Faces of the Movement — Bronwyn O’Hara

It was June 1987. The Deaf President Now movement on the Gallaudet campus had not yet happened (March 1, 1988), the Reauthorization of the Deaf Act was underway (1988-1991) , and The Commission on the Education of the Deaf had not yet been authorized to gather information (1988). American Sign Language (ASL) was not yet recognized as a legitimate language in our country and it certainly wasn’t allowed into deaf classrooms as a language of instruction. It was during this time that our family moved from Idaho to Utah. Our family consisted of my husband, Dennis (deaf but raised oral/aural (now called Listening and Spoken Language (LSL))), Bronwyn (me – hearing), children-Molly (Deaf), Toby (Deaf), Emily (hearing), Rory (hearing) and Ellen (Deaf). Little did I know what an impact moving to Utah would have on my family. 

But let me back up. When I married my husband, I knew absolutely nothing about deaf/Deafness. My only exposure had been my husband’s experience. Dennis was taught in his early school days at a special school for the deaf in Sacramento, CA, that if a deaf child signed, that child would be a failure in life. Does anyone else find that striking? A special deaf school teaching that to use sign language equaled failure. But he truly believed this and we started our deaf children on the oral/aural (LSL) path. As our resident “deaf-expert”,  Molly and Toby would follow in Dennis’ footsteps. 

As a full-time homemaker, I did my part too and enrolled in the John Tracy Clinic Correspondence Course out of Los Angeles, California. This program taught spoken and listening skills to parents with deaf infants/preschoolers. As we moved to different states, we continued to seek out the LSL educational programs. When we lived in Delaware from 1981-1984, for example, Molly started at the Margaret S. Sterck School for the Deaf. The school used some kind of sign modality but the students were not on grade level. For that reason, I felt I had to look for another placement that could meet Molly’s academic needs. The new educational idea of the day was called “mainstreaming” and providing a “Least-Restrictive Environment“. These placements were not viewed from a language or social perspective for the deaf child. The prevalent practice was to place a deaf child into a regular education classroom with some kind of support. However, while the instruction was intended to provide material on grade level, we noticed this approach was fraught with communication problems. I couldn’t understand why educators of the deaf thought a deaf child could hear and speak in this regular, dynamic educational environment. What kind of learning was –or was not– taking place?

When Molly was 10 years old, it was clear there were communication breakdowns. Everyone was relying on her ability to adapt: family members, neighbors, and school people expected her to hear and lip-read. She was amazingly good, but it was taking its toll. 

Ellen, my third deaf child, was born in 1985. As I watched the expectations heaped on Molly to adjust and fill in information (from who knows where), I experienced a personal awakening regarding what might be needed to educate my deaf children. This is when we decided, as a family, to switch to a signing approach. But not just any signing approach. I came to learn that there were so many different signing approaches too. Signing options at the time included Simultaneous Communication (Sim Com) (also known as Total Communication (TC)), Sign Supported Speech (SSS), and Signing Exact English (SEE).  Each of these methods revolved around using signs to represent English words. As I explored each of these options, my question was: did the English-based signs make sense to my deaf children?? 

In 1986 as I made this important transition for my children, there were no signing resources available to families. There were no personnel/teaching materials in deaf schools who could answer the question regarding best signing options. Ellen was in the Parent-Infant Program (PIP) in Idaho in 1986 where I requested a Parent-Infant Program (PIP) advisor who could sign. I was told by the Idaho State School for the Deaf and Blind (ISSDB) that they didn’t have any. All of their parent advisors who worked with families with deaf babies were trained in the LSL methods. But I’d already been through the John Tracy Clinic oral/aural course and knew this method was just not adequate for learning.

We didn’t know what to do or who to turn to.

We’d heard about a Provo, Utah church group where members were deaf. We wanted to join them. We felt this would be the best way for our family to learn sign language and have deaf people mentor us.

As we were settling into Provo in 1987, Ellen transitioned into the PIP program run by the Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind (USDB). Again I asked for a PIP advisor who could teach and model sign language for our family. Again I was told that USDB didn’t have any PIP advisors who could sign. This didn’t make any sense whatsoever! A deaf school that didn’t have advisors who could sign?? Who could help families navigate the many questions of helping their deaf child? As a sad accommodation to our request, we were given an LSL PIP advisor who didn’t mind that we were learning sign language. I couldn’t understand the attitude against providing an advisor who could show us how to sign? Why couldn’t my children and our family have access to ALL of the resources for communication exchange?  I felt the LSL PIP program was very restrictive. As I did more research and asked more questions, I found out that, according to the LSL philosophy, these PIP advisors were taught that a deaf child who signed would never speak or use hearing aids. The number one goal of the LSL program was to have deaf children and youth all wear hearing aids and speak and function in the hearing world with just those skills and no other support. 

As a living example of the error of the LSL philosophy — all of our deaf children use hearing aids, speak, AND sign!

In spite of all these barriers upon our arrival to Utah, our family embarked on learning sign language with the help of deaf community members in Provo and its surrounding area. I learned about the efficiency and ease of learning for the deaf child when using a true language of sign — American Sign Language (ASL). I read and gathered research and studies and educational papers to support this and shared it with our USDB program director, Steve Noyce. In spite of all of the information and data supporting the fact that Deaf children could succeed in an educational environment taught in ASL, he did not see a need to change their current programs. As a parent, I cannot begin to describe how frustrating that was for me.

As Ellen began attending the USDB preschool, she was channeled into the LSL program because she could already use her voice. During my classroom visits I was surprised how much academic learning time was spent on pronouncing words correctly. By the time Ellen got into kindergarten/1st grade, I asked for her to be placed in the signing track. USDB had Total Communication (TC) with Signed Exact English (S.E.E.) being the signing modality. Through my reading, I found out that S.E.E. is NOT a language. It arbitrarily assigns only one sign to each English word. That sign would be used regardless of the word’s meaning in a sentence. For example, the sign for the word “run” would be to run with legs even if the sentence was “He ran for office” or “My nose is running”. To use the sign “to run as with 2 legs” in those sentences would make no sense to a deaf child. S.E.E. signing did not allow for signing those variations of meaning. 

This was just the beginning of how I came to understand and appreciate that American Sign Language had these language complexities covered. I was surprised there were 3 kinds of “run” in ASL which would have clarified the various meanings. These, however, were not allowed to be used in the classroom. Our program director was unaware (I feel that I’m being pretty generous here with that word) of the many confusing aspects imposed on the children by restricting the signing modality to S.E.E. only. I was very dissatisfied with how the deaf school failed — and even refused — to incorporate any cutting-edge knowledge from research studies. There were no educational improvements being made. 

I felt my children’s education hourglass was running out.

In 1987 Molly headed into middle school in Orem, Utah. Again there was no signing option for her. She was placed in a LSL classroom where she was constantly berated by her deaf peers and her teacher for signing. She’d spent from 4th to 6th grade in ISSDB and felt very comfortable signing. She was the only signer in her class. Her oral/auditory skills were so expert that she would correct the teacher when he was not accurate while lecturing. Having her challenge his facts made him so mad, he ended up resigning.

Toby was in 4th grade when we moved to Provo. We tried ISSDB for him for 3rd grade but it was clear the academics were not on grade level for him so he was mainstreamed in Idaho. While he could keep up with academics in the mainstreamed environment, he wasn’t making friends. He missed out on those social exchanges.

As I kept working with Steve Noyce, I finally asked him why the USDB signing classes were not on grade level. He said USDB’s whole goal was remediation or helping the deaf students get caught up to the regular education grade level. This meant the state deaf school only served deaf children who were academically behind. My children were intelligent and not behind. Our Nebo School district Special Ed director, Tom Hudson, said the public school had to wait until the deaf child failed before they could offer services or figure out how to overcome the failure. My children got A’s so no intervention was recommended. I could not understand why language and best-practice teaching methods for deaf children were being withheld from mine simply because they were smart. 

I decided the situation was too desperate to wait for language or philosophy changes in the Utah Deaf School system. We decided Molly and Ellen would attend school at the California School for the Deaf in Fremont, California. Ellen spent 2nd and 3rd grade there and Molly spent a month. Molly returned to Utah and tested out of high school in Dec 1992. She then started attending Utah Valley Community College in Orem, Utah where sign language interpreters were provided without a fight. What a relief! (Anyone else struck by the contrast here?)

The fight was not over for Ellen.  

Ellen returned to USDB in 4th grade and was being mainstreamed with an interpreter because she was on grade-level. After so much struggle, I considered it an improvement that a sign language interpreter was finally an option, but Ellen was missing out on social interactions and extra-curricular activities. She also didn’t have access to instructors who used her language and didn’t have access to deaf adult role models or deaf peers who used her language.

I didn’t know how to get USDB to understand the educational and social needs of my deaf children. In 1992-1993, I visited the Legal Center for the Handicapped in Salt Lake City. I wanted to find out how I could defend my deaf children’s right to language. Most hearing parents don’t even think about whether their hearing children have access to language. In both the LSL and Total Communication programs, a complete language was inaccessible to the deaf student. I thought the Legal Center could help me pull together a lawsuit to force USDB to provide a language of instruction that was a bona fide language rather than sign modalities like Signing Exact English (S.E.E.), Conceptually Accurate Signed English (C.A.S.E.), or Pidgin Signed English (P.S.E.). None of these modalities are a true language. American Sign Language (ASL) is a true language and was compatible with my deaf children’s language needs. I reasoned that if hearing school peers have access to their language of spoken and written English, why couldn’t my deaf children have access to their language of ASL in their classroom. USDB was not providing a language for my deaf children. In fact, USDB was withholding their language from them and these non-language modalities were substitutes for true language in the classroom. These modalities were incapable of providing educational access and should have been judged inadequate in achieving any of the Individual Educational Plan (IEP) goals for my children.  In contrast, American Sign Language was a true language that could deliver academic content, hence giving my deaf children a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) as promised by law. 

I was devastated when the lawyer said, sympathetically, that they did not and could not get involved in a ‘language’ issue. The bulk of their focus was discrimination in the workplace not with civil rights or educational discrimination. I knew of no other legal resource that would help me. I had reached another dead end.

In the middle of Ellen’s 5th grade, after 18 months of mounting frustration, we looked for more dramatic solutions. Researching deaf schools across the country, out of all 50 states, we found only four providing quality education using the Bilingual-Bicultural approach; two in California and one in Indianapolis, Indiana, and one in the Washington, DC area at the Kendall Demonstration Elementary School. Feeling keenly that educational time was running out, my husband quit his job and we moved our family to Indianapolis. By that time Molly and Toby had graduated from high school and were pursuing their college education. Ellen, however, was still in elementary school and needed American Sign Language in the classroom. We simply couldn’t wait for USDB to improve on their own in time. So, yeah, we moved to Indianapolis in Feb 1995 where Ellen got what she needed from ISD. 

It made all the difference. 

I think it’s worth noting the timeline for some of the improvements made at USDB in the years after we moved away:

1995-1996–A toll-free WATTS line was added to the USDB contact information to allow parents to call USDB for free. This was significant at the time because many of us had to pay long-distance rates just to call the school.

1998–Deaf Mentor program is created, providing Deaf adult role models and language models for parents and deaf infants/toddlers in the Parent-Infant Program. (FINALLY!!)

2003–Ellen graduated from high school (Whew!)

June 2005— Jean Massieu Charter School for the Deaf (JMS) in Salt Lake City merges with the Utah Schools for the Deaf and Blind. This provided 3 educational placement choices for parents to make for their deaf children: LSL, TC, and ASL/Bi-Bi (WHOO HOO!!)

2006–The Oral/Aural philosophy name was changed to Listening and Spoken Language.

2008–TC program merges with ASL Bi-Bi program

2009–Ellen graduates from USU in the ASL Bi-Bi Deaf Education master’s program and starts teaching at JMS in the fall of that year.

Other important dates:

1985–a new Deaf Education program established at Utah State University (USU) to train teachers to use Total Communication skills (speaking and signing at the same time) in a deaf classroom. There was also a teacher training program at the University of Utah under the Special Education Dept that allowed for teacher candidates to work towards a deaf education endorsement. This teacher program taught only auditory and speech-reading skills at that time.

1990–Tri-University Consortium where Brigham Young University provided undergraduate classes for teacher of the deaf candidates, University of Utah provided teacher training in LSL skills for their deaf education endorsement, and Utah State University provided deaf education teacher candidates training in signing skills for classroom use. The idea was that, with the collaboration of these three universities, teachers of the deaf would be trained, in all philosophies, to work with deaf students at any school in Utah.

1991–The Total Communication teacher preparation program at USU is restructured into the ASL/English Bilingual-Bicultural program by newly-hired, Dr. J. Freeman King.

It has been a long and bumpy road, but I feel that good changes have been made to the education of the deaf here in Utah. There is a viable ASL/English Bi-Bi program under USDB who needs teacher-graduates from USU. To have the Utah State University Deaf Education teacher training program be suspended (Feb 2022) has greatly upset teachers, university students, parents of deaf children, USDB administrators, and the Utah Deaf Community. 

The Strategic Planning process that USU has initiated gives us hope. The purpose of this process is to revitalize and re-imagine the program so it can, once again, turn out highly trained teachers of the deaf who can teach deaf children in their own language of ASL.

After my own journey as a parent of Deaf children, I fervently look forward to the return of the Bilingual/Bicultural program at USU. 

Written by Bronwyn O’Hara

March 3,2022

For a comprehensive history of Deaf Education in Utah, please go to the following website:

Click to access 1._the_evolution_of_deaf_education_in_utah_.pdf