Ibid., 34. 251 Baynton, Forbidden Signs, 152–157. 252 Blake S. Wilson and Michael F. Dorman, “Cochlear Implants: a Remarkable Past and a Brilliant Future,” Hearing Research 242, no. 1–2 (August 2008): 4–5. 253 Ibid., 5. Klatzkow 54 intelligibility in quiet.”254 However, it is also possible that the device will not work or will not work well, and “only a small fraction of patients achieve the spectacularly high schools mentioned above.”255
To get an implant, a deaf person must undergo surgery so that an internal portion of the device can be implanted. Doctors insert twenty-two electrodes; replacing approximately 22,000 nerves that hearing people rely on.256 The safety of the surgery is controversial because as many as 1/6th of people who undergo the surgery will have significant complications—including permanent nerve damage.257 Originally, the surgery was meant for adults only, but gradually implantation began on younger and younger children until now it is fairly common to implant children who are approximately one year old.258 Yet, despite this, cochlear implants are becoming a hot topic in debates on deaf education. It is viewed as “the latest in a long line” of efforts to promote oralism.259 Cochlear implants are being hailed as a “cure” for deafness, causing a “resurgence of pure oralism.”260 The National Association of the Deaf (NAD) is far more cautious in terms of cochlear implants. They do not view it as a cure, and implore parents to explore all options before implanting. Furthermore, they do not believe that deafness needs to be “fixed.”261
The documentary “Sound and Fury” illustrates the debate on cochlear implants by showing two American families: Peter and Nita Artinian, who are Deaf, and Chris and Mari
254 Ibid., 5–6. 255 Ibid., 9, 11–12. 256 Brueggemann, Lend Me Your Ear Rhetorical Constructions of Deafness, 135–137. 257 Branson and Miller, Don, Damned for Their Difference the Cultural Construction of Deaf People as “Disabled,” 226. 258 Brueggemann, Lend Me Your Ear Rhetorical Constructions of Deafness, 137. 259 Branson and Miller, Don, Damned for Their Difference the Cultural Construction of Deaf People as “Disabled,” 227. 260 Ibid., 228–229. 261 NAD Cochlear Implant Committee, “Cochlear Implants: NAD Position Statement on Cochlear Impants (2000),” National Association of the Deaf, 2000, http://www.nad.org/issues/technology/assistive-listening/cochlear-implants. Klatzkow 55
Artinian, who are hearing but belong to families with deafness in them. Peter and Nita Artinian explore a cochlear implant at the behest of their daughter, but decide not to allow Heather, who is five years old, to have an implant. Though they want their daughter to be happy, Peter views the surgery as invasive and takes the stance that it is not natural and that deaf people can succeed without it. Chris and Mari Artinian explore the implant for their deaf son, who is only an infant.
They decide to implant. Both decisions are met with controversy in the family. Mari’s parents, who are deaf, react negatively to the surgery, believing that their daughter simply does not want a deaf child, even though he will have a big deaf family, and that their daughter is “lousy” for wanting this. Other deaf people in the movie, who agree that older people may be implanted because they can choose, but that it is wrong in children, support this view. They also view it as creating “robots” and killing deaf culture. Peter’s parents react even more negatively than Mari’s to Peter’s choice about Heather—they view is as abuse that their son will not give Heather an implant, because its “preventing a cure”—not understanding that Peter does not think deafness needs to be cured.262
FSDB students today use both sign language and technology. The school provides
“support for cochlear implants” and “provide all accessible formats for all our students.”263
Various forms of communication are used, depending on what the student requires, including
ASL.264 Tuition is free for Florida families and the school remains a boarding school for those that live too far away to commute daily. According to FSDB, their graduation rate is 99% and they have a total of 650 students.265 The school now serves children 5-21, though 3-4 year-olds
262 Aronson, Josh, Sound and Fury, Documentary (New Video Group, 2000). 263 “Academics,” Florida School for The Deaf & The Blind, n.d., http://www.fsdb.k12.fl.us/academics. 264 “10 Things About FSDB,” Florida School for The Deaf & The Blind, n.d., http://www.fsdb.k12.fl.us/about. 265 “FAQs,” Florida School for The Deaf & The Blind, n.d., http://www.fsdb.k12.fl.us/parents/faqs/. Klatzkow 56 can “be served as day students.”266 Eligibility requires a 30 decibel hearing loss in the better ear.267
266 “The Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind: General Criteria For Admission and Continued Enrollment,” Florida School for The Deaf & The Blind, n.d., http://www.fsdb.k12.fl.us/files/enrollment_criteria.pdf. 267 Ibid. Klatzkow 57
Conclusion
The methods debate has its roots in the genesis of deaf education. Early thinkers debated whether oral methods or manual methods were better, focusing on different reasons for each method. Though this debate would originate in Europe, history of these early debates served to form the foundation the later, American, debate.268 Americans would turn to Europe in their quest to educate the deaf, first with the failed Cobbs school and later with the successful
American Asylum for the Education of the Deaf and Dumb—both featuring differing methods and revealing an early competition between the oral and manual methods in American deaf education.269
For decades, the American deaf education would use the manual method that had begun with the American Asylum for the Education of the Deaf and Dumb.270 Though oral educators would eventually justify their crusade with by pointing out that the original reason for this method was due to circumstance—the French, signing educators were willing to accommodate the Thomas Gallaudet, and Laurent Clerc was willing to travel to America—the reality was that the method suited the early focus of deaf education. When deaf education began in the United
States, it was focused on “saving” children through religion.271 However, while the reasons behind educating deaf children are important, it is equally important that the American education system fostered and, to an extent, formed American Sign Language—a language that persisted and defined the Deaf world.
268 Winzer, Margret A., The History of Special Education: From Isolation to Integration, 56–57. 269 Van Cleve and Crouch, A Place of Their Own, 21–28, 43–45; Crouch, Barry A. and Greenwald, Brian H., “Hearing with the Eye: The Rise of Deaf Education in the United States.” 270 Van Cleve and Crouch, A Place of Their Own, 44–45; Burch, “Reading Between the Signs: Defending Deaf Culture In Early Twentieth-Century America,” 215. 271 Douglas Baynton, Forbidden Signs : American Culture and the Campaign Against Sign Language (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), 7, 9, 15; Van Cleve and Crouch, A Place of Their Own, 29–46. Klatzkow 58
The justification for Deaf education changed in the 1880s. In the wake of the American
Civil War and in a time where there was a large amount of immigration and concerns over the naturalization of immigrants, a climate suited to oralism was forming. Americans were rejecting anything that was defined as “other,” seeking acculturate people into the majority American culture. Schools were the foreground of these efforts, teaching children “American values” and directed a program of assimilation and acculturation for students. 272 Other factors fostered oralism, such as Social Darwinism, the medicalization of deafness, and eugenics. Combined, these social trends viewed deafness as a malady which needed to be “cured” and, since a cure was impossible, called for a method that would treat the symptoms of deafness: silence and the inability of deaf individuals to understand the speech. Social Darwinism in particular would attack sign language, seeing it as an under evolved language.273 All of these social forces would foster oralism, making analyzing these social forces necessary to understand the rhetoric shift and the method debate occurring in this time period.
The shift towards oral methods would not occur without a debate and contention. There were many educators who did not view oralism as the best method for educating the deaf. While manualism would fade into virtual non-existence, the combined method of education would take its place.274 Though the definition of combined education varied greatly between schools, it would be more popular than oralism nationally.275 The primary supporter of the combined method was Edward Gallaudet, who was challenged by the primary supporter of oralism,
272 Burch, Signs of Resistance, 7–16. 273 Branson and Miller, Don, Damned for Their Difference the Cultural Construction of Deaf People as “Disabled,” 25–32, 39, 148–154. 274 Winefield, Never the Twain Shall Meet : Bell, Gallaudet, and the Communications Debate, 33–35. 275 Branson and Miller, Don, Damned for Their Difference the Cultural Construction of Deaf People as “Disabled,” 182–183; Burch, Signs of Resistance, 30–31. Klatzkow 59
Alexander Graham Bell.276 Oralism received its legitimization in 1880 with the Milan
Conference.277 Understanding this debate is essential to understanding the historic trends in deaf education and in understanding why the country changed its methods.
The Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind (FSDB) was analyzed as a case study in an attempt to see how the school compared to the national trends of deaf education. The school was founded relatively late in deaf history, likely because of the small population in Florida.
Interestingly, FSDB was founded by a deaf man, which may have influenced the rhetoric and education methods the school used—the combined method.278 Under the combined system, 80% of students would be educated with oral methods.279 Like most combined schools, FSDB utilized oral education whenever possible, though they switched to manual methods when it was both clear that oral methods were ineffectual and once a decent amount of time had passed.280 The primary goal of FSDB was not simply to educate the students, it was to prepare them to earn a living and be self-sufficient.281 Towards these ends, they followed the national trend of vocational education by having had a large and effective vocational education program where children learned a trade at FSDB.282 FSDB separated itself from rhetoric that implied or stated a connection to educating those with mental disabilities.283 Like much of the country, their
276 Winefield, Never the Twain Shall Meet : Bell, Gallaudet, and the Communications Debate, 4. 277 Ibid., 35. 278 Mikutel, “From ‘Silence and Darkness’: Historical Origins of the Florida School for the Deaf and Blind,” 30–32, 49; “How I Came to Found the Florida School: An Address by Thos. H. Coleman Before the Florida Association of the Deaf at Its 1920 Meeting,” 116–117. 279 “Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind: Historical Sketch,” 87. 280 Fay, Edward Allen, “School Items,” American Annals of the Deaf 36, no. 4 (October 1891): 300; Walker, Albert H., “Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind,” Florida School Herald, November 1907, 12; Florida School for the Deaf and Blind Report, 1916-1918 (St. Augustine: Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind, 1918 1916), 13. 281 “The Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind: St. Augustine, Florida,” 18. 282 Brown, Alfred L., Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind, Saint Augustine: President’s Biennial Report, 1926-1928, 22; Burch, Signs of Resistance, 23–24. The Florida School Herald 1907-1950, Biennial Reports 1914- 1950. 283 Florida School for the Deaf and Blind Report, 1916-1918, 47; Franks, E.T. and Walker, Albert H., “An Illuminating Correspondence.” Klatzkow 60 teaching core was primarily female. Deaf educators at FSDB taught both manual education classes and vocational education.284
In terms of the methods debate, FSDB published an on-going debate in The Florida
School Herald between 1907 and 1909, publishing several pro-oralism articles and several pro- manualism articles in different editions of the magazine.285 This debate is central to analyzing how FSDB compared to the national trends. While following a large number of practiced education trends, such as in its mostly-female teaching core, using combined education methods, and using vocational methods, FSDB differed in a significant manner from the national rhetoric.
Nationally, sign language was strongly discouraged and viewed negatively at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century.286 Conversely, though this practice is not blatantly stated, several articles in The Florida School Herald make it apparent that students were using sign language in an unofficial capacity at FSDB—with not apparent repercussions from the teaching staff—until the mid-1920s. Indeed, sign language appears to have been an accepted and prevalent aspect of the campus, being used in clubs and after-school activities.287 This accepting atmosphere would begin changing in 1919 with the announcement of the cottage system (though the first cottage would not open until 1922). These cottages were designed to be purely oral environments where the youngest students would be segregated from the older students, in order
284 Eigle, Marjorie, “Items From the School Rooms,” The Florida School Herald, December 1922, 45-47; “Changes in Faculty,” The Florida School Herald, October 1923, 10; Mikwaukee Sentinel, “Bodden--Lindholm,” The Florida School Herald, October 1924, 5; “Opening of the New Session”, The Florida School Herald, October 1925, 9; “The Opening of a New Session 1926-1927”, 1; “The Florida School Herald,” The Florida School Herald, October 1940, 4; “The Florida School Herald”, The Florida School Herald September 1949, 8; The Florida School Heralds 1907- 1950; Baynton, Forbidden Signs, 58–59; “School Directory, 1949-1950.” 285 Mr. Barnes, “Extracted from ‘Report Upon a Visit of Enquiry to American Schools for the Deaf’,” 7; Mr. Warren Robinson, “Unnamed Article from the Wisconsin School Paper,” 6; Speak, A. R., “The Sign-Language,” 11; “We Submit That This Is Grossly Misleading to the Public,” 6. 286 Burch, Signs of Resistance, 12–16, 23–24, 30–31; Baynton, Forbidden Signs, 58–59. The Florida School Herald 1907-1950. 287 “Our ‘No Sign’ Honor Roll,” 54; “‘Splendid Program’ from the St. Augustine Record,” 6–7; “Commenting on Our Last Commencement Exercises,” 10; Anderson, Tom L., “‘A Deaf Son Not a Liability’ from The Iowa Hawkeye,” 25–27; Rev. Michales, J. W., “Book On Sign Language,” 29. Klatzkow 61 to prevent the transmission of sign language.288 In 1925 FSDB introduced “‘No Signs’ Honor
Roll” which rewarded students who did not use sign language (it allowed only oral and manual fingerspelling methods of communication) inside or outside of the classroom. While this did not explicitly punish the use of sign language, the school did reward students on this honor roll and did publically print the names of those who were successful in avoiding sign language, showing that this system was largely designed to shame, not punish sign language compared to national rhetoric.289 However, this rhetoric and practical shift against sign language was significantly later than national rhetoric.290 This shift is of particular interest, because it is contrary to the national trends. It reveals that FSDB was late in its disregard of sign language. Furthermore, in the late
1930s, when FSDB was cracking down on sign language, sign language was increasingly accepted in the classroom (while FSDB was still in its early history of shaming it).291
However, FSDB would pick up on the national trend of technology in deaf education.
This technology favored oral education and, following the trends of the national community, deaf educators at FSDB embraced and utilized the technological innovations of hearing aids, audiometers, and others. This technology improved success of oral methods and revitalized oralism again post-WWII.292 This consolidation is also apparent in FSDB, where the rhetoric on manual education classes (relatively positive in the school’s early history) shifts to considering
288 “Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind: Historical Sketch,” 83–91; Fay, Edward Allen, “School Items,” 325–326. 289 “Our ‘No Sign’ Honor Roll,” 54; “‘No Signs’ Honor Roll,” 24; Crawford, Ethel, “Our Trip to Orlando,” 5. 290 Burch, Signs of Resistance, 12–16. 291 Ibid., 12–16, 30–32, 39–40. 292 Burch, “Reading Between the Signs: Defending Deaf Culture In Early Twentieth-Century America,” 216; Branson and Miller, Don, Damned for Their Difference the Cultural Construction of Deaf People as “Disabled,” 200–203; “Opening of the New Session 1926-1927”, 1; Settles, Clarence J., Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind, Saint Augustine: Presidents Biennial Report, 1936-1938, 18; McNeilly, Charles, “The Radio-Ear,” 1; Moore, Lucile M., “Letter,” 17. Klatzkow 62 the students “very slow children”293—mimicking the idea of “oral failures.”294 Combined, this reveals that, while FSDB followed many of the national trends in deaf education, prior to 1920 there was a significant difference in how FSDB appears to have treated sign language and how the nation collectively viewed and treated sign language.
293 Thompson, Alyce A., “Letter,” In Biennial Report of the President of the Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind to the Board of Control for the Biennium: , 1942-1944, by Settles, Clarence J. St. Augustine: Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind, 1944. 19; See Thompson, Alyce A., “Letter,” In Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind, Saint Augustine: Presidents Biennial Report, 1940-1942, by Settles, Clarence J. St. Augustine: Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind, 1942, 12–13 294 Burch, Signs of Resistance, 27. Klatzkow 63
Glossary
Combined: A method of deaf education that uses various combinations of manual and oral methodologies.
Deaf versus deaf: the term “Deaf” refers to a cultural identity whereas “deaf” refers to the inability to hear.
Manual: A method of deaf education that utilizes sign language. May also be referred to as manualism.
Oralism: a method of deaf education that rejects sign language and other manual methods of deaf education. May also be referred to as the oral method or simply oral.
Oralist: The supporters of oralism.
Klatzkow 64
Bibliography: Secondary Sources
“10 Things About FSDB.” Florida School for The Deaf & The Blind, n.d.
http://www.fsdb.k12.fl.us/about.
“Academics.” Florida School for The Deaf & The Blind, n.d.
http://www.fsdb.k12.fl.us/academics.
Aronson, Josh. Sound and Fury. Documentary. New Video Group, 2000.
Baynton, Douglas. “Disability and the Justification of Inequality in American History.” In The
New Disability History: American Perspectives, edited by Paul K. Longmore and Lauri
Umansky, 33–57. New York: New York University Press, 2001.
———. Forbidden Signs : American Culture and the Campaign Against Sign Language.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.
Branson, Jan, and Miller, Don. Damned for Their Difference the Cultural Construction of Deaf
People as “Disabled” : a Sociological History. Washington D.C.: Gallaudet, 2002.
Brueggemann, Brenda. Lend Me Your Ear Rhetorical Constructions of Deafness. Washington
D.C.: Gallaudet University Press, 1999.
Burch, Susan. “Reading Between the Signs: Defending Deaf Culture In Early Twentieth-Century
America.” In The New Disability History: American Perspectives, edited by Paul K.
Longmore and Lauri Umansky. New York: New york University Press, 2001.
———. Signs of Resistance: American Deaf Cultural History, 1900 to World War II. New York
University Press, 2002.
Van Cleeve, John Vickrey. “The Academic Integration of Deaf Children: A Historical
Perspective.” In The Deaf History Reader, edited by Van Cleeve, John Vickrey.
Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press, 2007. Klatzkow 65
Van Cleve, John, and Barry Crouch. A Place of Their Own : Creating the Deaf Community in
America. Washington D.C.: Gallaudet University Press, 1993.
Crouch, Barry A., and Greenwald, Brian H. “Hearing with the Eye: The Rise of Deaf Education
in the United States.” In The Deaf History Reader, edited by Van Cleeve, John Vickrey,
24–46. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press, 2007.
“Deaf, Adj. : Oxford English Dictionary.” OED: Oxford English Dictionary, n.d.
http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/47690?rskey=YdrB10&result=1&isAdvanced=false#eid
.
Edwards, R. A. R. “‘Speech Has an Extraordinary Humanizing Power’: Horace Mann and the
Problem of Nineteenth-Century American Deaf Education.” In The New Disability
History: American Perspectives, edited by Longmore, Paul K and Umansky, Lauri, 58–
82. New York: New York University Press, 2001.
“FAQs.” Florida School for The Deaf & The Blind, n.d. http://www.fsdb.k12.fl.us/parents/faqs/.
Lane, Harlan, Pillard, Richard C., and French, Mary. “Origins of the American Deaf-World:
Assimilating and Differentiating Societies and Their Relation to Genetic Patterning.” In
The Deaf History Reader, edited by Van Cleeve, John Vickrey, 47–73. Washington,
D.C.: Gallaudet University Press, 2002.
Leakey, Tricia A. “Vocation Education in Deaf American and African-American Communities.”
In Deaf History Unveiled: Interpretations from the New Scholarship, edited by Van
Cleeve, John Vickrey, 74–91. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press, 2002.
Martin, Edwin, Reed Martin, and Donna Terman. “The Legislative and Litigation History of
Special Education.” The Future of Children 6, no. 1 (1996): 25–39. Klatzkow 66
Mikutel, Douglas. “From ‘Silence and Darkness’: Historical Origins of the Florida School for the
Deaf and Blind”. Florida State University, 2004.
Mikwaukee Sentinel. “Bodden--Lindholm.” The Florida School Herald, October 1924.
NAD Cochlear Implant Committee. “Cochlear Implants: NAD Position Statement on Cochlear
Impants (2000).” National Association of the Deaf, 2000.
http://www.nad.org/issues/technology/assistive-listening/cochlear-implants.
Osgood, Robert L. The History of Special Education: A Struggle for Equality in American Public
Schools. Growing Up: History of Children and Youth. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers,
2008.
Sacks, Oliver. Seeing Voices: A Journey into the World of the Deaf. Reprint. New York: Vintage
Books, 2000.
Smith, Deborah, and Naomi Tyler. Introduction to Special Education: Making a Difference. 7th
ed. Upper Saddle River N.J.: Merrill, 2010.
“The Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind: General Criteria For Admission and Continued
Enrollment.” Florida School for The Deaf & The Blind, n.d.
http://www.fsdb.k12.fl.us/files/enrollment_criteria.pdf.
Wilson, Blake S., and Michael F. Dorman. “Cochlear Implants: a Remarkable Past and a
Brilliant Future.” Hearing Research 242, no. 1–2 (August 2008): 3–21.
Winefield, Richard. Never the Twain Shall Meet : Bell, Gallaudet, and the Communications
Debate. 15th ed. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press, 1987.
Winzer, Margret A. The History of Special Education: From Isolation to Integration.
Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press, 1993.
Klatzkow 67
Primary Sources
“A Short History of the School.” The Florida School Herald, January 1911.
Anderson, Tom L. “‘A Deaf Son Not a Liability’ from The Iowa Hawkeye.” The Florida School
Herald, November 1923.
Babbidge, Homer D., Duning, Leroy, Lankenau, Robert, Edwards, Franklin, and Lowell, Edgar.
Education of the Deaf, a Report to the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare by His
Advisory Committee on the Education of the Deaf. U.S. Department of Health, Education
and Welfare Office of Education, 1965. Education Resources Information Center.
http://www.eric.edu.gov.
Brown, Alfred L. Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind, Saint Augustine: President’s
Biennial Report, 1926-1928. St. Augustine: Florida State School for the Deaf and the
Blind, 1928.
———. Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind, Saint Augustine: Presidents Biennial
Report, 1928-1930. St. Augustine: Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind, 1930.
“Can Honor Night Be More Effective?” The Florida School Herald, November 1941.
“Changes in Faculty.” The Florida School Herald, October 1923.
Cochran, Thomas. History of the Public School Education in Florida. Press of the New Era
Printing Company, 1921.
“Commenting on Our Last Commencement Exercises.” The Florida School Herald, October
1922.
Crawford, Ethel. “Our Trip to Orlando.” The Florida School Herald, March 1932.
Eigle, Marjorie. “Items From the School Rooms.” The Florida School Herald, December 1922. Klatzkow 68
Fay, Edward Allen. “School Items.” American Annals of the Deaf 36, no. 1 (January 1891): 69–
77.
———. “School Items.” American Annals of the Deaf 36, no. 4 (October 1891): 298–308.
———. “School Items.” American Annals of the Deaf 37, no. 1 (1892): 73–80.
———. “School Items.” American Annals of the Deaf 30, no. 2 (April 1885): 169–173.
Fay, Edward Allen, ed. “Methods of Instruction in American Schools.” American Annals of the
Deaf 38 (n.d.): 61–65.
———. “School Items.” American Annals of the Deaf 64 (1919): 323–338.
Florida School for the Deaf and Blind Report, 1916-1918. St. Augustine: Florida School for the
Deaf and the Blind, 1918 1916.
“Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind: St. Augustine.” The Florida School Herald, October
1922.
“Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind: Historical Sketch.” The Florida School Herald,
March 1925.
Folsom, Moses. “I Congratulate You (Originally Delivered Before the Florida Association of the
Deaf in Convention, St. Augustine, May 18, 1923).” The Florida School Herald,
November 1923.
Franks, E.T., and Walker, Albert H. “An Illuminating Correspondence.” The Florida School
Herald, January 1923.
“From the Class-Rooms of the Intermediate Department for the Deaf.” The Florida School
Herald, February 1938.
Greenberger, D. “Hill’s Method.” American Annals of the Deaf 21 (1876): 103–116.
“Honor Pins.” The Florida School Herald, March 1941. Klatzkow 69
“Honor Roll.” The Florida School Herald, January 1936.
“Honor Roll.” The Florida School Herald, January 1949.
“How I Came to Found the Florida School: An Address by Thos. H. Coleman Before the Florida
Association of the Deaf at Its 1920 Meeting”, May 1923.
“Important Notice to Parents of Deaf Children.” The Florida School Herald, May 1926.
International congress on the education of the deaf. Report of the Proceedings of the
International Congress of the Education of the Deaf, Held in Milan, September 6th-11th,
1880; Taken From the English Official Minutes Read by A.A. Kinsey, Secretary of the
English-Speaking Section of the Congress: Principal of the Training College for
Teachers of the Deaf on the “German” System, Ealing, London. London, 1880.
“Items From the School Rooms.” The Florida School Herald, October 1922.
L. L. M. “The Weekly Honor Roll in the Department for the Deaf.” The Florida School Herald,
January 1933.
“Manual Alphabet.” The Florida School Herald, October 1907.
McNeilly, Charles. “The Radio-Ear.” The Florida School Herald, November 1930.
Mikwaukee Sentinel. “Bodden--Lindholm.” The Florida School Herald, October 1924.
Moore, Lucile M. “Letter.” In Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind, Saint Augustine:
Presidents Biennial Report, 1938-1940, by Settles, Clarence J. St. Augustine: Florida
State School for the Deaf and the Blind, 1940.
Moore, Lucy. “Letter by Lucy Moore: On Intermediate and Advanced Dept.” In Biennial Report
of the President of the Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind to the Board of
Control for the Biennium 1946-1948, by Settles, Clarence J., 20–26. St. Augustine:
Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind, 1948. Klatzkow 70
Mr. Barnes. “Extracted from ‘Report Upon a Visit of Enquiry to American Schools for the
Deaf’.” The Florida School Herald, December 1907.
Mr. Warren Robinson. “Unnamed Article from the Wisconsin School Paper.” The Florida
School Herald, March 1908.
“News and Comments.” The Florida School Herald, March 1924.
“‘No Sign’ Honor Roll.” The Florida School Herald, December 1932.
“‘No Signs’ Honor Roll.” The Florida School Herald, November 1925.
“Opening of the New Session.” The Florida School Herald, October 1925.
“Our ‘No Sign’ Honor Roll.” The Florida School Herald, January 1926.
Rev. Michales, J. W. “Book On Sign Language.” The Florida School Herald, November 1923.
“Roll of Honor.” The Florida School Herald, October 1907.
“School Directory, 1949-1950.” The Florida School Herald, September 1949.
Settles, Clarence J. Biennial Report of the President of the Florida State School for the Deaf and
the Blind to the Board of Control for the Biennium 1942-1944. St. Augustine: Florida
State School for the Deaf and the Blind, 1944.
———. Biennial Report of the President of the Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind
to the Board of Control for the Biennium 1944-1946. St. Augustine: Florida State School
for the Deaf and the Blind, 1946.
———. Biennial Report of the President of the Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind
to the Board of Control for the Biennium 1950-1952. St. Augustine: Florida State School
for the Deaf and the Blind, 1952.
———. Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind, Saint Augustine: President’s Biennial
Report, 1940-1942. St. Augustine: Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind, 1942. Klatzkow 71
———. Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind, Saint Augustine: Presidents Biennial
Report, 1932-1934. St. Augustine: Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind, 1934.
———. Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind, Saint Augustine: Presidents Biennial
Report, 1934-1936. St. Augustine: Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind, 1936.
———. Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind, Saint Augustine: Presidents Biennial
Report, 1936-1938. St. Augustine: Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind, 1938.
Speak, A. R. “The Sign-Language.” The Florida School Herald, March 1909.
“‘Splendid Program’ from the St. Augustine Record.” The Florida School Herald, January 1910.
The Biennial Report of the President of the Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind to the
Board of Control, 1948-1950. Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind, 1950
1948.
“The Florida School Herald.” The Florida School Herald, October 1937.
“The Florida School Herald.” The Florida School Herald, February 1938.
“The Florida School Herald.” The Florida School Herald, October 1940.
“The Florida School Herald.” The Florida School Herald, September 1949.
“The Greater English Honor Roll.” The Florida School Herald, January 1932.
“The Opening of a New Session 1926-1927.” The Florida School Herald, October 1926.
The Vocational Teacher. “Vocational Training.” The Florida School Herald, February 1933.
Thompson, Alyce A. “Letter.” In Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind, Saint
Augustine: Presidents Biennial Report, 1940-1942, by Settles, Clarence J. St. Augustine:
Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind, 1942. Klatzkow 72
———. “Letter.” In Biennial Report of the President of the Florida State School for the Deaf
and the Blind to the Board of Control for the Biennium: , 1942-1944, by Settles, Clarence
J. St. Augustine: Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind, 1944.
“Two New Teachers.” The Florida School Herald, November 1925.
Underhill, O.W. “A Tour of Visits to Sister Schools.” The Florida School Herald, May 1924.
Underhill, Odie W. “The Making of a Teacher of the Deaf.” The Florida School Herald, October
1914.
Walker, Albert H. “Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind.” The Florida School Herald,
November 1907.
———. Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind Report, 1914-1916. St. Augustine: Florida
School for the Deaf and the Blind, 1916.
———. Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind Saint Augustine: President’s Biennial
Report, 1924-1926. St. Augustine: Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind, 1926.
———. Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind, Saint Augustine: President’s Biennial
Report 1918-1920. St. Augustine: Florida State School for the Deaf and the Blind, 1920.
“We Submit That This Is Grossly Misleading to the Public.” The Florida School Herald, April
1909.
Winston, L.A. “A Visit to the Florida School for the Deaf and Blind” by Mrs. L.A. Winston in
the Deaf Carolinian.” The Florida School Herald, October 1915.
Woodward, Calvin M. “Manual Training.” The Florida School Herald, November 1907.