'The Deaf and Dumb Times' : 無料・フリー素材/写真
'The Deaf and Dumb Times' / The National Archives UK
| ライセンス | No known copyright restrictions(著作権制限なし) |
|---|---|
| 説明 | Document: Article in ‘The Deaf and Dumb Times’, 1891. Catalogue reference: ED 50/9This is an article from a publication called ‘The Deaf and Dumb Times’, a monthly publication from the late 1800s that described itself as ‘Being an organ intended for the Welfare of the Deaf and Dumb’.It was founded and edited by Charles Gorham, who was himself deaf, and its proprietor Joseph Hepworth lost his hearing at the age of eight. Both were crucial in facilitating this space for deaf people to discuss issues important to them, encouraging debate among people with an interest in deafness.Their columns presented arguments in support of the ‘finger alphabet’ or sign language and the combined method of signing and lip-reading. This opposed the government position of the time, which encouraged lip-reading above all.This opinion piece, discussing speech education, was sent in to the Board of Education in 1891. It is a brilliant example of deaf people in the past using their agency to inform medical and political thought.Note that this source includes language that we would not use today, but we represent it here for historical accuracy.With this document, students could consider:- What kind of source is this?- Why do you think this source was made?- Who do you think was the audience for this source?- What does this source tell you about the lives of deaf people in 1891?Transcript:Deaf and Dumb TimesBeing an organ intended for the welfare of the deaf and dumb. Edited by C. Gorham.No. 8 - Vol. 2. Two pence. January, 1891.Our notes.Are day schools for the deaf indispensable? On the 20th October, a leaderette appeared in the Manchester Guardian, in which the defects of the Government measure dealing with the deaf were pointed out. This drew forth letters from Mr. E. Townsend and Mr. A. Farrar, Junr. We reproduce Mr. Townsend's letter, which appeared in the issue of November 1st last:"The article on this subject in your paper of the 20th inst. having come under my notice, I venture to ask you to allow me to offer some remarks on this important question, and to adduce evidence directly bearing upon certain points you have raised. It may be within your recollection that about this time last year a Conference was held at Manchester to consider the recommendations contained in the Report of the Royal Commission on the Deaf. It was felt by a no means inconsiderable number of delegates attending that Conference that undue preference had been displayed in favour of day schools, such preference being strongly at varianco with the opinions expressed by the Royal Commissioners in the body of their report. Lord Egerton of Tatton dwelt at some length on this matter in his opening speech; but I must confess that the Government measure as it stands would seem to indicate that the efforts of those who were then contending for the interests of the institutions have been attended with results of a very nugatory character. The dangers that appeared to us to menace the institutions then are just as apparent at the present time, and inasmuch as legislation has come within measurable distance, so much the more are those dangers to be dreaded and fought against. My own opinion as regards day schools may not be thought of any great value, seeing that my nearly thirty years' experience among the deaf has been confined to institutions. But I beg to be allowed to quote the opinions of those who can speak with authority on the subject.So recently as early in the present month the Chairman of the London School Board, in delivering his annual address, adverted to their work among deaf children in the schools, and expressed himself in the following clear and emphatic terms respecting it: "I am not satisfied that under the conditions of our day classes, with their intermittent attendance and the shortness of the time at our disposal, we are making the advance in this matter (i.e. in oral teaching) we should desire to see. But until the Board can establish permanent institutions for this work I do not think much more progress will be made. ... A more permanent work in connection with the latter (i.e. the deaf) would not much effect the general finances of the Board, and I think that its results would be of a more lasting and useful nature than the imperfect results our expenditure upon them now achieves."The testimony of the superintendent of those day school classes for deaf children, the Rev. Dr. Stainer, is even of a strong and condemnatory character, as the following extract from a paper read by him before the Charity Organisation Society in London will show. He said: "If school instruction were all that is required for deaf children, classrooms, teachers, and school appliances would fully supply the want, and there would be no necessity to question the relative value of day schools; or the completeness of the provision made by the School Board for London. But I do not think that anyone thoroughly acquainted with the idiosyncrasy of the deaf children of the poor (and it must be borne in mind that this is the class we are dealing with, not the well to-do, who are capable of paying for the education of their children) would venture to assert that they could be sufficiently educated by attending a school five hours a day, five days a week, like ordinary children, and this perhaps for a few years only, and that nothing further need to be done for them. If it were so, then all the institutions on the Continent and in America, as well as our own, are spending large sums unnecessarily; but if, on the contrary, those noble institutions are essential to the well-being of the class of children for whom they provide, then the School Board system must be only looked upon as a temporary expedient to meet the urgent requirements of large numbers for whom no other means are at present available." Dr. Buxton, who was for 25 years at the head of the Liverpool Institution for the Deaf, where both day pupils and boarders are received, stated in evidence before the Royal Commission that "he considered five years' instruction as a day scholar not more than equivalent to one-half the same time spent as a boarder in school, and that, in his view, supervision, continuous attendance, and extra discipline, to which the children are made subservient under a boarding-school system, are absolutely lost under the day school system." Lastly, on the Royal Commissioners' own showing (see paragraphs 339, 346, and 352 of their report), the institution system is to be preferred, and they are forced to the conclusion that institutions are necessary for the teaching of the great majority of deaf children.One other point I should like to touch upon, if you will kindly grant me space, and that is the desirableness of further and detailed information as to the mode in which it is proposed that the inspection of schools and institutions should be carried out, and to whom the work is to be entrusted. The recommendation of the Royal Commissioners was that the inspectors of ordinary schools should be selected to perform it. The proposal is such an absurd one as almost to carry with it its own condemnation. It is but fair to state, though, that on this as on several other important points the only two members of the Royal Commission possessing practical acquaintance with the deaf, were diametrically opposed to their colleagues, for their say in their reservations at the end of the report: "We are strongly of opinion that the Government inspectors to be appointed hereafter should be men who have had actual and mature experience in deaf mute instruction." It may also be stated that the recommendation to which I take exception is right in the teeth of evidence elicited by the Royal Commission; and, further, that it is viewed with marked disfavour by the great body of the profession, some members of which have had painful experience of non-expert inspection, and knowing its farcical nature, do not desire to see its further development. The proof that the Government fully endorse and accept this recommendation and intend to act upon it is, I am happy to say, not to be found in their bill. And assuredly it is to be hoped that any Government would hesitate before committing such a monstrous folly as to authorise non-experts to examine and report upon work which is a distinct speciality in the domain of education, and in which... |
| 撮影日 | 2025-11-20 11:43:27 |
| 撮影者 | The National Archives UK |
| 撮影地 |