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

Bell. Gallaudet spent his career arguing for both manualism and oralism in the classroom and

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

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

students. For the period this paper will cover (in the case of FSDB 1885 through 1950) the

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

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

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

11 The Florida School Herald 1907-1950; Biennial Reports of the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind 1914-195012 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 1907-195015 Brenda Brueggemann, Lend Me Your Ear Rhetorical Constructions of Deafness (Washington D.C.: Gallaudet University Press, 1999), 135–139.

Klatzkow 8

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.

Chapter One: Prelude to the oralist movement: the history of deaf education

in the Americas and in Europe

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

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

other things, to speak.21 His recognition that “disability did not hinder learning” marks him as the

“first successful special educator.”22

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, 4.21 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.

Klatzkow 10

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

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

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., 48–52.30 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.

Klatzkow 11

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

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

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, 55.37 Ibid., 55–57.

Klatzkow 12

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

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

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, 18.41 Winzer, Margret A., The History of Special Education: From Isolation to Integration, 85–90.

Klatzkow 13

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,

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

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.,” 29.47 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.

Klatzkow 14

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

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

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, 36–38.50 Abbe Sicard took over Abbe de l’Eppe’s school

Klatzkow 15

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

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

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, 7.54 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.

Klatzkow 16

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

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

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, 7.60 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.

Klatzkow 17

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

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

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, 4–5.66 Burch, Signs of Resistance, 7.67 Ibid., 42, 45.

Klatzkow 18

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

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

68 Ibid., 7.69 Ibid., 10.70 Ibid., 10.71 Ibid., 12–13.72 Branson and Miller, Don, Damned for Their Difference the Cultural Construction of Deaf People as “Disabled,” 25–28.73 Ibid., 150–151.

Klatzkow 19

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

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

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.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.

Klatzkow 20

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,

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

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, 135.84 Ibid., 135–136.85 Ibid., 133.86 Winzer, Margret A., The History of Special Education: From Isolation to Integration, 126.

Klatzkow 21

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

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

87 Baynton, Forbidden Signs, 26–28.88 Burch, Signs of Resistance, 12–13; Baynton, Forbidden Signs, 32.89 Baynton, Forbidden Signs, 95–99.90 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 22

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

92 Winefield, Never the Twain Shall Meet : Bell, Gallaudet, and the Communications Debate, 34–35.93 Ibid., 1–2.

Klatzkow 23

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:

“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

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,” 185–186.97 Fay, Edward Allen, “Methods of Instruction in American Schools,” 63.98 Winefield, Never the Twain Shall Meet : Bell, Gallaudet, and the Communications Debate, 4.

Klatzkow 24

“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

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

99 Ibid., 32.100 Ibid., 32, 34–35.101 Ibid., 25–32.102 Ibid., 34.103 Ibid., 33.

Klatzkow 25

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

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

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., 11.108 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.

Klatzkow 26

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

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-109 Winefield, Never the Twain Shall Meet : Bell, Gallaudet, and the Communications Debate, 91–92.110 Burch, Signs of Resistance, 11–12.111 Ibid., 45.112 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.

Klatzkow 27

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

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

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,” 169.118 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.

Klatzkow 28

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

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

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,” 225.123Harris, 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.

Klatzkow 29

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

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

125 Burch, Signs of Resistance, 11, 17–21; Baynton, Forbidden Signs, 25.126 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.

Klatzkow 30

“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

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,

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,” 201.132 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.

Klatzkow 31

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

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

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), 75.138 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.

Klatzkow 32

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

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

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, 10–12.146 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.

Klatzkow 33

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

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 149 Mikutel, “From ‘Silence and Darkness’: Historical Origins of the Florida School for the Deaf and Blind,” 30–32.150 “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.

Klatzkow 34

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

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

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,” 33.156 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.

Klatzkow 35

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

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

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, 47.165 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 36

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

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

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.

Klatzkow 37

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,

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

173 Mr. Barnes, “Extracted from ‘Report Upon a Visit of Enquiry to American Schools for the Deaf’,” The Florida School Herald, December 1907, 7.174 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 38

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

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,

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 39

the American Annals of the Deaf notes that the Florida legislature approved $45,000 for the

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”

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 40

the author explained that policies were enacted in the September of that school year to “deal with

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 41

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 42

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 1925

and in 1938, the manual department clearly had grade levels. Many of these children wrote their

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 43

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

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

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.”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,

Klatzkow 44

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,

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), 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 1907-1950215 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 45

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

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,

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. 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.

Klatzkow 46

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

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

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 Heralds1907-1950226 Ibid., 17.227 “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.

Klatzkow 47

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

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 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), 31.233 Ibid., 19; Moore, Lucy, “Letter by Lucy Moore: On Intermediate and Advanced Dept.,” 20–26.

Klatzkow 48

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

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.

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 49

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

Klatzkow 50

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

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

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., 102.242 Baynton, Forbidden Signs, 155.

Klatzkow 51

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

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

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,” 28.247 Ibid., 29.248 Ibid.249 Ibid., 29, 31, 34–37.

Klatzkow 52

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

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

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., 5.254 Ibid., 5–6.255 Ibid., 9, 11–12.256 Brueggemann, Lend Me Your Ear Rhetorical Constructions of Deafness, 135–137.

Klatzkow 53

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

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

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 54

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

can “be served as day students.”266 Eligibility requires a 30 decibel hearing loss in the better

ear.267

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/.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 55

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

268 Winzer, Margret A., The History of Special Education: From Isolation to Integration, 56–57.

Klatzkow 56

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.

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

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, 29–46.272 Burch, Signs of Resistance, 7–16.

Klatzkow 57

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,

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%

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, 30–31.276 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.

Klatzkow 58

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 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,

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.”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.

Klatzkow 59

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

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

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,” 29.288 “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.

Klatzkow 60

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

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.

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,” 17.293 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, 12–13294 Burch, Signs of Resistance, 27.

Klatzkow 61

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 62

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.

Klatzkow 63

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.

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/.

Klatzkow 64

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.

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.

Klatzkow 65

“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.

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.

Klatzkow 66

———. 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.

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.

Klatzkow 67

“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.

“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.

Klatzkow 68

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.

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.

Klatzkow 69

“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.

———. 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.

Klatzkow 70

“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.

———. “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.

Klatzkow 71

———. 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.