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.