THE DAY SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF
INCEPTION AND GROWTH OF THE DAY SCHOOL
A small number of the institutions for the deaf had begun as day
schools, the pupils living away from the school outside school hours,
and had continued so for a longer or shorter period. The schools were
then in an experimental stage, and this plan came first to hand. In the
course of time it was found that this feature was not practicable, as
the pupils were often far scattered, and the boarding arrangement was
accordingly adopted.[285] This was the policy finally chosen in all the
states having schools. Later, however, when the states had grown in
population, and in some of the cities there were found not a few deaf
children, the demand was renewed for day schools.[286] The result has
been the beginning and development of a system of day schools in a
number of states; and they have come to occupy part of the field
formerly covered by the state institutions alone.
Of the day schools now existing, the Horace Mann School, of Boston,
which was established in 1869, is accredited with being the initial
one.[287] Two others were opened before 1890, while from 1891 to 1900
there were 22 started, and since 1901, 40, making 65 in all now.[288]
These schools are found in fourteen states, but the movement has reached
its greatest growth in the Middle West, especially in Wisconsin and
Michigan. In some of the states special laws have been enacted,
providing for the establishment of day schools.[289]
DESIGN AND SCOPE OF DAY SCHOOLS
The day school for the deaf is still sometimes regarded as an
experiment, while its advocates insist that its success has been
demonstrated. Among school authorities in cities especially, pleas for
the establishment of day schools are often listened to with favor, and
there is frequently a tendency to give them at least a trial. General
bodies interested in education or the public welfare are likewise
inclined to countenance day schools, largely for the reason that they
are opposed to the institution idea, and would place as many children as
possible in the regular schools. An illustration of this view is found
in the Report on Children of the National Conference of Charities and
Corrections in 1906.[290]
Institutional care of healthy, normal children is objectionable....
Institutional care for educational purposes is necessary for a
portion of the deaf and blind children ... but it is recognized that
in large cities public schools can be provided for many deaf and
blind children.
By some it is believed that in time the day school will supplant the
large institution, so far at least as large cities are concerned, and
that the deaf, and the blind as well, will not be differentiated from
the pupils in the regular schools. Separate apartments and special
teachers will be provided for them, but in all public school systems
these classes will be actual factors.
On the other hand, it is maintained that there is an abundant field for
both day school and institution. The former should only supplement the
work of the latter, especially in reaching children that cannot
otherwise be brought into school. The reason why the day school is
called into being is thus given by an educational authority of one
city:[291]
Institutions that care for these children throughout the entire
year, that feed, clothe and educate them, that render skilful and
prompt medical attention, and afford uplifting social
advantages--all under one roof--have a worthy place under our social
and educational systems; but these institutions cannot care for all
the unfortunate children in need of education.
It is also suggested that it might be arranged that day schools should
keep pupils during their early years, as from five to nine years of age,
after which time they could enter the institution, and be placed in
graded classes and in a suitable trade school.[292] Hence it is pointed
out that the day school and institution should not be antagonistic, that
their interests are common at bottom, and that they should work hand in
hand, without friction or misunderstanding.
The day school plan has not as yet been followed in a large number of
states; yet as these schools are being looked upon with more and more
favor by city boards of education, and as in the centers of population
there is said to be a need for them, it is not improbable that they may
be extended much farther in the future. It is doubtful, however, if very
soon they will spread beyond the large cities; and states without great
cities may be without such schools for many years at least.[293]
EXTENT AND ORGANIZATION OF DAY SCHOOLS
The day schools, numbering 65 in all, as we have seen, are found in the
states of California, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon,
Washington, and Wisconsin. In Georgia, Louisiana, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, Missouri, and Oregon each there is but one school, in New
Jersey and Washington each 2, in New York 3, in California 4, in Ohio
and Illinois each 5, in Michigan 14, and in Wisconsin 24. Where only one
day school is found in a state, it is located usually in the largest
city (Atlanta, New Orleans, Boston, St. Paul, St. Louis, and Portland),
while the two schools of New Jersey are in Newark and Jersey City, the
two of Washington in Seattle and Tacoma, and the three of New York in
New York City. Of the five schools in Illinois, four are in Chicago.
In six of these states, namely, California, Illinois, Michigan, New
Jersey, Ohio, and Wisconsin, there are special state laws under which
the schools are established and operated.[294] By such laws it is
generally provided that where there are a certain number of deaf
children, usually three,[295] a school may, on application of the local
school trustees or district board, be organized by the state department
of education.[296] The minimum age for such children is often three. A
stated sum is frequently allowed for each pupil, as $150.[297] In the
remaining eight states the schools are organized and directed by local
school authorities, without assistance from legislative statute.
These schools are supported by local funds or by state and local funds
together. The latter is the more common procedure, and in the case of
schools operating under a state law, it is the usual, but not the
necessary, practice. The schools in six states, namely, Georgia,
Illinois, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, and New York, are thus
maintained only by local funds of the city or county, the remainder
receiving aid in whole or in part from the state.[298] The school in
Minnesota and one in California are aided by private contributions. In
nearly all cases carfare is provided to and from school when necessary.
In the day schools special buildings are not usually provided, separate
classes being created in the regular school buildings; but in some of
the larger cities there are special buildings, known as distinct
schools, in which the class-rooms are for the different grades of deaf
pupils.
The number of pupils in the day schools in 1912-1913 was 1,942. The
smallest schools have but three pupils, while the largest one, in
Chicago, has 307, the number usually depending on the size of the city.
The method employed in the day schools is exclusively the oral with but
two exceptions.[299] In all but a few certain industries are also
taught, or more or less of manual training is given.
ARGUMENTS FOR THE DAY SCHOOL
The great argument for the day school is that it is not well that
children be "institutionalized." The institution life is said not to be
the normal life, and its habits and associations are not in accord with
the principles now being largely held in America. It is coming to be
more and more realized that the home should always be the center of
interest and attachment in the well established community, and that the
character and influence of the family should be maintained unimpaired.
In connection with orphan and other child-caring agencies, a greater
emphasis than ever before is being put on the question of how to reduce
the life to one of normality, and the "placing-out" of dependent
children in homes where they can grow up as normal children is now a
popular faith. The great watchword to-day in intelligent and
constructive philanthropy is the "ideal of the normal," and it is on
this ground that the institution is declared to be removed from the
standard of the highest interests of society. Even though a child should
profit in the institution, and even though he should be sent out into
the world strong and self-reliant, yet while in the institution, he is
out of line, and is just so far displaced from the ideal of the normal;
and even though the institution is cleanlier, more sanitary and
otherwise better equipped than the quarters from which the child comes,
still the institution cannot be justified, for no solution can be
acceptable if in the end it results in the breaking up of the home.[300]
More specific charges are also brought against the institution. Here
life for the inmates is made too easy, and little can be known by them
of the actual struggles of the world. The life is machine-like, and all
is routine clockwork. By the discipline, which is necessary, much of the
spontaneity of growing children is destroyed, and the surroundings are
pervaded with the spirit of uniformity, "solidarity" and "dead
levelism." On the other hand, the children fail to learn many important
lessons in domestic economy which would be before them every day in the
home; and they lose the attitude towards life, morally and socially,
which is given by the home.[301]
The arguments for the day school may be stated more concretely yet. The
special day school may be co-ordinated with, or made a part of, the
state's educational system, standing on a level with its other schools.
Deaf children here come to feel their place in the normal world, while
people in general become more ready to regard them in a proper manner.
These children at the same time are not made strangers to their own
family circles and communities; and certain ones, by a school nearer
home and consequently more acceptable to their parents, may be reached
who would otherwise possibly never enter an institution.
In the way of cost the balance is distinctly on the side of the day
school. With no costly special plant necessary, and with no charges to
be incurred for food supplies, attendants and the like, it appears to
decided advantage in the matter of economy in comparison with an
institution; and its normal expenditures approach nearer those of the
regular schools. At present the difference between the cost per pupil in
the day schools and in the institutions is the difference between $120
and $277.[302]
ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE DAY SCHOOL
The argument against the day school rests upon the fact that the deaf
form, educationally, a special class, very small in most communities,
who have to be reached by unusual methods. To them the large institution
offers advantages not likely to be had outside. For this reason the case
against the institution, however cogent and logical it may be in
general, cannot well apply.
In the institution the children may be under intelligent supervision and
direction their entire time, and they may be able to get, outside school
hours, a part of the education which the hearing child so naturally
acquires, for in an institution learning continues outside the classroom
as well as within. The "picking up" of knowledge and bits of
information, which the hearing child begins to make use of from the time
he first hears human words, and the importance and value of which the
general public cannot be expected to appreciate, is lost in the greatest
measure to the deaf in the home. Here ready means of communication are
lacking, and the necessary care and attention cannot be expected to be
given in the household. Even though deaf children can and do mingle with
their hearing acquaintances, they cannot get so much happiness or zest
out of their sports and intercourse as they can with their own deaf
comrades; and while, no matter what their surroundings are, the
difficulties of most of them in mastering language will never be
overcome, still in associations with similar deaf children there will be
far more stimuli to react on their consciousness, and the tendency will
be for them to become more and more in their mental actions like the
normal. In the home there can be no great assurance of study and
supervision; and the growing deaf child, not being able to appreciate
the forces that surround him as the hearing child does, may the more
easily fall under unwholesome influences. In the institution there can
be suitable discipline, regular attendance, enlightened general
oversight, and co-ordination of all that is concerned in the child's
proper development. Furthermore, although there may be a growing feeling
against the institution life, there is, on the other hand, an increasing
social questioning as to the advisability of a child's remaining in a
particular home if his welfare is not properly safeguarded.
In many day schools there are comparatively few pupils, and in most of
these we cannot expect to find the carefully graded classes, with a
place for every pupil according to his needs, bright or dull, quick to
learn or slow. A pupil in a day school, if not neglected to some
extent, may be required to do work for which he is quite unfitted, being
either beyond it or incapable of it. The backward child will here be the
worst sufferer, for if there are but few classes, he can get little of
the special attention he needs; and his progress cannot be the same as
when in a class of like pupils and under an appropriate and patient
teacher.
Again, the attention that is given in an institution with a considerable
number of pupils to the learning of a trade--accounting in strong
measure for success in after life--means much more to a deaf child than
it could to any other. In an institution there will usually be found
larger equipment, fuller apparatus and more varied lines than in any but
a very large day school; and in its trade department habits of industry
will be formed, talents developed, a knowledge of mechanism and the use
of tools implanted, an ardor enkindled for the mastership of a trade,
and an appreciation of the part to be played in the great world of
industrial activity, besides the incentive of being in a great workshop
with other workers--all in far greater measure and more effectively than
would be possible anywhere else, save in a great trade school, in which
there could not be expected to be taken the special care and provision
necessitated by the want of hearing of the pupils.
Finally, it may be said that we have no evidence, as respects
institutions for the deaf, to show that they have in any way undermined
the character or mission of the home, or that their results have been
other than desirable in a well-ordered state. Hence we are told, in a
word, that no matter how strong and valid are the theoretical objections
to an institution, yet so far as the practical issues are concerned, in
the preparation of the deaf for the world, and in what really counts for
their development and progress, the institution, for many at least,
occupies a position of demonstrated usefulness, recognition of which
cannot rightly be withheld.[303]
EVENING DAY SCHOOLS FOR ADULTS
Thus far in this chapter we have discussed day schools in relation to
children, that is, pupils in the usual sense. But there is another form
of day schools to which attention is to be directed. This is in the
creation of evening day schools for the use of adults only, the field
open to which is as yet apparently but little realized.
Occasion for such schools arises chiefly in communities, especially
large cities, where a considerable number of adult deaf persons are
within reach, and where a real need may often be found. The matter is to
be regarded in effect as the extension of the means of education by the
state to include as large a part of the population as possible--a
movement which is being so notably evidenced in the opening of evening
schools of not a few kinds in cities to-day. With the deaf the demand is
of a peculiar nature. Their avenues for receiving instruction are
materially restricted, and for some, especially the congenitally deaf,
the acquisition of correct language always remains a difficult problem,
while to others the advantages of the regular schools may have been
limited. A large number of the deaf will not require such special
opportunities, but for a portion of them the assistance may be of quite
substantial character.[304]
FOOTNOTES:
[285] The New York Institution, the Pennsylvania Institution and the
Western Pennsylvania Institution notably started out as day schools, the
first remaining so for eleven years. In some of the institutions also
there have been at times day school pupils in attendance.
[286] Day schools have, moreover, been fostered and supported to a great
extent by advocates of what is known as the oral method, in opposition
to the manual, or sign method, which had been largely the method
hitherto employed in the institutions. The day school may even be said
to have entered the field in part as a protest against this method.
[287] A day school was started in Pittsburg two months previously; but
it was soon made into the Western Pennsylvania Institution. _Annals_,
xv., 1870, p. 165.
[288] A number of day schools which were started have been discontinued,
but there were never so many as at present.
[289] Wisconsin was the first state to have a day school law, which was
enacted in 1885. Bills were offered in 1881 and 1883, but were defeated.
The movement in this state has been in large part due to the activities
of the Wisconsin Phonological Institute to Promote the Teaching of
Speech to the Deaf, an organization formed in 1879. The question has
even been considered in this state of abolishing the state school as a
boarding institution. See _Public Opinion_, xxv., 1898, no. 16;
_Association Review_, iii., 1901, p. 193.
[290] Proceedings, p. 88.
[291] Mr. C. W. Edson, Associate Superintendent of Schools of New York,
_Charities and the Commons_, xix., 1908, p. 1357. See also Report of
Illinois Institution, 1874, p. 65.
[292] See Report of Washington State School, 1910, p. 6. A like solution
was offered before the National Educational Association in 1903. Certain
children might be "trained in special schools and live at home if
possible up to the age of adolescence, when they may acquire trades at
special institutions maintained by the state". Proceedings, p. 1004.
[293] It is to be remembered that in Michigan and Wisconsin schools
have, under the operation of the state law, been organized in
comparatively small towns.
[294] Efforts have been made in several other states to secure laws. In
Ohio in 1902 the state law was declared unconstitutional, as being class
legislation in granting special aid to the cities of Cleveland and
Cincinnati. See Report of Ohio School, 1903, p. 14.
[295] In California the number is five, and in New Jersey ten.
[296] In Ohio the state commissioner of education may appoint and remove
teachers, and inspect schools. In Wisconsin the state superintendent
appoints inspectors, and the county judge may compel the establishment
of schools.
[297] In Wisconsin $100 additional is allowed for the board of children
who move to a town to attend a school.
[298] In Massachusetts a direct appropriation of $150 _per capita_ is
made by the state.
[299] The methods employed in the instruction of the deaf are treated of
in Chapter XIX.
[300] The importance of this is accentuated in the present apprehensions
concerning the dissolving and loosening of the ties of the home,
indicated in more ways than one in present programs of social work.
[301] See A. G. Warner, "American Charities", rev. ed., 1908, p. 283; R.
R. Reeder, "How Two Hundred Children Live and Learn", 1910, pp. 57, 88;
"Philanthropy and Social Progress", 1893, p. 172ff.
[302] It is claimed that in Wisconsin with the centralization plan of a
state institution one-third of the deaf children failed to be reached,
and that by the day school there is a saving to the state of $20,000 a
year. Proceedings of National Educational Association, 1907, p. 986. See
also _ibid._, 1897, p. 96; 1901, p. 870; 1910, p. 1039; Report of United
States Commissioner of Education, 1881, p. ccxi.; P. A. Emery, "Plea for
Early Mute Education," 1884; Improvement of the Wisconsin System of
Education of Deaf Children, 1894; Public School Classes for Deaf
Children: Open Letter from Chicago Association of Parents of Deaf
Children, 1897; Michigan Day Schools for the Deaf, 1908; Report of
Superintendent of Public Instruction of Michigan, 1909, p. 61; Report of
Department of Public Instruction of Wisconsin, 1910, p. 60; Report of
Board of Education of Chicago, 1912, p. 155; A. J. Winnie, "History and
Handbook of Day Schools for the Deaf", Wisconsin, 1912; _Annals_, xx.,
1875, p. 34; _Association Review_, ii., 1900, p. 248; viii., 1906, p.
136; xi., 1909, p. 30; _Volta Review_, xiii., 1911, p. 292;
_Independent_, lxxiv., 1913, p. 1140.
[303] See _Annals_, xxvii., 1882, p. 182; xxix., 1884, pp. 165, 312;
xxx., 1885, p. 121; l., 1905, p. 70; lvi., 1911, p. 91; _Volta Review_,
xv., 1913, p. 180; Proceedings of Convention of American Instructors,
vii., 1870, p. 114; xiv., 1895, pp. 130, 350; Conference of Principals,
vi., 1888, p. 202; viii., 1904, p. 70; Minnesota Conference of Charities
and Corrections, 1898, p. 88; Report of Iowa School, 1885, p. 16;
Pennsylvania Institution, 1903, p. 38; California School, 1904, p. 20.
[304] One or two evening schools have been started in the past, to be
discontinued after a few years, both under private and under public
auspices. In the consideration, however, of any general scheme for
evening schools it should be arranged that the work of the regular
schools for the deaf is not infringed upon, and that pupils in these
schools should not have before them the temptation of leaving
prematurely, with the expectation of making up later. Probably the
safest plan would be the securing of a satisfactory compulsory
attendance law before evening schools are attempted upon a broad scale.