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]
FOOTNOTES:
[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.