Library Collections: Document: Full Text

Mr. Day says: "The difference between the best German schools and our own is very striking, so striking, indeed, that I feel unwilling to state in full my convictions on the subject." (31) "It is not to be denied that the German method of instruction is attended with certain advantages. It aids a small number, who once were able to speak like others, to retain the spoken language they still possess, and to recover that which they have lost. It affords assistance to the smaller number, who still retain a considerable degree of hearing." (32) -3-

(32) Ibid., p. 207.

Mr. Weld closes a long and able report of his mission by a comparison between the German and French or American systems, and says: "On the whole the merits of the German method have been far less striking and beneficial. I can then recommend no fundamental change. Yet," he says, "there are some classes who might be benefited by receiving instruction in articulation; these are the semi-mutes and semi-deaf pupils." And at the next meeting of the Directors, in May, 1845, it was voted, "That, in view of the facts and results obtained with regard to teaching deaf mutes to articulate, they would give it a full and prolonged trial, and do in this branch of instruction everything that was practically and permanently useful." (33) -1-

Professor Morel, of the Royal Institution of Paris, examined some of the German institutions in company with Mr. Weld, and gives the result of his observations in a note to Mr. Weld. In conclusion he says: "Instruction in articulation ought to be introduced into the schools for deaf mutes. I believe that the essays which have been made hitherto in France and other countries have been made with neither zeal nor perseverance, nor on conditions favorable enough to bring forth satisfactory results. Would it not be easier to introduce instruction in articulation into a new school, than. into an old school where the language of signs has acquired a great development? It is certain that in our schools the mimic language intervenes too constantly in the relations of the masters with the pupils, and of the latter among themselves." (34)

How this "full and prolonged trial" of the German plan, "under a systematic and thorough course," was conducted, and what were its results, we learn from subsequent reports. There were at this time thirty pupils in the institution who retained some little speech or hearing. Upon those two classes of persons "daily instruction" was bestowed in articulation; "but they were taught by signs, as it was easier for them to learn the signs used in the school, and acquire knowledge through them, than to depend upon speech." (35) A few years later we read, "Each hearing teacher gives twenty minutes daily in school hours to the proper subjects of his own class, and a part of those taught by deaf mutes," (36) making perhaps five minutes a day to each pupil for instruction in learning to pronounce and read from the lips a foreign language. The results they report "were encouraging, and to a limited extent successful; the speech of several of the pupils was improved in scope and distinctness, and also their ability to read from the lips." Are not these results much greater than could have been expected from the amount of time and labor bestowed, and the manner of instruction given?

(36) Thirty-Ninth Report American Asylum, for 1855, p. 11.

But there were objections to this system for "while the teacher is occupied with the speaking portion of his pupils, he can give little or no attention to the remainder; consequently the time spent in this way must, to this latter portion, be in a great measure lost." The Directors, therefore, employed a young lady "to devote her time to this department of instruction out of school hours, and at such other times as would least interfere with the regular exercises of the school-room"; but these articulating pupils continued "to be classed and taught with the deaf mutes in the usual method." (37) We are prepared to hear that this experiment was not successful, and that about 1863 the teacher of articulation was dispensed with, and all regular efforts to teach articulation and reading from the lips were abandoned.

The experiment failed, (but not the system,) and will always fail if attempted in a school where the sign language is the vernacular. A fair trial can only be made where articulation and reading from the lips form the only medium of communication taught, and the only one allowed. The two cannot be carried on together. The language of signs is without doubt more attractive to the deaf mute, and will be the language of his life, if he is encouraged in its use. If the trial is to be made, if the experiment is to be fairly and honestly tested, it must be in schools established for that purpose, and under teachers earnestly and heartily engaged in the work, and at least hopeful of success. Hartford has no faith in the system. It has tried it and has failed. The Professors are satisfied with results secured by the present system and strongly and conscientiously opposed to any change. Had the experiment a chance of success under such circumstances?