Controversies Surrounding Communication/Educational Methods and Educational

Placement Regarding the Interpretation of “Least Restrictive Environment”

Compiled & Written By Jodi Becker Kinner Edited By Bronwyn O’Hara

2014

The Creation of the “Y” System

Since 1902, the Utah School for the Deaf (USD) had been utilizing a teaching

method where the deaf children were placed in an oral classroom environment which

prohibited signing. The children were, however, allowed to sign after school and in the

dormitories. This situation continued until the 1950’s. As these oral students moved into

the high school grades, they were allowed to sign in the classroom where deaf teachers

were employed (Celia May Baldwin, personal communication, April 15, 2012). It is

interesting to note that USD only hired teachers who were deaf to teach at the high school

level.

In 1962, USD announced a new policy. It was called the Dual Track Program but

was nicknamed the “Y” system. Similar to previous USD policy, all the deaf children

coming into the state school had to start in the Oral Division. But, by the time a child

turned 11 years old or was in 6th grade, another option opened up. At that time it was

made possible for the student to enter the Simultaneous Communication Division after

evaluation or by parental decision.

It seemed this new policy was the work of the Utah Council for the Deaf which

was formed by Dr. Grant B. Bitter, under the direction of USD Superintendent Tegeder.

Bitter had a following among parents who advocated the oral communication method and

they were successful in pushing this policy through USD (UAD Bulletin, Fall-Winter,

1962, p. 3).

Once this communication policy change was endorsed by USD, the Utah State

Office of Education formed a Special Study Committee on the Education of the Deaf.

This committee approved the USD Ogden campus as the place where the school

programs could be divided into two

completely separate divisions. This split

occurred once the students had completed the

elementary grades (Wight, Ogden Standard-

Examiner, October, 19, 1970).

It was the last meeting of the 1962

school year, before summer break, where the

Utah State Board of Education (USBE)

approved the two-track educational system at

USD (Ogden Standard-Examiner, June 14,

1962). This decision would be implemented

for the 1962-63 school term (The Utah Eagle,

February 1968).

In its defense, USD felt this Dual Track program or Y-system could provide

certain advantages that a one educational track could not offer. There was the feeling that

if all deaf children began in the Oral Track, they could begin working on their speech and

listening skills immediately. Otherwise, this philosophy believed, the deaf children would

never put the work into mastering these spoken and listening skills if they were allowed

to sign from a young age.

By 1968, USD was one of the very few state residential schools that offered an

entirely oral program (The Utah Eagle, February 1968).

To recap, in 1962, USD had two communication divisions for deaf instruction.

One was called the Simultaneous Communication Division which carried out instruction

Dr. Grant B. Bitter

via the manual alphabet, signing, spoken English, and speech reading. The other division

was called the Oral Division which provided a spoken atmosphere relying heavily on

amplified sound with the use of spoken English and speech-reading skills. USD

emphasized that the Oral Division must follow the “pure oral” philosophy and not ever

allow any manual signing (The Utah Eagle, February 1968). It should be mentioned that

these policy changes were initiated by USD administration and not by the Utah State

Office of Education. It was only after the changes were endorsed by USD that the State

Office of Education ratified and approved them.

Because of the previous shift in policy as mentioned above, most students were

placed in the oral division while a few students continued in the simultaneous

communication division. This was the beginning of student segregation. When it came

time to assess whether a student should continue in the Oral Track, it was through a

committee review of the student’s first 6 years of school performance and test results that

determined if that student should continue in the Oral program or should transfer to the

Simultaneous Communication Division (The Utah Eagle, February 1968; Wight, Ogden

Standard-Examiner, October, 19, 1970).

Oddly enough it was the USD Extension Satellite program in the Salt Lake area

that pushed for this Dual Track program. Nearly as large as the residential school itself,

the Salt Lake satellite program was entirely oral (Ogden Standard-Examiner, October, 19,

1970). If parents did not wish their child to be placed in an exclusively oral deaf

education placement, they had to wait until the child turned 11 or was in 6th grade before

the Simultaneous Communication option was available (The Utah Eagle, February 1968).

The high numbers of USD oral students in the Salt Lake area greatly influenced the

course the residential school in Ogden was taking.

This new policy created a new need. When the Dual Track Program was initiated

in August 1962, the qualifications for prospective teachers for USD changed. The school

sought a greater number of teachers with training in the oral methods of teaching deaf

children. Not only must the teacher candidate have a diploma in Deaf Education from an

accredited college/university but those hired for the Oral Program also had to have

special accreditation and have experience working in oral deaf education. Simultaneous

Communication teachers also needed a Deaf Education degree with special preparation in

sign language and finger spelling (The Utah Eagle, February 1968).

The University of Utah stepped forward, with Dr. Bitter’s help, to provide a new

teacher training program in the oral methods for teachers of the deaf. The purpose of this

new program was to bring relief to Utah’s critical oral/aural teacher shortage

(Christopulus, The Utah Eagle, November 1962). The University of Utah took the lead in

training the oral/aural techniques required. By comparison, Gallaudet College in

Washington, D.C. maintained itself as a source of information and guide for the

Simultaneous Communication Division (The Utah Eagle, February 1968).

There seemed to be a great deal of similarity between the new program in place at

USD and the Lexington School for the Deaf in New York City. Dr. Bitter graduated from

Columbia University and this university had a working relationship with the Lexington

School. Could there be some persuasive influence here?

By 1973, the Utah School for the Deaf was the only state school in the union to

have both instructional modalities of sign and spoken language offered to students

(Laflamme, Ogden Standard-Examiner, September 5, 1973).

The 1962 Student Protest

Backing up to the end of the 1962 school year, remember, the Utah State Board of

Education had just approved the Dual Track Program. Over the summer the Ogden

campus was quickly divided into an Oral Division and Simultaneous Communication

Division, each with its separate classrooms, dormitory facilities, recess times, and extra-

curricular activities (The Utah Eagle, February 1968; Ogden Standard-Examiner,

October, 19, 1970). The only exception was the athletic program. Because each division

did not have enough students for their own athletics, it was necessary to combine the

students for their competitive sports schedule (The Utah Eagle, February 1968).

All these changes had been done without the deaf students’ awareness of what

would be happening for the 1962-63 school year. When the first day of school dawned

that seemingly normal August day, the students were surprised with what had taken place

at their school (Ogden Standard-Examiner, June 14, 1962; Diane Williams, personal

communication, 2007). The changes created an intense protest among the older USD

students. In addition, there arose a great deal of controversy between veteran teachers at

USD and the deaf community (Jeff Pollock, personal communication, May 4, 2005).

More than half the high school students held a spontaneous strike that very day on

the USD-Ogden campus (Jeff Pollock, personal communication, May 4, 2005). Johnny

Murray emerged as a leader in protesting the changes (Ronald Burdett, personal

communication, 2007). Looking back, he

remembered a strange visit from Tony

Christopoulos, principal of the Utah School

for the Deaf and oral advocate, to his home

shortly before school started. Tony asked

John’s parents if they would like to place

him in the oral program. Apparently John’s

parents didn’t give Tony an answer

because, after Tony left, they asked John if

he wanted to enroll in the oral program. He

said, “No.” They probably conveyed that

information to Tony as they respected their

son‘s decision. The reason behind this

unusual visit became clear to John only

after school had started (Johnny Murray,

personal communication, August 14, 2009). Because the new policy change included the

criteria of parent-preference-for-placement, it seemed that the administration contacted

all the parents to find out their preferences. Those who were naïve or ignorant regarding

Johnny Murray

their deaf child’s learning style or best instructional choice for their deaf child were

willing to follow the administration’s lead and put their children into the Oral program. It

seemed most of the parents did not ask their children what they wanted, like the Murrays

did.

Following these hastily-gathered parental permissions prior to school start-up that

fateful August of 1962, the students were compelled to be or, to use a bolder word, forced

to be separated into the Oral and Simultaneous Communication Divisions. An invisible

wall was immediately imposed upon the students

that had not existed before. Now deaf students in

the oral division were not allowed to interact with

deaf students in the signing division. Best friends,

who were unlucky enough to be in separate

programs, were denied access to each other during

class time or recess. If high school sweethearts

were placed in separate programs, they were

forbidden to interact with each other on the school

campus.

To add to the concern over what else the

dual track program would mess up, the students

feared they would also lose their well-respected

and well-loved deaf teachers: Donald Jensen, Jerry Taylor, Kenneth C. Burdett (father of

USD sophomore, Ronald Burdett) and Dora B. Laramie (mother of USD sophomore,

Celia Mae Laramie Baldwin) (Johnny Murray, personal communication, August 14,

2009; Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011).

Senior, Johnny Murray, president of the Student Council, spearheaded a protest

among the students. He had the backing of the twenty-five high school students who were

in the Simultaneous Communication Program (Ogden Standard Examiner, September 14,

1962). For a week, Johnny and the other students worked diligently to make protest

Tony Christopoulos

posters. They used shoe polish to write their message and wooden sticks to hold them up.

None of the USD teachers, including the four deaf teachers, were aware of their plan to

strike (Nellie Sausedo, personal communication, 2007).

The secret preparations were completed. The students did not show up for classes

on Friday, September 14, 1962 at 8:30 A.M., after attending the seminary class of the

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints taught by G. Leon Curtis. The students

wanted the teachers to know they were there,

so they appeared in their classroom doorways

for a moment and then left (Ogden Standard

Examiner, September 14, 1962). They went to

the old gym where they picked up their posters

and marched onto the USD campus. Some of

the placards asked for a meeting with the State

Board of Education (Ogden Standard

Examiner, September 14, 1962).

During the protest, Ron spotted his

father, Kenneth C. Burdett, standing off to the

side. Kenneth smiled a little because he

understood the reason for the protest but he

didn’t feel he could actively participate because

he wanted to protect his job (Ronald Burdett, personal communication, 2009). Some

hearing teachers were disgusted and astonished at the students. They thought the high

schoolers were being silly to go on strike. One teacher, Thomas VanDrimmelen, was so

upset that he attempted to pull Celia May Laramie Baldwin out of the march. Her mother,

Dora B. Laramie, ran to stop him, yelling, “Don’t touch C.M.! Let her go!” (Nellie

Sausedo, personal communication, 2007).

Kenneth C. Burdett

Around noon, nobody knew where the students were (Ogden Standard Examiner,

September 14, 1962). The students left the USD campus and walked to Lorin Farr Park.

They hid behind trees while two teachers drove

around looking for them. The students thought

to escape to a movie theatre but, at 10 am, it

was closed. The group then went to hang out in

the Burdett’s backyard. Being hungry, they

chipped in their money and sent someone to

the local grocery store on 26th and Quincy

Avenue to buy cookies and punch for their

lunch (Nellie Sausedo, personal

communication, 2007; Ronald Burdett,

personal communication, 2007).

When Kenneth C. Burdett returned

home from work, he was astonished to find the students at his home. Concerned for their

safety, he quickly brought them back to USD. The students went home from there for the

weekend (Ronald Burdett, personal communication, 2007).

The following Monday, Johnny and a few other students were called in to meet

with Superintendent Robert W. Tegeder. When he asked why they went on strike, the

students countered with questions of their own: “Why do we have two departments on the

school campus?” and “Why does the Oral Department

have more students than the Simultaneous

Communication Department?”

The Superintendent was obligated at the time

to endorse the new policy. He had no other answer for

them than "Oh well!"

The students expressed to him their deep

Dora B. Laramie

Thomas VanDrimmelen

distress and disappointment over this policy where the oral and simultaneous

communication students were being split up into separate dormitories, dining rooms,

physical education classes, cooking classes, sewing classes, printing classes, workshop

classes, and various events. The students

missed the old way where everyone was all

together. The students explained they were

protesting the restrictions on their signing.

They felt the situation had become

intolerable. No one listened (Nellie Sausedo,

personal communication, 2007)

After the student strike and protest,

USD principal, Tony Christopoulos, told the

Ogden Standard Examiner newspaper that he

thought the strike was the result of some

unhappy parents. He felt the parents had

influenced the students to pull that stunt. He

told the reporter that the 52 deaf students of

the same age group who were in the Oral Program did not participate in the strike. It was

the smaller deaf student group from the Simultaneous Communication program who were

dissatisfied with the changes (Ogden Standard Examiner, September 14, 1962). The latter

group of students wanted everyone together as before and had not acted under the

direction of any disgruntled parents.

The oral advocates suspected that the UAD was behind the plan for the 1962

student strike. The Utah State Board of Education investigated but failed to see the

connection between the students and the UAD (Sanderson, UAD Bulletin, Summer

1963). Dr. Robert G. Sanderson, UAD president (1960-63), denied having anything to do

with it. He stated that the strike was spontaneous – a reaction of the students against

conditions, restrictions, and personalities which they felt had become intolerable (7).

UAD noted, in the Fall-Winter 1962 UAD Bulletin issue, that they supported a fair test of

Superintendent Robert W. Tegeder

the two-track or dual program at the Utah School for the Deaf as a classroom matter.

However, they had a strong disapproval of the

attempt at complete social segregation,

interference with religious activities, crippling

of the sports program, and the severe

pressure on the children in the oral department

to enforce the “no signing” rule (UAD

Bulletin, Fall-Winter 1962, p. 2-3). The

implementation of dual tracking constituted the

darkest chapter in the education of the deaf in

Utah.

The Negative Impact of the “Y” System

Despite the student protest, the “Y” system was officially established at the Utah

School for the Deaf, both at the residential school in Ogden and the satellite schools

throughout the Salt Lake area. As all deaf and hard-of-hearing children had to start in the

oral program at the age of 3 years old, this was the entry point, much like the stem of the

letter, ‘Y‘. There were no other options from which parents could choose. If, after 6-8

years of working within the oral program, there was failure on the part of the student to

achieve good speech and listening skills, then the deaf child was transferred to the

simultaneous communications program. This transition happened during the middle

school ages, that is, between 10-12 years old (First Reunion of the Utah School for the

Deaf Alumni, 1976). While some students successfully continued in the oral program,

others were shifted to the signing program. This became like the arms of the ‘Y’, as the

Dr. Robert G. Sanderson

children were branched off into the one or the other program. During the middle school

years, the parents could also decide to place

their children in the signing program but they

had to wait until then to move them out of the

Oral Division (Kenneth L. Kinner, personal

communication, May 14, 2011).

Barbara Bass, who is deaf and

formerly taught at USD, explained, “This

physical and methodological separation of the

students created wide and painful

repercussions: classmates were isolated from

one another; many teachers lost friendships

with colleagues over philosophical disagreements; and administrators [who managed

both programs] found it difficult to divide their loyalties” (Bass, 1982).

Barbara Bass

Notes

Celia May Baldwin, personal interview, April 15, 2012.

Diane Williams, personal communication, 2007.

Jeff Pollock, personal communication, May 4, 2005.

Johnny Murray, personal communication, August 14, 2009.

Kenneth L. Kinner, personal communication, May 14, 2011.

Nellie Sausedo, personal communication, 2007.

Ronald Burdett, personal communication, 2007.

Ronald Burdett, personal communication, 2009.

Bibliography

Bass, Barbara. “Profile: Teacher Dora Laramie. “Perspectives for Teachers of the

Hearing Impaired, vol. 1, no.1.” (September 1982).

Christopulos, Tony. “Utah School for the Deaf Announces Program Change.” The Utah Eagle, vol. 74, no. 2 (November 1962): 1 & 6.

“Deaf School Students on ‘Strike.’” Ogden Standard Examiner,1B, September 14, 1962.

First Reunion of the Utah School for the Deaf Alumni, 1976.

Laflamme, Lon. “Two Methods for Teaching Deaf Offered.” Ogden Standard Examiner, September 5, 1973.

“New Developments in Utah’s Educational Programs for the Deaf.” The Utah Eagle, vol.

79, no. 5 (February 1968): 13 – 15. Sanderson, Robert G. “The President’s Corner.” UAD Bulletin vol., no. (Fall-Winter

1962): 2-3

“Two-way program to be instituted this fall at Utah School for the Deaf.” Ogden Standard-Examiner, June 14, 1962.

“Utah Council for the Deaf.” UAD Bulletin, vol. 2, no. 8 (Fall-Winter 1962): 3.

Wight, Ray. “Deaf Teaching Methods Debated.” Ogden Standard-Examiner, October 19,

1970.