Utah Schools for the Deaf (USD) Associate Superintendent Michelle Tanner met with Utah State University’s (USU) Communicative Disorder and Deaf Education Department’s Chair Karen Munoz and Deaf Ed Program Director Lauri Nelson for a more in-depth discussion about the relationship between USD and USU for the reimagined Bilingual/Bicultural (Bi/Bi) Deaf Education program at USU.
As announced in April, USU plans to bring back the ASL/English, Bi/Bi Deaf Education program as an on-line Bachelor’s program. The plans announced at that time still had many details to be determined in order to move forward with the program. USD was key in ensuring the program’s viability and success.
The current plan intends to define eligible program candidates as those individuals who are already working at Utah deaf schools as teacher’s aides. Eligible program students can also include individuals in the public school districts who are working as classroom aides for deaf children.
During the meeting with USU and USD, Karen and Lauri shared a proposed course schedule. USU wants USD’s input to finalize the course requirements. There will be another meeting scheduled in the future for this purpose. Contributors will include members of the Deaf community as well as Nathan Harrison, USDB Curriculum Director.
USU is not concerned about reaching a certain minimum number for enrollment. Rather, they are focused on getting a program up-and-running, to take the place of the suspended ASL/English Deaf Ed program, as quickly as possible.
USD has 4 campuses from which to draw prospective program students. These 4 campuses are Kenneth Burdett School (KBS) in Ogden, Jean Massieu School (JMS) in Salt Lake City, Elizabeth DeLong School (EDS) in Springville, and a satellite school in St. George.
Also, it is important to note that there is a state-funded grant available to individuals who would like to enroll and graduate from this on-line Bi/Bi Deaf Education program at USU.
In April USU made an announcement that the Bilingual-Bicultural program would transition to an online bachelor’s degree with a pathway to licensure. The announcement included a survey to collect responses from the community and from school districts regarding this announcement.
The majority of responses to the survey were positive and have encouraged USU to continue to investigate the viability of the program.
As indicated in the survey analysis write-up, a lot of the program’s success depends on Utah Schools for the Deaf (USD). Some follow up meetings have been scheduled between USU and USD to further define and clarify what partnerships are needed to make the program work.
Above is the PDF produced by USU of the April Survey results.
There’s going to be a follow-up with a little more information of how things are going and the process so far. Any questions after reading the results that should be included in the follow-up?
It might help to discuss this together first. What do you all think about this?
Also, I am collecting any questions you may have to send to Dr. Munoz and Dr. Nelson — director and chair of the program. You can email your questions to contact@hellobibi.org or comment on this post.
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 onlyfour 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:
Thank you for everyone who participated in and shared the USU Bi-Bi Program priorities survey! Dr. Karen Munoz complied the data and presents the information in the following PDF.
When I looked at the data, I had a few questions so I asked Dr. Munoz and Dean Smith. Some of their answers also cover a question asked during the survey period. Below I’ve listed out some questions and answers relating to the survey and the survey results.
Question:
I’m a little frustrated with this wording on the survey… they HAD a good program and it feels like they aren’t acknowledging that or looking to what was already in place. “At Utah State University we are commencing a strategic planning process to see what kind of programming would be valuable and feasible moving forward to meet this need.”
Why not say what they want to improve and what are our priorities? I guess one of my priorities now becomes to keep the values and strategies the program has taught for 30 years IN PLACE. We don’t need a completely new program! We need the program to stay in place. Improvements are fine, but a complete attempt to rebuild what was already there will fall short. How do we help them see that what was already in place is what we need???
Answer:
While there are lots of great things already in place within the Bi-Bi program as it is now, to try and point to specific weak spots might mean calling out individuals and distract from the real goal here — to have a great Bilingual/Bicultural program. Rather than focus solely on improvements, the Strategic Planning Process is opening up the scope to include all possibilities.
This opportunity for new possibilities isn’t meant to be a direct critique of the curriculum or the instructors. It is meant to ensure that going forward documentation of curriculum effectiveness is properly gathered and on hand for any necessary accreditation processes. It is recognizing that even under the best circumstances any curriculum is not beyond examination and consideration. Without occasionally opening windows and airing things out, we aren’t ever really as confident that things really are on the cutting edge of Deaf culture and ASL teaching strategies. As administrators we’re not positioning ourselves as the experts. We are simply using this as an opportunity to look at and evaluate the program. This survey is the first step.
As a note, it has been pointed out that within the Deaf community, the idea of making “upgrades” is sometimes seen as replacing valued language and culture with “technological advances”. That is not our intention here. The thought is simply that over the decades, surely we have learned how to more effectively, efficiently, and meaningfully teach ASL, deaf culture, and so on within a Bi-Bi educational context. As a leading higher education institution, we should be on the cutting edge of this. If we already are, then we can move forward with confidence. If there is room for improvement as things are evaluated by expert stakeholders, then we make the program even better.
Question
If a topic receives more responses — like more people are talking about curriculum items — does that get a higher priority than an administrative concern?
Answer
No. The popularity of a topic doesn’t mean it’s more important. This survey was not meant to put these priorities in any certain order.
Question
Will all of these priorities be considered?
Answer
All of these priorities are valuable, but some are more possible than others. That’s why this is just the first step. As we move forward we will continue to involve more stakeholders (people who are involved in some aspect of the program) who will be able to help ensure these priorities become possibilities and eventual realities. You are all important in that process. Please stay connected and involved.
Got other questions about the survey results? Other questions about the program? Send them to contact@hellobibi.org
I am disheartened and disilliusioned that the outstanding Bilingual-Bicultural Program in Deaf Education at Utah State University has been closed based on the recommendation of an “internal committee review” whose members consisted of the Dean of the Emma Eccles Jones College of Education and Human Services, Dr. Al Smith; the Department Chair of Communicative Disorders and Deaf Education, Dr. Karen Munoz; and the Director of Deaf Education, Dr. Lauri Nelson. None of the “internal review” members have any institutional knowledge of or expertise in Bilingual-Bicultural Deaf Education or American Sign Language teaching. I was the Director of the Deaf Education Program at USU for 26 years, and was replaced in 2017 by Dr. Lauri Nelson, who at the time was the Director of the Listening and Spoken Language Program (LSL). The reason for my replacement was a philosophical impasse relative to Bilingual-Bicultural teacher preparation and Listening and Spoken Language with the Department Chair at the time, Dr. Kim Corbin-Lewis. I continued to teach Deaf Education in the Bilingual-Bicultural track until I retired December 31, 2020 and was granted Professor Emeritus status.
The Dean, Dr. Al Smith, stated on the College website, February 2, 2022, “…. The recent accreditation review of the Bi-Bi program by the Council on Education of the Deaf made it clear to us that this program track is not currently providing the high-quality education expected at Utah State University. Moreover, we came to learn of some weaknesses in our undergraduate ASL (American Sign Language) curriculum…” NOTE: ON FEBRUARY 3, AFTER RECEIVING A LETTER FROM DR. BARBARA RAIMONDO, PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL ON EDUCATION OF THE DEAF, HE RETRACTED THIS STATEMENT, AND SAID IT WAS ATTRIBUTED TO AN “INTERNAL REVIEW” OF THE PROGRAM.
This official announcement of the program’s closure was issued without the Dean having the professional courtesy to consult with Dr. Curtis Radford, Dr. Carolyn Ball, Jan-Kelley King, and Brian Burns, the Deaf Education/ASL professors still employed at Utah State. In fact, he has never even met them.
It is apparent that the Dean was not informed of or blatantly ignored the reputations of these highly qualified professors in Bilingual-Bicultural Deaf Education. Dr. Curt Radford, who is Deaf, has a doctorate in Deaf Education and is a national authority on the teaching of American Sign Language and the use of ASL in the classroom. He also achieved the highest rating possible, a five, on the American Sign Language Proficiency Interview administered by Gallaudet University; Dr. Carolyn Ball is hearing, with an earned doctorate in Educational Interpreting. She is an acclaimed professor and a nationally certified interpreter; Jan Kelley-King is hearing and has a master’s degree in Deaf Education and is nationally known for her innovations in teaching reading to the Deaf as well as her knowledge of designing ASL assessments that are used for evaluating the ASL skills of pre-service teachers; and Brian Burns, who is Deaf, has a master’s degree in ASL Teaching from Gallaudet University. He also has excellent teacher ratings and like Dr. Radford, achieved the highest rating, a five, on the on the American Sign Language Proficiency Interview.
The only input solicited by the Dean was from the Department Chair and Deaf Education Division Director whose professional training and experiences are in audiology, not Bilingual-Bicultural teacher preparation or American Sign Language methodology. It would have been far more appropriate, if it were necessary to conduct an internal review, that the members of the internal review committee had been professionals in the areas being reviewed.
It is interesting to note that the Bilingual-Bicultural Program at Utah State University has been accredited by the Council on Education of the Deaf (CED) for over 30 years. In fact, past reviewers of the program have been laudatory in their evaluation of the USU Deaf Education Program, deeming it to be one of the premier teacher training programs in the nation. When the time for recertification of the program came up, CED was experiencing a drastic reconfiguration and reorganization; resultantly, the recertification was delayed.
In 2019, at the national American Colleges Educators of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (ACE-DHH) convention, Dr. Radford was informed by Dr. Joseph Fishgrund, the Executive Director of CED, at the time, that our program had been reviewed and there were a few minor edits recommended, but that he had as of yet to find a second reviewer, as is required by the recertification process. For whatever reasons, a second reviewer was not found, so the reaccreditation was further delayed until the present moment.
During the ensuing year of the reaccreditation process, the Bilingual-Bicultural Deaf Education faculty was summarily instructed by the Department Chair, Dr. Karen Munoz, not to discuss their plight (problems with the reaccreditation process or the possibility of the program closure) with any colleagues on the national level, and certainly not to contact the Council on Education of the Deaf (CED) with any concerns or questions.
Dr. Radford and Jan Kelley-King experienced an inordinate amount of additional work related to CED reaccreditation, that was added to their already full teaching loads. Dr. Munoz, the Department Chair, gave both Dr. Radford and Jan Kelley-King teacher ratings of NOT MEETING EXPECTATIONS on the annual Performance Appraisal of 2020; both felt that these ratings were not reflective of their role statements or the positive contributions each had made to the success of the Department, the Bilingual-Bicultural Deaf Education Program, or the profession of Deaf Education, in general.
Certainly, it must be admitted, every program, including Bilingual-Bicultural Deaf Education has its systemic, operational weaknesses and areas that need improvement. Every program also has its strengths which should be embraced and highlighted.
Following is a brief historical chronology of the evolution and closing of the Bilingual-Bicultural Deaf Education Program at USU (Note that none of the positions have been refilled through the years, causing one to assume there is a systemic bias against bilingual-bicultural teacher training held by the Department and the College):
*In 1990, the state legislature designated Utah State University as being responsible for the training of teachers of the Deaf and hard of hearing. This program was designed by Dr. Tom Clark and Dr. James Blair, who at the time directed the Deaf Education teacher training program.
*Dr. Blair recruited Dr. Freeman King in 1991 to teach at Utah State University and to assist in facilitating programmatic changes of the program from a Signed English/Total Communication program into a Bilingual-Bicultural-ASL-English program.
*Jan Kelley-King was hired by the Department in 1992 to teach undergraduate American Sign Language courses, a graduate course in the teaching of reading to the deaf child, and to serve as the Deaf Education advisor. Having previously been employed as a classroom teacher and parent advisor, she was later assigned to also teach literacy methodology in the teacher preparation Bilingual-Bicultural classes.
*At the time, Dr. Sue Watkins, a faculty member in Deaf Education and an internationally recognized authority in early intervention-parent advisor training was the director of the SKI-HI Institute housed on campus at USU. The SKI-HI Institute, begun in 1972, focuses on developing new programs, materials, and training for children who are deafblind, deaf or hard of hearing, blind or visually impaired, their families and providers. Dr. Watkins’ graduate program in early intervention was closed due to a funding problem. Dr. Watkins ultimately retired and her teaching position was not replaced.
*Dr. James Blair was appointed Department Chair in 2004 and served in that position until 2007, then returned to classroom teaching. When Dr. Blair retired in 2015, his teaching responsibilities (part-time) and management of the USU accreditation by the Council on Education of the Deaf report in the Bilingual -Bicultural Program and his teaching position was not replaced.
*In 2007, the USU Deaf Education Program received a grant from the Oberkotter Foundation for over three million dollars to set up a listening and spoken language/cochlear implant preschool and teacher training program that excluded the use of ASL. Dr. Lauri Nelson was made director of the Sound Beginnings Auditory-Oral Preschool and soon thereafter, the director of the LSL Teacher Training Program.
*Dr. Curt Radford joined the Deaf Education Program in 2007. At the time, his responsibilities focused on teaching and programming ASL classes. Shortly after joining the faculty, he developed the first nationally recognized program for the delivery of ASL as a full language online curriculum. Drawing on his extensive knowledge of Bilingual-Bicultural teaching experience (having served as a classroom teacher and principal), he was subsequently assigned to teach more methodology related classes in Bilingual-Bicultural teacher preparation classes, as well as Deaf Culture.
*Dr. Debbie Golos, was hired in 2007, as an Assistant Professor in the Bilingual-Bicultural Program with an emphasis in grant writing and research. In 2015, she accepted a position at the University of Minnesota. Her teaching position was not replaced.
*Brian Burns joined the Bilingual-Bicultural faculty in 2015 and due to his training in ASL teaching methodology was assigned to teach undergraduate courses in American Sign Language and to manage the ASL Laboratory.
*In 2017, the Chair of the Department of Communicative Disorders and Deaf Education, Dr. Kim Corbin-Lewis, removed Dr. King as the Director of Deaf Education, due to philosophical differences, and replaced him with Dr. Lauri Nelson, who at the time was director of the Listening and Spoken Language Program (LSL). Dr. King continued to teach in the Bilingual-Bicultural program.
*Dr. King retired in December 2020 and was granted the title of Professor Emeritus. His position has not been replaced.
*Felicia Dixon, the supervisor of student teaching and an instructor in Bilingual-Bicultural Deaf Education, resigned in the summer of 2021, and her position was not replaced.
*Jan Kelley-King retired in December, 2021; she agreed to stay on and teach one graduate class in the Spring semester, 2022. Her position has not been replaced.
*Dr. Curt Radford, submitted his resignation effective June, 2022.
*The Bilingual-Bicultural Deaf Education Program was closed in 2022.
All teaching loads and responsibilities of those who retired, took another teaching position, or resigned were reassigned by the Department Chair, Dr. Karen Munoz, to the remaining professors, Dr. Curt Radford, Dr. Carolyn Ball and Jan Kelley-King. The majority of the workload fell to Dr. Radford and Jan Kelley-King.
What a lost opportunity to have fully developed and supported equally two tracks in Deaf Education that would have allowed students to choose which philosophical path they wished to pursue, Bilingual-Bicultural teaching or Listening and Spoken Language; thus meeting the critical need for teachers of the Deaf, both in Utah and nationwide.
I am afraid that the decision of the Dean, Dr. Al Smith, and the Department Chair, Dr. Karen Munoz, to close the Bilingual-Bicultural Deaf Education Program at Utah State University will cause the university to become a pariah to the Deaf /ASL Community and students, both Deaf and hearing, whose dream was to study Bilingual-Bicultural Deaf Education at USU. The closing of the Bilingual-Bicultural program is already national and state news in the Deaf/ASL community. In my opinion, closing the Bilingual-Bicultural Deaf Education teacher training program and questioning the quality of the American Sign Language program is a travesty and the direct result of poor and weak leadership on the part of the Dean of the Emma Eccles Jones College of Education and Human Services.
This decision has opened the door for the Utah State University Deaf Education Program to become a one-dimensional teacher training program, Listening and Spoken Language only. The idea of linguistic and philosophical choice has been obliterated by the program closure. Educational equity and freedom of choice no longer exists in the Department of Communicative Disorders and Deaf Education.
Respectively submitted,
Dr. J. Freeman King, Professor Emeritus Deaf Education Utah State University Logan, Utah
Here is a little video that describes where the people we talk about, like the dean, department head, etc., fit within the organizational structure of the university.
We have met with Dean Al Smith and the chair of the program, Dr. Karen Munoz on February 8th, 2022. In attendance were Justin Bodily, Savannah Sparks, and Emma Cole representing USU students as a current Bilingual/Bicultural Deaf Education master’s student (Justin), USU alumna and program applicant (Savannah), and Bi-Bi 5-year program student in her 4th year and just missing the cut off to complete the program (Emma). Dereck Hooley (Deaf), Bronwyn O’Hara (parent of Deaf children), Mykel Winn (SODA), and Emily Bergeson (CODA/SODA/interpreter) attended as representatives of the ASL/Deaf community.
The meeting went over an hour and a half. We were glad that the dean and Karen listened to our concerns about the program, even though they said that the program would remain on suspension for now.
The dean explained they wanted to make changes and improvements to the program. They don’t know how long the suspension will last. We did push for them to keep the program open while making improvements. The dean said that was not possible, though he acknowledged the reason was not simply because of the accreditation issue.
We asked several questions including whether the dean had consulted Dr. Curt Radford. The dean said he had not talked to Curt. Karen was asked if Curt had been consulted and she said he had been involved in the numerous meetings leading up to the program suspension.
We pressed the dean and Karen about the impact the program closure would have on deaf education. We asked how long the program would remain suspended and what it would take to bring the program back. We didn’t get any clear answers but the dean and Dr. Munoz assured us that they knew the program was important and that it wouldn’t remain suspended indefinitely.
We left the meeting feeling somewhat on the same page. Everyone recognized the need for ongoing communication throughout the process for bringing Bi-Bi back. The group decided that Karen would keep in contact with Emily moving forward.
Hello Bibi 