FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:[475]The constitutions of most of the states provide for the education of all their children, and the deaf could well be included here. Moreover, in the constitution of Nebraska (VIII., 12) there is a provision for children growing up in mendicancy and crime; and in that of Wyoming (VII., 18) that such charitable, penal or reformatory institutions shall be established as the claims of humanity and the public good many require. In either of these the provision might be construed to apply to schools for the deaf.[476]In the constitutions of some states, as Michigan, Mississippi, New York, and South Carolina, there were provisions in the preceding as well as the present drafts.[477]In the constitutions no reference is made to the deaf other than in provisions for schools, except in the case of Mississippi, where exemption from a certain tax is found.[478]In these constitutional references, the provision is as a rule found under some general head as "public institutions", "state institutions", or "miscellaneous". In the South Carolina constitution the provision is found under the caption "charitable", and in the North Carolina under "charitable and penal". Under the heading of "education" are the provisions in the constitutions of Arizona (one clause), Colorado (as an amendment), Michigan, Mississippi, New Mexico, Oklahoma (one clause), Texas (though under the sub-title "charitable"), Utah (one clause), and Virginia.[479]XXII., 15; XI., 1.[480]VIII., 1. A later amendment classifies it with the educational institutions of the state.[481]XIII., 1. Adopted the same year that the school was established.[482]X., 1.[483]VII., 1.[484]XI., 15.[485]X., 1; XI., 12.[486]XIII., 1.[487]VII., 1.[488]XII., 1; X., 4.[489]X., 10; XIX., 2, 3.[490]XIII., 1.[491]It is to be noted that in nearly all the states having government donations of land, reference is made to its inviolability.[492]XIX., 19.[493]IX., 1.[494]VIII., 209.[495]XII., 2; XXI., 1.[496]XII., 12.[497]XI., 10.[498]IX., 14, as amended.[499]XIV., 1.[500]XII., 11.[501]IX., 130.[502]VII., 9; XVI., 21.[503]IX., 159; XIX., 215. See also amendment, 1904, sec. 5.[504]XIV., 267.[505]VIII., 9, 14.[506]53.

[475]The constitutions of most of the states provide for the education of all their children, and the deaf could well be included here. Moreover, in the constitution of Nebraska (VIII., 12) there is a provision for children growing up in mendicancy and crime; and in that of Wyoming (VII., 18) that such charitable, penal or reformatory institutions shall be established as the claims of humanity and the public good many require. In either of these the provision might be construed to apply to schools for the deaf.

[476]In the constitutions of some states, as Michigan, Mississippi, New York, and South Carolina, there were provisions in the preceding as well as the present drafts.

[477]In the constitutions no reference is made to the deaf other than in provisions for schools, except in the case of Mississippi, where exemption from a certain tax is found.

[478]In these constitutional references, the provision is as a rule found under some general head as "public institutions", "state institutions", or "miscellaneous". In the South Carolina constitution the provision is found under the caption "charitable", and in the North Carolina under "charitable and penal". Under the heading of "education" are the provisions in the constitutions of Arizona (one clause), Colorado (as an amendment), Michigan, Mississippi, New Mexico, Oklahoma (one clause), Texas (though under the sub-title "charitable"), Utah (one clause), and Virginia.

[479]XXII., 15; XI., 1.

[480]VIII., 1. A later amendment classifies it with the educational institutions of the state.

[481]XIII., 1. Adopted the same year that the school was established.

[482]X., 1.

[483]VII., 1.

[484]XI., 15.

[485]X., 1; XI., 12.

[486]XIII., 1.

[487]VII., 1.

[488]XII., 1; X., 4.

[489]X., 10; XIX., 2, 3.

[490]XIII., 1.

[491]It is to be noted that in nearly all the states having government donations of land, reference is made to its inviolability.

[492]XIX., 19.

[493]IX., 1.

[494]VIII., 209.

[495]XII., 2; XXI., 1.

[496]XII., 12.

[497]XI., 10.

[498]IX., 14, as amended.

[499]XIV., 1.

[500]XII., 11.

[501]IX., 130.

[502]VII., 9; XVI., 21.

[503]IX., 159; XIX., 215. See also amendment, 1904, sec. 5.

[504]XIV., 267.

[505]VIII., 9, 14.

[506]53.

Inconsidering the relation of the state to its schools for the deaf, the question is raised as to the way they are regarded by the state, and in what scheme of classification they have been assigned. We find that with many of the states the institutions are held to be charitable, and the further question is presented as to whether this is proper and just.

In times past this has been the usual classification, but of late years an increasing number of states have made a change and now regard the institutions as merely educational. It would be difficult to say with precision to what scheme of classification the schools in the several states should be ascribed; and in quite a number the lines shade off one into the other. From what has been said in the preceding chapters and also from certain legislative classification, it would seem that the schools in the following states are regarded largely, if not entirely, as educational:Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Montana, New Jersey, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Vermont, and West Virginia. In about half of the states, however, the institutions continue to be regarded as charitable to a greater or less extent from their connection with charity boards or from some other classification. Some are recognized as educational, but at the same time not held altogether free from the charitable touch.[507]

Considerable difficulty at the outset rests with the word charity. In its best sense, it is the finest word in our language, and from its springs flow all benevolence, material and spiritual: when looked upon scientifically much of the repugnance and prejudice felt toward it is lost, and it becomes the touchstone for the remedy of humanills. In one sense, education is most surely and deeply charitable, whether or not it is held to be but the equipment of the state for its self-preservation. This has long been accepted, and so unanimously have the states undertaken the instruction of their children that its very discussion is now unknown.

But popularly conceived, charity is still something doled out and granted by the giver as a matter of grace, and to the recipient are carried associations that do not comport with independence and manliness of character. Besides, education has long ceased to be thought of as charitable, and only such institutions as are for the education of the deaf and blind are left with the undesirable signification of the word. In addition, the state maintains institutions for certain of its classes, as the insane, the feeble-minded and the infirm, which as a rule are in no sense educational from our standpoint, and other institutions of a reformatory, corrective or punitive character, and with them have to be classed the institutions for the deaf, all being known as the state's "charitable institutions," or "state institutions;" while the public rarely makes discrimination, or notes the distinctions involved.

The chief trouble, then, in classifying the schools for the deaf as charitable is this connection of the word charity, and the grouping of thedeaf with certain other parts of the state's population which other children do not have to share. The deaf are thus differentiated from children who have no defect of sense, and the education of the one is thus education, and of the other charity. Schools in which the deaf are educated would thus seem not to be given their just status. They are misrepresented by being aligned, on the one hand, with people of defective or diseased minds, and on the other, with the state's delinquent and criminal classes. The deaf thus become wards of the state, and constitute one of its dependent classes. They are "inmates" of an "eleemosynary" institution, and the fact that it is all for education is lost sight of.[508]

But, we are told, the treatment of deaf children should rest upon an altogether different basis, and they should, even in appearance, receive an education as a right and as nothing else. Education as the paramount privilege of American children is so deeply established in American institutions and character that it would seem to be a principle to be applied to all the children of thestate. Admission into schools for the deaf has become more and more like that in the regular schools.[509]The schools are open, as a general rule, only to those able and fitted to be educated, and the mentally and physically disqualified are often rejected. When a child has completed the prescribed number of years of attendance, he can be provided for no longer, and at vacation time in nearly all schools he must depart. The schools, as we are to see, have become free to all, while compulsory education laws have also been made to apply. Hence if schools for the deaf are educational, they can be regarded as charitable only to the extent that all schools are so considered; they should not be looked upon in a different light, and the public should be as fully alive to their claims.[510]

Hitherto we have been discussing the theory in regard to the proper place in which the institutions are to be held, but we are now to see what are the actual grounds upon which the connection with the state board of charities is to be justified. Much might be said of the practical workings of schools in connection with such boards, and it is claimed that the schools get the substance at least in the way of beneficial treatment. By one superintendent it has been stated thus: "In theory it is all wrong, but in practice it could not be improved upon." Where the boards are composed of capable, broad-minded, sympathetic men, the needs of the schools can be satisfactorily looked into, and their experience with other institutions, where the problems are akin in the way of housing a large number of people, can be utilized to great advantage, especially in connection with sanitary, hospital and other arrangements.[511]Such boards may secure supplies on more favorable terms, may systematize all the institutions,may properly apportion the appropriations to be asked of the legislature, may exercise a wider supervision, and may correlate all the means of the state for the maintenance of certain classes of its population. These boards may also have peculiar opportunities for coming across poor and neglected children and of getting them in the schools. Lastly, and most important of all, even though the institutions are educational, there is much also to be considered besides education alone, for a home and board are furnished during the school year, and usually transportation and clothing as well to those in need of them.[512]

By the boards of charity themselves the institutions are not necessarily regarded as charitable.[513]Many of them hold the institutions to be educational, despite the charity connection,and few are unwilling to give recognition to their educational features. In none is there a desire to injure or stigmatize the deaf. The aim is to consider the matter in its practical bearings, and the question is held to be largely one of classification and administration. With all the fact weighs that board, lodging, etc., are given entirely free.[514]The clearest and fullest presentation of the point of view of the charity boards is given in the following extract from a letter by one board:[515]

The institutions are doubtless both educational and charitable, or at least ought to be, using these words in their ordinary application. It is not a question of merit or demerit on the part of the unfortunates or their families. It is not a question whether they are entitled to an education as much as normal children. So far as there is any real issue, it is one of classification for purposes of administration. The question seems to be whether the institutions that care for the above mentioned classes can best be administered under the department of charities that has charge of public institutions, or the department of education that usually has to do with institutions that furnish education only in the limited technical sense, where pupils attend school a few hours a day, but are not boarded at the institutions. Because an institution is an educational institution, Ithink it may be none the less a charitable institution. For example, it would hardly be denied that an orphan asylum is a charitable institution; yet an orphan asylum that was not an educational institution would be deplorable. In the state institutions for the deaf and the blind, throughout the country, the educational side is very properly emphasized.... These inmates would properly be classed as public dependents as they usually have been.... The whole trouble seems to arise from a feeling of aversion to the word "charity", and probably the word has been degraded.... To refer to the institutions under consideration as "educational institutions", without any qualification, would not be in the interest of clearness of thought, and would either lead to confusion or to some qualifying phrases, because the deaf and the blind are certainly different enough from the normal child to be considered, for many purposes, in a separate class, and the institutions which educate and support them, it would seem to me, need some term by which they can be designated, which would distinguish them from the educational institutions designed for the normal child.

Yet over against all the arguments for the connection with the boards of charities the voice of the educators of the deaf is in unison that the connection of the schools be completely severed with whatever is of charitable signification.[516]This feeling cannot all be ascribed to the prejudice regarding the words employed. In the dissolving of the charity connection an issue not to be disregarded is the moral effect on the public. A right conception is to be obtained respecting the education of the deaf, and while in the schools and in after life they are entitled to the recognition of the true character of this education and of their status in the community. If the deaf after they have left the schools have shown that they are capable of wrestling unaided with the difficulties of life, and are really not objects of charity at all, then they should be spared all discriminating associations. Indeed, as our new view of charity is the making of men capable of standing alone, and economic units of gain in society, so the deaf should not be considered as a distinct or dependent class, when by the use of certain expressions this is done; and we should hold that if their work in the world has justified them, then no barriers should be raised which their fellows in society do not have to meet, and that their education should be offered to them without discrimination or stigma.

The benefits derived from the relation with the board of charities may be more than offset by the connection with educational agencies, where the school is recognized as part of the state's educational system. In respect to the providing of maintenance for the pupils, this can be regarded as but an incidence, when any other plan would be impracticable. The main, overshadowing purpose in the work of the institutions is education, and what are supplied beyond are only to render this the more effective. But after all this is said, the opponents of the charity connection insist that the burden of proof is upon those who advocate the connection. Why, they ask, should the deaf children of the state who are as capable of being educated as others be considered objects of the state's charity? Why any more than other children?

The feeling in the matter may be indicated by two declarations on the subject, one by the educators of the deaf, and the other by the deaf themselves. The first is in the form of a resolution adopted by the Convention of American Instructors:[517]

Resolved, that the deaf youth of our land unquestionably deserve, and are lawfully entitled to, the same educational care and aid as their more fortunate brothers and sisters; and that this education, the constitutional duty of the state, should be accorded them as a matter of right, not of charity, standing in the law, as it is in fact, a part of the common school system.

The second is a resolution adopted by the National Association of the Deaf:[518]

Whereas, the privilege of an education is the birthright of every American child ...; andWhereas, the deaf child ... has the same inalienable right to the same education as his more fortunate hearing brother; andWhereas, ... the [modern] movement ... [is] giving schools for the deaf their proper place as part of the public school system of the country; andWhereas, ... eighty-one per cent [of the deaf are] gainfully employed of those who have had schooling, thus indicating the value of education ...; therefore be itResolved, ... that education of the deaf on the part of the state is simply fulfillment of its duty as a matter of right and justice, not sympathetic charity and benevolence to the deaf; ... that schools for the deaf should not be known and regarded, nor classified, as benevolent or charitable institutions, ... [but] as strictly educational institutions, a part of the common school system ... [and not with such associations as] tend to foster a spirit of dependence in the pupils and mark them as the objects of charity of the state....

Whereas, the privilege of an education is the birthright of every American child ...; and

Whereas, the deaf child ... has the same inalienable right to the same education as his more fortunate hearing brother; and

Whereas, ... the [modern] movement ... [is] giving schools for the deaf their proper place as part of the public school system of the country; and

Whereas, ... eighty-one per cent [of the deaf are] gainfully employed of those who have had schooling, thus indicating the value of education ...; therefore be it

Resolved, ... that education of the deaf on the part of the state is simply fulfillment of its duty as a matter of right and justice, not sympathetic charity and benevolence to the deaf; ... that schools for the deaf should not be known and regarded, nor classified, as benevolent or charitable institutions, ... [but] as strictly educational institutions, a part of the common school system ... [and not with such associations as] tend to foster a spirit of dependence in the pupils and mark them as the objects of charity of the state....

Certain inferences or conclusions may now be reached regarding our question as to whether schools for the deaf may be regarded and classified as charitable.

1. In America the schools have been regarded both as educational and charitable, but there is an increasing tendency to consider them as purely educational. At present about half of the states hold them entirely or in the main as educational.

2. The state boards or public authorities that regard the schools as charitable are in no wise prompted by any desire to discriminate against the deaf, or to deny that they are less capable or worthy of education than others. The question is held to be mainly one of administration.

3. Inasmuch as board and a home are provided in the institutions, and in some cases clothing and transportation also, the charitable element is present, and in point of fact the schools must be regardedad hocas charitable.

4. This charitable feature, however, plays a slight and almost negligible part in the work of the schools, being in fact only incidental, and the educational aims take precedence over all else.

5. Because of the associations involved in the charity connection, which are not shared in by the regular schools, and because of the little to suggestcharity in the after lives of the deaf, the schools for the deaf have reason to protest against the connection. As education is the one purpose of the schools, and as their operations are conducted solely to this end, they are entitled to an educational classification.

6. That the schools for the deaf should thus be held and treated, to the farthest possible extent, as purely educational, is demanded both by justice and by the regard for the proper effect on the deaf and on the public.

FOOTNOTES:[507]Thus, in addition to the states named above, in the constitutions of Michigan, Oklahoma and Virginia the institutions are designated educational. In certain states also, as we have seen, the state superintendent of public instruction isex-officiomember of the governing board, and in a few other states report is made to the department of education. In New York and North Carolina the schools are visited by this department. In a number also an educational classification is found in some of the statutory references or captions. See in particular on this subject,Annals, xlviii., 1903, p. 348; lviii., 1913, p. 327.[508]The earlier conception of the schools is in part illustrated by the name "asylum" given. British schools were often called asylums or hospitals, and were largely founded and supported by charity. Likewise in America the term "asylum" was frequently given to the schools when first started. But the name has now been generally discarded, and in but one state is the title retained, New Mexico. "School" is now mostly used, while in a few "institution" is employed. SeeAnnals,loc. cit.See also Report of Board of Penal, Pauper and Charitable Institutions of Michigan, 1878, p. 41.[509]In Massachusetts appropriations were once "for beneficiaries in asylums for the deaf and dumb", but now they are "for the education of deaf pupils in schools designated by law".[510]In a legal sense, nearly all educational institutions can be called charitable, especially if they are private affairs, and gifts for such purposes are held in the law as for charitable purposes. See 4 Wheaton, 518; 2 How. (U. S.), 227; 14 How., 277; 44 Mo., 570; 25 O. St., 229. Not many cases have arisen in regard to the status of institutions for the deaf. In 1900 the Columbia Institution was held in the opinion of the Attorney-General to be under the department of charities, but Congress the next year declared it to be educational. SeeAnnals, xlvi., 1901, p. 345. In Colorado an opinion was rendered that the school was educational alone, and not subject to the civil service rules, and this was later ratified in the constitution and by the legislature. Some of the courts have been inclined to view the institutions as charitable. In Nebraska the school for the deaf was at first considered an asylum and in the same class with almshouses, rather than educational. 6 Neb., 286. See also 43 Neb., 184. In New York the provision of the law allowing the State Board of Charities to inspect the Institution for the Blind was attacked, and it was held that, though the institution was partly educational and was visited by the department of education, yet the word charity was to be taken in its usual meaning, and if the institution as a private body educated, clothed and maintained indigent pupils, it was charitable. 154 New York, 14 (1897).[511]See Report of Illinois Board of Charities, 1872, pp. 13ff., 32ff.[512]In a few cases a home during vacation is afforded to the indigent or unprotected.[513]In order to discover how these institutions are regarded by the departments of charities, letters of inquiry were sent by the writer to all the states of the Union. Replies were received in 45 out of 49 cases, coming from boards of charities, boards of control, or in their absence from commissioners of education or other state officials,—and in a few cases from individuals or societies to whom the communication was turned over. In the answers, the institutions were called charitable by 6, educational by 13, both charitable and educational by 12, while by 14 the question was not specifically answered. In some instances, these replies were only private opinions, but they represent none the less the views of those most in touch with the charity activities of the states. In a few cases the replies were at variance with what has been accepted regarding certain states. It was also found that boards of control do not necessarily consider the institutions as charitable.[514]By one board, while such schools are admitted to be partly educational, they are held "charitable in that they afford a home for certain defective persons during the time of their dependence". By one board the pupils are called "charity patients".[515]The District of Columbia.[516]Many of the schools in their reports take pains to disclaim any but a strictly educational character. Of the Michigan school it is expressly stated that it is "not an asylum, reformatory or hospital"; of the Colorado that it is "not an 'asylum' or 'home' for the afflicted; it is not a hospital for the care and treatment of the eyes and ears; and it is not a place for the detention and care of imbeciles"; of the Illinois that it is "not a reformatory, poor house, hospital or asylum"; of the Indiana that it is "not an asylum, place of refuge, reform school, almshouse, children's home or hospital"; of the Georgia that it is "in no sense an asylum ... or charitable institution"; and of the Mississippi that it is "in no sense an asylum ... a home ... [nor a place] for medical treatment." See also Report of Commissioner of Public Lands and Buildings of Nebraska, 1896, p. 356; Education Department of New York, 1912, p. 81.[517]Proceedings, xvii., 1905, p. 168. See alsoibid., xv., 1898, p. 216;Annals, lv., 1910, p. 133. The schools are also said to be "maintained solely for the instruction of a large and interesting class of children who, by reason of a physical infirmity, the loss of hearing, are denied instruction in the public schools". Dr. A. L. E. Crouter, Proceedings of National Conference of Charities and Corrections, 1906, p. 249. See also Report of Kentucky School, 1909, p. 17.[518]Proceedings, viii., 1907, p. 40. See alsoibid., v., 1896, p. 47.

[507]Thus, in addition to the states named above, in the constitutions of Michigan, Oklahoma and Virginia the institutions are designated educational. In certain states also, as we have seen, the state superintendent of public instruction isex-officiomember of the governing board, and in a few other states report is made to the department of education. In New York and North Carolina the schools are visited by this department. In a number also an educational classification is found in some of the statutory references or captions. See in particular on this subject,Annals, xlviii., 1903, p. 348; lviii., 1913, p. 327.

[508]The earlier conception of the schools is in part illustrated by the name "asylum" given. British schools were often called asylums or hospitals, and were largely founded and supported by charity. Likewise in America the term "asylum" was frequently given to the schools when first started. But the name has now been generally discarded, and in but one state is the title retained, New Mexico. "School" is now mostly used, while in a few "institution" is employed. SeeAnnals,loc. cit.See also Report of Board of Penal, Pauper and Charitable Institutions of Michigan, 1878, p. 41.

[509]In Massachusetts appropriations were once "for beneficiaries in asylums for the deaf and dumb", but now they are "for the education of deaf pupils in schools designated by law".

[510]In a legal sense, nearly all educational institutions can be called charitable, especially if they are private affairs, and gifts for such purposes are held in the law as for charitable purposes. See 4 Wheaton, 518; 2 How. (U. S.), 227; 14 How., 277; 44 Mo., 570; 25 O. St., 229. Not many cases have arisen in regard to the status of institutions for the deaf. In 1900 the Columbia Institution was held in the opinion of the Attorney-General to be under the department of charities, but Congress the next year declared it to be educational. SeeAnnals, xlvi., 1901, p. 345. In Colorado an opinion was rendered that the school was educational alone, and not subject to the civil service rules, and this was later ratified in the constitution and by the legislature. Some of the courts have been inclined to view the institutions as charitable. In Nebraska the school for the deaf was at first considered an asylum and in the same class with almshouses, rather than educational. 6 Neb., 286. See also 43 Neb., 184. In New York the provision of the law allowing the State Board of Charities to inspect the Institution for the Blind was attacked, and it was held that, though the institution was partly educational and was visited by the department of education, yet the word charity was to be taken in its usual meaning, and if the institution as a private body educated, clothed and maintained indigent pupils, it was charitable. 154 New York, 14 (1897).

[511]See Report of Illinois Board of Charities, 1872, pp. 13ff., 32ff.

[512]In a few cases a home during vacation is afforded to the indigent or unprotected.

[513]In order to discover how these institutions are regarded by the departments of charities, letters of inquiry were sent by the writer to all the states of the Union. Replies were received in 45 out of 49 cases, coming from boards of charities, boards of control, or in their absence from commissioners of education or other state officials,—and in a few cases from individuals or societies to whom the communication was turned over. In the answers, the institutions were called charitable by 6, educational by 13, both charitable and educational by 12, while by 14 the question was not specifically answered. In some instances, these replies were only private opinions, but they represent none the less the views of those most in touch with the charity activities of the states. In a few cases the replies were at variance with what has been accepted regarding certain states. It was also found that boards of control do not necessarily consider the institutions as charitable.

[514]By one board, while such schools are admitted to be partly educational, they are held "charitable in that they afford a home for certain defective persons during the time of their dependence". By one board the pupils are called "charity patients".

[515]The District of Columbia.

[516]Many of the schools in their reports take pains to disclaim any but a strictly educational character. Of the Michigan school it is expressly stated that it is "not an asylum, reformatory or hospital"; of the Colorado that it is "not an 'asylum' or 'home' for the afflicted; it is not a hospital for the care and treatment of the eyes and ears; and it is not a place for the detention and care of imbeciles"; of the Illinois that it is "not a reformatory, poor house, hospital or asylum"; of the Indiana that it is "not an asylum, place of refuge, reform school, almshouse, children's home or hospital"; of the Georgia that it is "in no sense an asylum ... or charitable institution"; and of the Mississippi that it is "in no sense an asylum ... a home ... [nor a place] for medical treatment." See also Report of Commissioner of Public Lands and Buildings of Nebraska, 1896, p. 356; Education Department of New York, 1912, p. 81.

[517]Proceedings, xvii., 1905, p. 168. See alsoibid., xv., 1898, p. 216;Annals, lv., 1910, p. 133. The schools are also said to be "maintained solely for the instruction of a large and interesting class of children who, by reason of a physical infirmity, the loss of hearing, are denied instruction in the public schools". Dr. A. L. E. Crouter, Proceedings of National Conference of Charities and Corrections, 1906, p. 249. See also Report of Kentucky School, 1909, p. 17.

[518]Proceedings, viii., 1907, p. 40. See alsoibid., v., 1896, p. 47.

Hithertowe have considered the several forms of provision for the schools for the deaf, and the general treatment accorded them. We now turn our examination to the schools themselves in their relation to the pupils who enter them. Our first concern is with the provisions as to the admission of pupils into the schools.

We find that the schools, to all intents and purposes, are free to all applicants mentally and physically qualified to enter.[519]Usually, when started, the schools were free to the indigent only, though some, especially in the West, were made free to all from the very beginning. However, there was little attempt to observe closely these limitations, and in time, as we have seen, theywere for the most part given up.[520]At present limitations of any kind are found in the smaller number of states, and exist in these in form rather than in practice, so that to-day laws or regulations of a restrictive nature may be regarded as but nominal.

In all the states the schools are by statute free to the indigent at least, and in less than a score is there a regulation short of universal admittance prescribed. By the wording of the statute, either directly or by implication, it would seem to be indicated that the schools, or, in their absence, the proper public authorities, in the following states were still empowered to demand a charge in whole or in part from those able to pay: Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Virginia—these states at least making reference in some place to the indigent.[521]But with or without such reference, as we have noted, in but few instances is there a charge to any, indigent ornot.[522]In some states proof of indigence is still formally necessary,[523]and in others payment may be made if desired.[524]

Little effort, then, is made to collect fees in American schools for the deaf. The circumstances of the deaf themselves are usually such as to demand for them education without cost; while at the same time the general American feeling that education should be a free gift of the state to its youth would be sufficient to prevent attempts to secure payment, even if such action should be considered proper.

The state thus supplies the means for the education and maintenance of pupils without cost to them; but to insure the attendance of those who by reason of poverty might be prevented fromavailing themselves of its bounty, it assists even further. Where no other means are provided, clothing and transportation to and from the schools are furnished free of expense. Such charges are usually paid by the counties from which the pupils come, though a few states undertake this directly. A given sum may be allowed for this purpose, or the actual cost may be collected.[525]

With most of the schools the age limits of attendance are fixed, and pupils may be admitted only within the time prescribed by the law. In some the age permitted is the common school age; in others pupils are admitted who are of "suitable age and qualifications," or "capacity;" and in some cases, no limits being set down, the matter seems to be left to the discretion of the authorities.[526]

In schools where the limits of attendance are specified, the minimum age is usually six, seven or eight, while a few schools admit at five. In a few of the day schools, and in most of the oral home schools, children may be received as early as three, or even two, to make an early beginning in the use of speech, some of the home schools being designed expressly to receive children under five, or before the regular school period. The age limit for the completion of the school period is often twenty or twenty-one, while a few schools may keep pupils longer, as to twenty-five. The most frequent age period at present, where age limits are stated, is from six to twenty-one, but the period often begins and ends at other ages.[527]

In some cases pupils are allowed to remain a certain number of years, but none beyond a certain limit, while in many the period may be extended two, three or five years, when it appears that the progress of the pupil justifies a more protracted residence.[528]Finally, it is to be noted that the limits of attendance have in general been lowered, and have been made to conform more and more with those of the regular schools.[529]

FOOTNOTES:[519]Certain of the schools receive a few pay pupils, but these are usually from outside the state or are otherwise exceptionally provided for. Receipts from such sources are inconsiderable, and have little effect on the revenues of the schools. According to the Census of Benevolent Institutions of 1905, less than $55,000 came to the schools in this way, the greater amount being for pupils of other states.[520]The statutes of some states, as of Maine and Massachusetts, even go so far as distinctly to declare that no discrimination shall be made on account of wealth. On this subject, see Report of Clarke School, 1885, p. 8.[521]In Florida tuition at least seems to be provided free by the statute, and in Georgia free admission seems to be provided only for the indigent blind, while education is made free to all the deaf. On this subject, seeAmerican Journal of Sociology, iv., 1898, p. 51ff.[522]On this subject the superintendent of the Mississippi School addressed letters to heads of Southern schools, and found only two—those in Texas and Mississippi—having any requirement as to payment. In Mississippi there had been only two payments in the course of a considerable number of years. In the Texas school for the year 1909 we find the sum of $1,546 collected as a "reasonable amount" for board,—an unusual item in the receipts of a school.[523]Wherever a formal regulation is stated, we are advised that the schools are "free to the indigent", "free if parents are unable to pay", "free under certain circumstances", etc. In a few states, "certificates of inability" have been demanded.[524]In Maine, for instance, the law states that the school is free, "provided, however, that nothing herein contained shall be held to prevent the voluntary payment of the whole or part of such sum by the parent or the guardian".[525]Some states, notably Washington, Minnesota, Mississippi, South Carolina, Arkansas, Utah, Nebraska, and Oklahoma allow funds to pay the transportation of students who enter the college at Washington, and in some cases an even further allowance is made. In Minnesota and Nebraska, for instance, the amount is $300 a year. SeeAnnals, lvi., 1911, p. 180.[526]Even where the age period is fixed by law, it is not always rigidly adhered to, and considerable elasticity may be allowed. Of the Michigan school we are told that the state "wisely allows the board of trustees the privilege of admitting those [pupils] who are older or younger, if they see fit". Report, 1908, p. 32. For discussion of the age period, see Report of New York Institution for Improved Instruction, 1870, p. 28; Ohio School, 1872, p. 17; Clarke School, 1888, p. 8; American School, 1893, p. 32; Michigan School, 1894, p. 22; New Jersey School, 1898, p. 20; Pennsylvania Institution, 1901, p. 35; Proceedings of Convention of American Instructors, xviii., 1908, p. 156;Association Review, v., 1903, p. 380.[527]The formal age period is from 6 to 21 in Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Maryland, Montana, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Washington; from 7 to 21 in Kansas, Michigan, Nebraska and New Mexico; 7 to 25 in Georgia and North Dakota; 7 to 20 in Wisconsin; 8 to 20 in Minnesota; 8 to 21 in Indiana; 8 to 25 in West Virginia; 8 to 26 in California; 5 to 21 in Iowa and Maine; 5 to 20 in Vermont; and in North Carolina at one school 6 to 21, and at the other 8 to 23. In Alabama pupils between the ages of 7 and 21 may remain 10 years, with an extension of 4, but none beyond 25. In Arkansas the limits are 6 and 21, and the time of residence may be extended to 13 years. In Texas they are 7 and 20, with a residence of 12 years permitted. In Missouri they are 8 and 21, with a residence of 12 years. In Kentucky and Virginia they are the same, with a residence of 10 years. In Rhode Island they are 3 and 20, with a stay of 10 years, which may be extended. In New Jersey the limits are 8 and 21, and a pupil is entitled to a stay of 8 years, which may be extended 3, and 3 more in addition. In Louisiana the limits are 8 and 22, pupils under 14 being allowed to stay 10 years; between 14 and 17, 8; and over 17, 5—with an extension in each case of 4 years. In Delaware a pupil may stay 5 years, with a further extension of 5. In Ohio the lower limit is 7, and none may remain more than 13 years. In New York pupils may enter at 5, but after 12, the period is 5 years, with an extension of 3, and a further one of 3. In Wyoming pupils may enter at 6; and in Connecticut at 6, with a residence of 12 years and an extension of 6. In Massachusetts a residence of 10 years is permitted, which may be extended, but here the Clarke School has no fixed time, and the Horace Mann takes pupils over 5. In Pennsylvania, though the statute seems to have provided from 10 to 20 years as the period, there are no strict limits, the Pennsylvania Institution receiving from 5 to 21, the Western Pennsylvania from 6 to 20, and the Pennsylvania Oral none under 6, except in special circumstances. In Utah there seems to be only an upper limit of 30.[528]It sometimes happens that there are found a small number of deaf persons who are beyond the age allowed, but who are in need of a certain amount of schooling. Their condition is said to be "due to their environments, to merciless and exacting parents, to sickness, and to other causes." Report of Iowa School, 1812, p. 13. See also Report, 1910, p. 8. Under special arrangements, some of these might be benefited no little by a few years of instruction. In Iowa such persons may now be received up to the age of thirty-five, if the State Board of Control consents.[529]We have already noticed that in the first schools an early age was not insisted upon, some pupils entering at 10 or 12, while their attendance was also of short duration. The period was often from 9 to 30. The latter age has been allowed in some states till recent years, as in Texas, Arkansas and Missouri. It may be stated here that the law as to residence applies usually only at the time of entrance, and the removal of the parent may not always effect a change. For a case in point, see 4 R. I., p. 587.

[519]Certain of the schools receive a few pay pupils, but these are usually from outside the state or are otherwise exceptionally provided for. Receipts from such sources are inconsiderable, and have little effect on the revenues of the schools. According to the Census of Benevolent Institutions of 1905, less than $55,000 came to the schools in this way, the greater amount being for pupils of other states.

[520]The statutes of some states, as of Maine and Massachusetts, even go so far as distinctly to declare that no discrimination shall be made on account of wealth. On this subject, see Report of Clarke School, 1885, p. 8.

[521]In Florida tuition at least seems to be provided free by the statute, and in Georgia free admission seems to be provided only for the indigent blind, while education is made free to all the deaf. On this subject, seeAmerican Journal of Sociology, iv., 1898, p. 51ff.

[522]On this subject the superintendent of the Mississippi School addressed letters to heads of Southern schools, and found only two—those in Texas and Mississippi—having any requirement as to payment. In Mississippi there had been only two payments in the course of a considerable number of years. In the Texas school for the year 1909 we find the sum of $1,546 collected as a "reasonable amount" for board,—an unusual item in the receipts of a school.

[523]Wherever a formal regulation is stated, we are advised that the schools are "free to the indigent", "free if parents are unable to pay", "free under certain circumstances", etc. In a few states, "certificates of inability" have been demanded.

[524]In Maine, for instance, the law states that the school is free, "provided, however, that nothing herein contained shall be held to prevent the voluntary payment of the whole or part of such sum by the parent or the guardian".

[525]Some states, notably Washington, Minnesota, Mississippi, South Carolina, Arkansas, Utah, Nebraska, and Oklahoma allow funds to pay the transportation of students who enter the college at Washington, and in some cases an even further allowance is made. In Minnesota and Nebraska, for instance, the amount is $300 a year. SeeAnnals, lvi., 1911, p. 180.

[526]Even where the age period is fixed by law, it is not always rigidly adhered to, and considerable elasticity may be allowed. Of the Michigan school we are told that the state "wisely allows the board of trustees the privilege of admitting those [pupils] who are older or younger, if they see fit". Report, 1908, p. 32. For discussion of the age period, see Report of New York Institution for Improved Instruction, 1870, p. 28; Ohio School, 1872, p. 17; Clarke School, 1888, p. 8; American School, 1893, p. 32; Michigan School, 1894, p. 22; New Jersey School, 1898, p. 20; Pennsylvania Institution, 1901, p. 35; Proceedings of Convention of American Instructors, xviii., 1908, p. 156;Association Review, v., 1903, p. 380.

[527]The formal age period is from 6 to 21 in Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Maryland, Montana, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Washington; from 7 to 21 in Kansas, Michigan, Nebraska and New Mexico; 7 to 25 in Georgia and North Dakota; 7 to 20 in Wisconsin; 8 to 20 in Minnesota; 8 to 21 in Indiana; 8 to 25 in West Virginia; 8 to 26 in California; 5 to 21 in Iowa and Maine; 5 to 20 in Vermont; and in North Carolina at one school 6 to 21, and at the other 8 to 23. In Alabama pupils between the ages of 7 and 21 may remain 10 years, with an extension of 4, but none beyond 25. In Arkansas the limits are 6 and 21, and the time of residence may be extended to 13 years. In Texas they are 7 and 20, with a residence of 12 years permitted. In Missouri they are 8 and 21, with a residence of 12 years. In Kentucky and Virginia they are the same, with a residence of 10 years. In Rhode Island they are 3 and 20, with a stay of 10 years, which may be extended. In New Jersey the limits are 8 and 21, and a pupil is entitled to a stay of 8 years, which may be extended 3, and 3 more in addition. In Louisiana the limits are 8 and 22, pupils under 14 being allowed to stay 10 years; between 14 and 17, 8; and over 17, 5—with an extension in each case of 4 years. In Delaware a pupil may stay 5 years, with a further extension of 5. In Ohio the lower limit is 7, and none may remain more than 13 years. In New York pupils may enter at 5, but after 12, the period is 5 years, with an extension of 3, and a further one of 3. In Wyoming pupils may enter at 6; and in Connecticut at 6, with a residence of 12 years and an extension of 6. In Massachusetts a residence of 10 years is permitted, which may be extended, but here the Clarke School has no fixed time, and the Horace Mann takes pupils over 5. In Pennsylvania, though the statute seems to have provided from 10 to 20 years as the period, there are no strict limits, the Pennsylvania Institution receiving from 5 to 21, the Western Pennsylvania from 6 to 20, and the Pennsylvania Oral none under 6, except in special circumstances. In Utah there seems to be only an upper limit of 30.

[528]It sometimes happens that there are found a small number of deaf persons who are beyond the age allowed, but who are in need of a certain amount of schooling. Their condition is said to be "due to their environments, to merciless and exacting parents, to sickness, and to other causes." Report of Iowa School, 1812, p. 13. See also Report, 1910, p. 8. Under special arrangements, some of these might be benefited no little by a few years of instruction. In Iowa such persons may now be received up to the age of thirty-five, if the State Board of Control consents.

[529]We have already noticed that in the first schools an early age was not insisted upon, some pupils entering at 10 or 12, while their attendance was also of short duration. The period was often from 9 to 30. The latter age has been allowed in some states till recent years, as in Texas, Arkansas and Missouri. It may be stated here that the law as to residence applies usually only at the time of entrance, and the removal of the parent may not always effect a change. For a case in point, see 4 R. I., p. 587.

Thequestion now arises as to whether the deaf generally attend these schools provided for them. This inquiry really resolves itself into two parts: how far the deaf have at some time and for a longer or shorter period had recourse to the schools; and how far they may be found to be in attendance at a given time. The one has relation rather to how widely the schools are extending their educational opportunities, and the other to how effectively they are accomplishing their ends.

As to the first consideration, the schools are found to reach most of the deaf children with the privileges of an education to a greater or less extent. From the returns of the census[530]we find that nearly four-fifths (78.4 per cent) of the deaf have attended school, over three-fourths (77.5 per cent) of these having attended the special schools. The proportion would be greater still but for the number of the deaf too young to enterschool. The proportion of the deaf of school age who have attended school may likewise be estimated by comparing the total number of approximate school age with the number who were reported to have been in attendance. There were, according to the census, 13,905 deaf children from five to twenty years of age. Of these, 10,640, or 76.5 per cent, were reported to have attended school.[531]In 1912-1913 the total number in attendance was 14,474, which probably means a higher proportion. On the whole, then, it would seem that, in respect to the number of deaf children actually reached at one time or another, the schools make a really commendable showing, and one that is becoming better from year to year.

The second matter, however, cannot be disposed of nearly so satisfactorily. It is difficult to determine with any approach to exactness the respective proportions of the deaf in the several states of school age who are out of school. The census does not give us definite information on this point; and though the school authorities themselves are usually aware of conditions in their respective states, they seldom have themeans of fully ascertaining. But we may learn something of the general situation. In the reports of some of the schools complaint is not infrequently made as to the number of deaf children out of school who should be in, and in a portion the number is said to be large.[532]The proportions, furthermore, found in attendance in the different states in comparison with their total population, or with their total deaf population under twenty years of age, indicate that the attendance in some states is far greater than in others, which means that in the latter a relatively smaller part are in school.[533]It would appear,then, that the number of the deaf out of school who are of school age is probably not negligible in any of the states, and that in some it is very considerable.[534]

The fact that the schools do not have their full quota of pupils is not all due to the refusal of deaf children to avail themselves of the opportunity for a schooling. It is in good part owing also to the failure of some of the pupils who attend to remain a sufficient length of time. In the preceding chapter we have seen what are the limits of attendance prescribed in the schools; but as a matter of fact a large proportion of the pupils do not remain the full period allotted, and in some of the schools an appreciable number do not remain the better or a substantial part of the term.[535]As in all schools, there is in the passing of the pupils from the years of childhood an increasing tendency to leave, and with the deaf this applies with no less force;[536]so that on nosmall portion of the pupils the work of the schools is not permitted to have full effect.

It is thus quite evident, however large the true proportion of the deaf who attend the school may be, and whatever the proportion remaining a satisfactory period may be, that in practically every state there are a certain number of deaf children not in the schools who should be there, and that the offer of the state to provide an education for all its deaf children is not availed of as it should be.[537]For the existence of this condition of affairs the schools are not to be held responsible. They are usually doing all they can to get the children in, and all the deaf if they will may receive an education. The cause lies further back: most often in the ignorance or short-sightedness of the parent.

For it all there is but one remedy—the enactment of a strong compulsory education law andits uncompromising enforcement. No matter how strenuous and diligent may be the efforts to reach the children,[538]it is only when such a law is on the statute books that the state's really effective weapon is at hand to secure attendance.[539]

However urgent are the needs of compulsory education laws for children generally, there are special reasons for them with the deaf. The deaf stand in particular need of an education, and without it their condition is peculiarly helpless and pitiable. Compelling reason is also found in the fact that, besides the ordinary schooling, industrial training is likewise afforded to the deaf, which is hardly possible elsewhere, and which may mean no little towards success in after life. Even though it sometimes seems hard to take a deaf child from his home, and separate him from his parents for a number of months at a time, especially if the child is in his tender years, the greater necessity of the law is but indicated if such children are to be kept from growing up in ignorance. The hardship in separation is ratherapparent only and is temporary, while the gains are not to be measured.

Not only should the deaf child be required to attend school, but for reasons equally strong it should be seen that he remains at school a sufficient number of years, and a sufficient length of time each year. It is a difficult matter as it is to secure full attendance, but too often also the temptation is at hand for pupils to leave early to take up work on their own account, or because the school routine seems irksome; and too often is a pupil called away to help on the farm or in the shop by what is sometimes hardly less than the greed of the parent, or by what is sometimes miscalled his poverty. The state should allow nothing at all to stand in the way of the child's best interests.

How important are compulsory education laws for the deaf is being generally seen, and the demand has become practically unanimous for their enactment, the feeling not being confined to educators of the deaf but shared in by others interested in them.[540]Such laws have begun to findtheir way upon the statute books, and are now being increasingly enacted. Already practically half of the states have them, nearly all of which were enacted since 1900. In other states the matter is also being agitated, with the likelihood that provisions will be extended to them in time. States with such laws now number at least twenty-three: California, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin.[541]

With respect to the provisions of these statutes, we find that in some cases the general compulsory education law applies with its age-periods,fines, etc., while in others there are special enactments for the deaf. In most states an exception is made if there is instruction at home, or with equal facilities, and at the same time and in the same branches. In certain ones truancy officers are expressly designated to enforce the law.[542]Fines for violation are placed at sums varying from $5 to $200.[543]The period of attendance required may be the school year, but more often a part, as five, six or eight months;[544]and the term for which attendance is required is either a designated number of years, as five or eight, or a period between certain age limits, as from eight to sixteen or from seven to eighteen, etc.[545]

Back to Index Next