The Deaf / Their Position in Society and the Provision for Their Education in the United States :: CHAPTER X ORGANIZATION OF THE INSTITUTIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS Arrangements in the Different States

CHAPTER X ORGANIZATION OF THE INSTITUTIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS Arrangements in the Different States

CHAPTER X ORGANIZATION OF THE INSTITUTIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS Arrangements in the Different States

Provision for the education of the deaf is made by the different states as a general rule in local institutions. In only four states are deaf children sent at public expense to a school outside for their instruction: Delaware, New Hampshire, Nevada, and Wyoming. In these, owing to their comparatively small populations, it has been considered more economical and satisfactory to contract with the school in an adjoining state.

In each of the other states there is at least one institution, or sixty-five in all. In Connecticut and the District of Columbia[253] there are two, in Massachusetts three, in Pennsylvania four, and in New York eight. In some of these the schools are distributed over the state the better to reach all the pupils. In the Southern states there are usually separate departments in the regular institutions for children of the colored race,[254] but in some there are special arrangements. In Virginia there is one school for the white deaf and blind, and another for the colored. In North Carolina there is a school for the white deaf, and another for the blind with a department for the colored deaf and blind. In Alabama, Maryland, Oklahoma, and Texas each there is a school for the white deaf and another for the colored deaf and blind.[255]

In nearly all the states these schools are strictly public institutions, owned by the state and supported wholly by taxation, and are under the direct control and supervision of the legislature. In a few of the Eastern states the institutions are in private hands and operated under their immediate direction, and in some cases supported in part by endowment funds, but at the same time receiving appropriations from the state, and subject to its authority and general oversight. They are thus "semi-public" or "quasi-public" institutions, and will need a brief separate treatment, as will also the "dual schools," where the deaf and blind are educated together.

Semi-Public Institutions

The semi-public institutions are seventeen in number, and are found in six states: Connecticut, Maryland,[256] Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania,[257] and Vermont. Institutions in these states have remained private corporations from the time they were established, some of them being, as we have seen, the first schools that were created for the deaf. A certain number were especially favored by private munificence at their beginning, and continued to be supported by private funds till the state came to their aid and undertook to assist by regular appropriations. Other schools have been similarly organized, but have always depended largely on the appropriations from the state. All of them are in the hands of societies,[258] organized and chartered as corporations under the laws of the state. In some cases membership is open to those interested on the payment of the regular dues or fees.[259]

These institutions, while corporate bodies, are under the authority and supervision of the state. Their relation to the state and the conditions under which they exist may be understood from their position in New York. Here the institutions were chartered by the state as benevolent societies, the buildings and grounds being presented, or the money for them collected, by the trustees, and the property reverting to the state if alienated to another use.[260] These schools are all subsidized from the state treasury in per capita allowances for the pupils received;[261] and to some, especially the newer ones, there are general appropriations from time to time for buildings and the like. The regular grants, however, are often not sufficient for the cost of maintenance, which means that the institutions are instructing the children of the state, and maintaining them, at a cost to which the state contributes only a part. Such balances are covered from the endowment funds and private donations, but it would seem that the state gets a good bargain from the transaction.[262]

On the other hand, it is to be remembered in connection with these schools that in the matter of the education of certain of the children of the state this duty is turned over to a private society. An anomalous situation, it would seem, is thus created, the state abdicating one of its most important functions as now conceived. The question, however, is not of great practical moment, and the matter may be likened to the general policy of the state when it contracts out for any of its work to be done. If economy and efficiency are secured, it is felt that there can be little ground for objection. A more important question arises in the matter of the granting of public money to a private institution. The matter of such state subsidies has already received considerable discussion,[263] and may receive even more attention in the future. Notwithstanding, these private institutions for the deaf were largely organized before the present attitude in the matter: they have in some cases really anticipated the duty of the state, and in a general consideration of the subject would probably be the last to be condemned.

"Dual Schools"

"Dual schools," that is, schools in which there are departments both for the deaf and the blind, are found in ten states: California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Montana, South Carolina, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia.[264] In a number of other states the deaf and the blind were for a certain period educated together, either the two classes being provided for jointly from the first or a department for the blind being later created; but in time in these the two classes have been separated, and distinct schools for the blind set up.[265]

As a general thing, this arrangement of having the deaf and the blind together in one school has been regarded as unfortunate, and educators of both classes have protested against it. The question has thus been stated: The deaf and the blind "have nothing in common in the matter of education, and the bringing of the two classes together is a prolific source of friction and compromise."[266] The blind, it seems, are the worst sufferers, as they are in a minority, are often considered only a department or class in an institution designed primarily for the deaf, and consequently receive less attention than they should.[267] However, this arrangement has not been adopted as a deliberate policy on the part of the state: rather, it was begun when the school was young, pupils of both classes few, and one plant was thought adequate; and was allowed to continue as a makeshift till separate schools could be created. As the states have grown in population and resources, most have seen the wisdom of severing the blind from the deaf; and even in the states where the dual school is retained it is probably only a question of time till provision will be made for the separate education of the two classes, and eventually there will be independent schools for each in all the states.

Provision for the Deaf-Blind

In 1824 at the school for the deaf at Hartford, Connecticut, the first deaf-blind pupil in America began to receive instruction. To-day the names of certain illustrious deaf-blind persons are known over the civilized world.[268] Such children are provided for at present more often in schools for the deaf than in schools for the blind, only one or two schools for the latter class instructing them. The deaf-blind, however, do not form a large class, and only in a small number of schools are they to be found.[269] In certain cases where the school is only for the deaf, special permission with a special appropriation has to be obtained, but there has been little difficulty met here from the legislatures. To certain of the deaf-blind individual benefactions have been made, as legacies, donations and subscriptions, sometimes given to the institutions to hold in trust; and in some cases these funds are for life.

Provision for the Feeble-minded Deaf

In many of the schools for the deaf a problem has arisen in connection with a number of feeble-minded children more or less defective in speech or hearing who have sought to gain admittance. Educators of the deaf have been called upon to give considerable attention to this class, and it has been a serious question what to do with them.[270] Many of those who have applied at the institutions have been denied. Some have been allowed to enter, and their presence in the schools has constituted a difficult problem.[271] It is felt by those concerned in the education of the deaf that they are out of place here, and that they should be removed to a regular institution for the feeble-minded, or should otherwise be specially provided for.[272]

Government of the Different Institutions

The government of schools for the deaf is practically the same in the different states. They are, for the most part, in the hands of boards of trustees, boards of directors, boards of managers, or boards of visitors, as they are variously termed. The semi-public institutions, as we have seen, were started as private concerns under private boards of directors. These boards still exist, and control the affairs of the institutions, having full powers but subject to such regulation as the state may direct. Such boards are usually self-perpetuating bodies, though in some cases the governor has been allowed to name a part. In the American School the governors and secretaries of state of the New England states are ex-officio directors. In the case of some schools, as the Pennsylvania Institution, where membership is open to any one on the payment of the dues, the governing board is elected by the members of the society or corporation.[273] In all these boards the members serve without compensation. Their size varies considerably, but they are usually large, having in some cases over twenty members.[274]

Where the school is strictly a state institution, the board is usually appointed by the governor, sometimes with the approval of the state senate.[275] In a few cases the boards are elected by the legislature, as in Georgia and Tennessee. In Montana appointment is made by the state board of education. In several of the states the governor or some other public officer, most often the superintendent of public instruction, is a member ex-officio.[276] These boards also as a rule serve without compensation, and are paid only for expenses actually incurred.[277] Their size is smaller than that of the corporate boards, usually consisting of from three to seven members, though in a few cases they may go beyond the latter figure. They are appointed to serve two, three, four or five years, and in a few cases even longer. In states where the members are elected by the legislature, the term is usually indefinite; and in one or two states, as in Alabama, the board is self-perpetuating.[278]

In eight states the institutions are under special boards of their own, without supervision or regulation from other bodies: Alabama, District of Columbia, Georgia, Mississippi, New Mexico, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah. In eighteen states the schools are under special boards of trustees, while the state board of charities—or whatever the official title—may visit, inspect, supervise, advise, or may otherwise be connected with them: California, Connecticut, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. It may be noted that such central boards—including the state boards of control—are found in thirty-nine states, and in all but five have some connection with the schools.[279] In eleven states the schools are directly under the state boards of control, central boards or bodies with similar powers, no special or local board intervening: Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, Washington, and Wisconsin.[280]

In some of the states, on the other hand, the schools are related to the state department of education. In four states they are under boards of trustees, with supervision only by this department: Colorado, Kentucky, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. In Idaho and New Jersey the schools are directly under the department,[281] though in the former there is also connection with another state board. In Montana the board of trustees is appointed by the department. In Indiana and Oklahoma the schools have boards of trustees and are under the department of education, but with inspection also by the department of charities. In New York and North Carolina there is supervision both by the department of education and of charities. In several states the board of trustees includes the state superintendent of public instruction as a member ex-officio, as in Alabama, Louisiana, Minnesota, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. In Kansas the school is under the state board of administration for educational institutions, including the university, normal school and agricultural college, and in Florida the school is under the board of control of state educational institutions, while in Arizona the school is a department of the state university.[282]

Procedure in States without Institutions

In states where pupils are sent to schools outside the state, appointments and commitments are usually made in the East by the respective governors, and in the West by the boards of education or of charities. In Delaware the governor appoints pupils to outside schools, the state supreme court having first recommended. In New Hampshire the governor recommends, while the children are placed by the board of control.[283] In Wyoming the education of deaf children is directed by the board of charities and reforms, and in Nevada by the state department of education.[284]

[253] The two institutions here are the Kendall School and Gallaudet College, though both really form what is known as the Columbia Institution.

[254] In Louisiana full action has not been taken as yet for the creation of a special school for the colored deaf, though this may be expected soon. See Message of Governor, 1908, p. 78. In regard to the value of the schools for the colored, the opinion of the heads of the schools in the Southern states has been ascertained by the Board of Charities of Louisiana. The wisdom of the policy was agreed in by all, and the schools were reported as doing well, as were their graduates. By one superintendent it was stated that "ignorance is costly to the state in more ways than one". Report, 1907, p. 43.

[255] In the District of Columbia and West Virginia colored children are sent to Maryland for education.

[256] The Maryland School approaches more nearly a state institution, though it is under a self-perpetuating body of trustees.

[257] Two schools in Pennsylvania are entirely state institutions, the Home for the Training in Speech and the Pennsylvania Oral School.

[258] In a few institutions there are aid or auxiliary societies composed of ladies, usually about fifteen in number, as in the New York Institution, the New York Institution for Improved Instruction, and the Pennsylvania Institution.

[259] These fees and dues, as we have seen, are of varying size. Annual membership dues are often $5, and sometimes as high as $25. Life membership fees range from $25 to $100, with corresponding fees for patrons, vice-presidents and others. The highest fee is that of life donor in the New York Institution for Improved Instruction, being $1,000.

[260] Dr. I. L. Peet, Proceedings of National Conference of Charities and Corrections, 1883, p. 415.

[261] The annual appropriations are from $265 to $360 for each pupil, but not often over $300 or $325.

[262] In the case of the Pennsylvania Institution we are advised that the per capita appropriation is $32 less than the actual cost. See also Report, 1900, p. 9; 1901, p. 10; 1908, p. 10. In the case of the Clarke School, the trustees declare that the state has never paid the school for each pupil the average annual cost of instruction and maintenance, and the legislature is repeatedly asked to increase its appropriations. See Report, 1904, p. 8; 1911, p. 9; 1912, p. 8. Of the American School we are told that the state appropriation "has never been enough to meet the actual cost". Report, 1909, p. 9. In the case of the New York Institution we are advised that the cost per pupil from 1903 to 1913 has ranged from $338 to $415, while the state appropriation has never exceeded $325; and that from 1893 to 1913 $357,579 has been expended for educational purposes, and $500,000 for buildings and equipment, from the school's own funds.

[263] On this subject, see American Journal of Sociology, vii., 1901, p. 359; Report of Superintendent of Charities of District of Columbia, 1891, p. 11; Proceedings of National Conference of Charities and Corrections, 1911, p. 27.

[264] As we have noted, Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas, and Virginia have similar arrangements for their colored deaf and blind.

[265] In New Mexico, however, where there are schools for both classes, the governor has advised their consolidation, as one institution "could administer to the needs of both". Message, 1907, p. 21.

[266] Report of Colorado School, 1908, p. 20. See also Report of Board of Charities of West Virginia, 1910, p. 209.

[267] The educators of the blind have particularly arraigned this plan. At one of the first conventions of the American Instructors of the Blind, the following propositions were enunciated: 1. Deaf-mutes and the blind differ from each other more widely than either class differs from those having all the senses; 2. the methods of instruction peculiar to each are entirely unlike and incompatible; 3. the deaf engross the main attention; 4. the development of the blind department is retarded. Proceedings, 1871, p. 87. Educators of the deaf have likewise stated their objections. At an early conference of principals, a resolution was adopted that the arrangement was bad, the methods being entirely different. Proceedings, ii., 1872, pp. 146, 151. See also Report of Michigan School, 1855 (first report), p. 1; 1880, p. 62; Louisiana School, 1870, p. 30. In times past, however, advantages of this arrangement have been pointed out. See Report of California Institution, 1869, p. 15; 1873, p. 19.

[268] See individual accounts in William Wade's monograph on the Deaf-Blind, 1901; see also National Magazine, xi., 1857, p. 27; Review of Reviews, xxv., 1902, p. 435; Ohio Bulletin of Charities and Corrections, xiii., 1907, p. 47; Proceedings of American Instructors of the Deaf, xvi., 1901, p. 175ff.; Annals, l., 1905, p. 125.

[269] The chief schools where they have been of recent years or are now being instructed are the New York Institution, the Pennsylvania Institution, the Western Pennsylvania Institution, and the schools in Ohio, Mississippi, Kentucky, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Colorado, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas. The number in any one school at one time seldom exceeds two or three, most often there being but one.

[270] A considerable proportion of such children are rather dumb than deaf, having some oral, as well as mental, defect.

[271] On this question, see especially Report of Illinois School, 1860, p. 15; Michigan School, 1887, p. 25; Maryland School, 1885, p. 13; 1897, p. 13; Mississippi School, 1909, p. 24; Minnesota Companion, of Minnesota School, Nov. 22, 1911; Report of Board of Charities of New York, 1912, i., p. 144. Of the Alabama School, it is said that it "has turned away a number of these feeble-minded children during the past two years". Report, 1904, p. 21. In Ohio there are stated to be a hundred such children. Report of Ohio School, 1909, p. 17. In another state there are said to be 150 feeble-minded deaf. Annals, liv., 1909, p. 444.

[272] In 1910 the census reported 294 deaf persons in institutions for the feeble-minded, or 1.4 per cent of all their inmates. Insane and Feeble-minded in Institutions, 1914, p. 92. It has also been estimated that five per cent of the deaf are feeble-minded. Proceedings of Conference of Charities and Corrections, 1906, p. 254ff. On the subject of the feeble-minded deaf in institutions, Mr. Cyrus E. White, of the Kansas School, sent letters to the heads of 55 schools, receiving replies from 45. No state, it was found, had made special provision for the feeble-minded deaf. It was the general agreement that they should be in institutions for the feeble-minded, one superintendent declaring that "feeble-mindedness is a better classification than deafness". Another superintendent suggested the establishment of such an institution in a central state, to which the different states could send suitable cases. See Annals, lv., 1910, p. 133. A committee of the Pennsylvania Society for the Advancement of the Deaf has found that all of the three feeble-minded institutions in this state are crowded, and that there is no hope for the feeble-minded deaf in them. Proceedings, xxiv., 1910, p. 9. In one institution for the feeble-minded there are said to be twenty deaf feeble-minded. Annals, liv., 1909, p. 444. In the institution for the feeble-minded in Iowa a special class of such inmates was organized in 1912. Ibid., lviii., 1913, p. 107. It is to be remembered in this connection that in many states there are no institutions for the feeble-minded. Educators of the deaf have often been instrumental in securing the creation of such institutions. See Proceedings of Convention of American Instructors, iv., 1857, p. 227. In a few states, as Illinois, Minnesota and Washington, departments for the feeble-minded have been created in schools for the deaf, the feeble-minded being removed later. In Montana a department is still maintained.

[273] The Columbia Institution is considered a corporation, its governing board being composed of nine members, one of whom is a senator appointed by the President of the Senate, and two members of the House appointed by the Speaker, while the President of the United States is patron.

[274] In the New York Institution and the New York Institution for Improved Instruction the number is 21, and in the Maryland School, the Pennsylvania Institution and the Western Pennsylvania Institution, 27.

[275] Such is the case in Alabama, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Utah. Confirmation by the Senate is also usual with boards of control.

[276] On rare occasions a deaf man himself is made a member of the board.

[277] In a few states compensation is allowed, as in Indiana, Montana, Oklahoma, Texas, and West Virginia.

[278] On the arrangements in the several states, see especially Annals, xlviii., 1903, p. 348; lviii., 1913, p. 327. See also Proceedings of American Instructors, iv., 1857, p. 199; vii., 1870, p. 144; ix., 1878, pp. 195, 217; Report of Royal Commission on the Blind, Deaf and Dumb, etc., 1889, iii., p. 456ff.

[279] In certain of these states, however, as Idaho, Indiana, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, and West Virginia, the boards of charities or central boards have only more or less financial concern, the statutes usually referring to some such connection with the several state institutions, though not always mentioning them by name. In one or two states, as Rhode Island, there is connection with a board of purchases and supplies. In Minnesota there is also a board of visitors for state institutions, exerting rather a moral supervision.

[280] The duties of such boards may be indicated from the following extract in a letter to the writer from the Secretary of the Wisconsin Board: The board "appoints the chief officers, purchases all the supplies for the institutions, formulates the provisions under which the institutions are managed, and has almost unlimited power with reference to the institutions". The boards thus have practically complete control of the public institutions of the state, and in some cases state universities have come within their direction. The boards have come especially into favor in states of the West and Middle West. In their favor it is claimed that they secure economy, accuracy, better discipline and more equitable appropriations, introduce business methods, relieve the heads of schools from financial problems, visit other states, and keep in touch with the people. See University of Nebraska Studies, Oct., 1905. The evolution of state control is also here traced. See also Bulletin of Ohio Board of Charities, Dec., 1908, xiv., 6.

[281] In Iowa the school for the blind is under the board of education.

[282] In nearly all the states the schools were placed at first in the hands of special boards of trustees, with connection with no other bodies, and it was only later that any change was brought about. In some states there have been various experiments in the organization of governing boards and in the number of members they were to contain. Several schools at their beginning have been put under the direction of a state educational institution, as the university in Utah, and the normal school in Oklahoma. In a few states the schools have been placed under certain state officers, as in New Mexico and Oregon. In Washington the first board of trustees of the school consisted of a physician, a lawyer and a practical educator.

[283] We have already noted that the colored deaf of the District of Columbia and West Virginia are sent to an outside school.

[284] In regard to the organization of the several boards that have to do with the education of the deaf, it may be stated that in some states, as in Ohio and Indiana, the law restricts the number that may be of any one political party. In connection with the government of schools for the deaf, the saddest feature has too often been the political influences which have been allowed to become factors in the conducting of some of them. In certain instances the playing of "politics" has been of serious moment, and with incalculable harm to the work of the schools. In some cases the administration of schools has been considered legitimate spoils to the party in power, and appointments have been made as a matter of reward, and removals as a matter of punishment. The evil effect of such procedure it is hard to overestimate, and indeed in an enlightened land it is even difficult of credence. Public opinion should severely condemn all attempts at political interference in the work of the education of the deaf, and those seeking to promote it should be dealt with befittingly. Happily, however, such conduct seems now on the decline in the schools, and it may earnestly be hoped that the end is not far in the future.

Clyx.com