PERUZZI 1

Who Teaches the Teachers?

History of the Normal School at Gallaudet University

Meredith Peruzzi, 2010

Gallaudet University, DST 498

PERUZZI 2

The origins of the Normal Department at Gallaudet University lie

in the rapid proliferation of schools for deaf children in the

middle part of the nineteenth century. From the founding of the

American Asylum for the Deaf at Hartford in 1817 to the opening

of the National Deaf-Mute College in 1864, nearly half a dozen

states and other entities opened schools for local deaf children,

dramatically increasing the number of deaf people with an average

education in America.

The number of teachers required for these early schools far

outstripped the number of teachers actually available, and this

issue was well-known throughout the deaf education community

(Gordon 1892). It was widely agreed upon that a preparation

program for teachers of deaf students was needed to satisfy the

ever-increasing need for qualified professionals in the field.

The president of the Columbia Institution for the Deaf, Edward

Miner Gallaudet, felt that his school, which taught deaf children

from childhood through post-secondary education, would be the

best location for preparing teachers of deaf children (Scouten

1942). At the request of the directors of the Columbia

Institution, Gallaudet traveled to Europe to assess the various

PERUZZI 3

methods of educating deaf children used there (Peterson 1966).

This trip took place in 1867, but no normal school was

established in the United States until 1891.

A normal school is defined as a school designed to prepare

future teachers. The term “normal,” in this sense, has no

relationship to that which is usual or common, but rather refers

exclusively to teaching; today, perhaps because of the multiple

meanings of the word “normal,” the phrase “normal school” has

fallen out of use and various terms involving “pedagogy” are more

popular. The first normal school in the world was established in

France in 1685 by Jean-Baptiste de la Salle (Graham 1910), and

the first in the United States was established in 1839 (Dirks

1996). The Normal Department of the Columbia Institution for the

Deaf was the first normal school in the United States dedicated

exclusively to preparing teachers to work with deaf students;

pedagogical programs for working with deaf children existed in

European cities, but were usually tied with other programs, not

exclusively focused on deaf education (Scouten 1941), with the

exception of a school in Milan (Peterson 1966).

PERUZZI 4

Prior to the establishment of the Normal Department at

Gallaudet, those who wished to become teachers of deaf children

gravitated toward the American Asylum in Hartford. There was no

formal pedagogical instruction established, but Laurent Clerc

worked with those who wished to become teachers. In turn, those

who studied under Clerc returned to their home schools and taught

their colleagues what they had learned in Hartford. There were

occasional classes set up, taught by those who had learned

directly or indirectly from Clerc, but no formal training program

was ever established, and the classes only reached those who were

in local proximity to the location (Peterson 1966).

These attempts to educate teachers, though, frequently fell

short. It was still well-known in the community of deaf

educators that a more substantial training program was called

for, but no method had yet been agreed upon for how to establish

such a program (Gordon 1892). The directors of the Columbia

Institution for the Deaf chose to send the institution’s

president, Edward Miner Gallaudet, to Europe to examine how

countries there prepared teachers of the deaf. Gallaudet made

the trip in 1867, ten years after the establishment of the

PERUZZI 5

institution, and three years after the establishment of the

collegiate program. One of the key places he visited was the

school in Milan headed by Don Giulio Tarra, who would later

become the president of the Congress of Milan in 1880 (Zatini

2004). Although Don Tarra endorsed the “pure oral” method of

education, Gallaudet maintained his belief that the combined

method, using both sign language and spoken language for those

who could benefit from it, was superior for teaching deaf

children.

Gallaudet had mixed feelings, at this stage, on exactly who

should take classes at a future normal school. In the Tenth

Report of the Columbia Institution, published in 1867, he reports

that “[All] teachers in our institutions cannot be deaf-mutes…[we

should begin to focus on] the reception of hearing young men and

women…who may wish to fit themselves for deaf-mute instruction.”

(Gordon 1892). This seems to imply that Gallaudet believed deaf

teachers were suitable for educating deaf children, so much so

that they did not need extra training, that only hearing people

who wished to become teachers needed to attend a normal school.

PERUZZI 6

Although the Columbia Institution’s board passed a

resolution in December 1867 stating that “speaking persons”

should be allowed to enter to learn to teach deaf children, the

school would not materialize for nearly 25 years. Peterson

(1966) gives several possible reasons for this delay: the 1869

death of Amos Kendall and the subsequent purchase of his land;

the rapid growth of the campus, with the addition of Chapel Hall

(1871), College Hall (1877), Kendall Hall (1885), and other

buildings; and the 1886 admission of female students to the

college program. Whatever myriad forces combined to cause the

delay, it cannot be argued that by the time the school finally

came to fruition, it was long overdue (Gordon 1892).

What finally pushed the school into existence was an 1890

letter written by Mr. Fechheimer of Cincinnati, whose son

attended the Clarke school, who wrote to his representative in

Congress that a normal school should be established at the

National Deaf-Mute College. The representative, Benjamin

Butterworth, spoke to his friend Edward Miner Gallaudet on the

matter; as a result, Gallaudet wrote a letter to the

appropriations committee of Congress in September 1890 requesting

PERUZZI 7

funding in the amount of $5,000 to establish a normal school

(Peterson 1966). Not expecting resistance, Gallaudet was

surprised to learn that Alexander Graham Bell had expressed

concern to Congress about the founding of the normal school

(Winefield 1987). The reason for Gallaudet’s surprise was not

that anyone would oppose the idea, but that Bell would do it

without first discussing the issue.

The basis for Bell’s opposition, though, was clear: he

believed Gallaudet planned to allow deaf students to attend the

normal school as well. As a strong proponent of oral education

and his father’s “Visible Speech” system, Bell felt that only the

oral method should be used at a normal school, which would mean

deaf teachers would be unable to satisfy the school’s

requirements. Gallaudet had already promised Bell that only

hearing teachers would be accepted, but Bell evidently did not

believe him (Winefield 1987).

The two educators debated the normal school’s teaching

methods before Congress over the course of several months.

Although the appropriations committee eventually decided to

support Gallaudet and allow the funding for the normal school,

PERUZZI 8

the Senate at large changed its mind and revoked the $5,000 that

was to be allotted for the normal school as part of the annual

appropriation. Bell was not foolish, though, and knew that a

program for educating teachers of deaf students was still

necessary. As a result, he petitioned Henry Dawes, the senator

from Massachusetts, to allow $3,000 for the teaching of oral

education at the National Deaf-Mute College. When that was

awarded, Edward Miner Gallaudet used that funding plus an

additional appropriation from the college’s board of directors.

Finally, in 1891, the school opened, teaching primarily the oral

method, but with sign language education included in the

curriculum. Other schools eventually opened across the country

to train teachers of deaf students, but the Normal Department was

the only one that consistently used the combined method (Peterson

1966).

The length of study at the Normal Department of the National

Deaf-Mute College was originally one year, and remained so for

the first 74 years of its operation. Courses included “Speech,

Speech-Reading, and Primary Subjects” which was intended to help

teachers learn to instruct young children in speaking, rhythm,

PERUZZI 9

sounds, and basic education such as numbers and early education.

A separate class called “Speech-Reading for the Deaf and Hard-of-

Hearing” was also offered, wherein students worked with deaf

adults to understand the theory and practice of speechreading. A

class called “Auricular Training” was offered, and functioned as

an introduction to audiology, teaching students about the

functioning of the ear, assistive devices for auditory

stimulation, and how to encourage pupils to use their residual

hearing. Three classes on deaf education were required, providing

a history of deaf education, an understanding of deaf culture,

the psychology of deafness, and what specific classroom methods

were most appropriate for deaf children. Two classes, spread

across the student’s entire career at the Normal Department,

taught both fingerspelling and sign language; Melville Ballard,

the very first graduate from what would become Gallaudet

University, was one of the instructors of sign language at the

normal school.

The normal school made excellent use of its location on the

Columbia Institution’s campus, requiring many hours of

observation at the Kendall School and also at the college level.

PERUZZI 10

Normal students were also required to perform “practice teaching”

under supervision, again at both levels, comprising both one-on-

one interactions and classroom instruction. The final component

of the Normal Department’s Master of Arts program was a thesis;

strangely, though, this thesis was not required to be about deaf

education, but could be about any subject concerning the “welfare

of the deaf.” Example theses included “Written Language for the

Deaf” (Iles 1912), “The Value of Home Economics” (Dunlap 1924),

and “Good Manners for the Deaf” (Becker 1939).

For the first 69 years of its history, the Normal Department

of Gallaudet College was open only to hearing students. The

conference at Milan in 1880 had increased the promotion of

oralism, putting into question the qualifications of culturally

Deaf teachers, who were assumed to be unable to teach at an oral

school. In the years following the conference, the number of

culturally Deaf teachers working at schools for the deaf dropped

dramatically. Even though the Normal Department taught using the

combined method, the legacy of the Milan conference kept

culturally Deaf people from attending; the program required

classes in articulation, and it was believed that deaf people

PERUZZI 11

were simply unable to manage the full program. It was evidently

a very successful program for hearing teachers, though, as at

mid-century 29 of its graduates were at schools for deaf

children, and another 27 were principals or in other leadership

roles (Burschinger 1950). Normal students came from all over the

country, with undergraduate degrees from 136 different colleges.

Of the students who had attended until 1950, only 26.1% had deaf

relatives (with 18.1% of all students having had deaf parents,

and eight percent having other deaf relatives), but 27.9% had

either friends or relatives who were already teachers of deaf

children. A number of students who would go on to prominent

roles in deaf education also had family members attending the

Normal Department; siblings Edward and Hilda Tillinghast

continued their family’s tradition of entering into the field by

joining siblings Joseph, Mary, and Robina Tillinghast after

graduation. The family’s patriarch, however, David Tillinghast,

would not have been allowed to enter the Normal Department –

although he was already a teacher of deaf children, the

department did not accept deaf teachers, keeping Edward Miner

Gallaudet’s promise to Alexander Graham Bell that only those who

PERUZZI 12

could suitably teach articulation would become normal students.

There were multiple generations of students at the Normal

Department; future Gallaudet president Percival Hall graduated in

1893, and his sons Percival Hall Jr. and Jonathan Hall graduated

in the 1930s, both becoming professors at Gallaudet (Burschinger

1950). Indeed, Jonathan Hall spent almost his entire life at

Kendall Green, having been born in House One in 1912 (Schudel

2008).

During the first half of the twentieth century, the Normal

Department’s most frequently conferred degree was Master of Arts,

awarded to nearly 80% of students through 1950. A very few

students, however, received other degrees, including Bachelor of

Arts and Bachelor of Pedagogy. In lieu of requiring Master’s

coursework, however, the Department awarded Bachelor of Pedagogy

recipients with a Master of Arts degree after they taught deaf

students for a period of three years. Only four of the ten

B.Ped. recipients prior to 1950 did not continue in the field for

at least three years (Burschinger 1950).

The impact the Normal Department had on the state of deaf

education in America cannot be underestimated. As the educators

PERUZZI 13

of the mid-nineteenth century had hoped, the Normal Department

became a way to increase the number of qualified teachers at

schools for the deaf, and further to promote the methods taught

by the department. In 1910, there were 144 schools for deaf

children in the United States, and eight of those schools were

headed by a Normal Department graduate, making 6.7% of deaf

children under the tutelage of people with the specific training

afforded by Gallaudet College. This increased slightly by 1920,

when ten of 163 schools were headed by a Normal Department

graduate, giving 10.4% of deaf children the benefit of highly

qualified educators. By 1930, 27 of the 196 schools for the deaf

in the United States were helmed by an executive who had

graduated from the Normal Department, resulting in 27.8% of deaf

children receiving education from qualified teachers, who had

either studied at Gallaudet College themselves, or received

educational instruction from the school’s executive head, who

established the rules for teaching at their particular

institutions (Burschinger 1950). These numbers are precise

evidence that the mission of the Normal Department was a success.

PERUZZI 14

The Normal Department might have been even more successful,

though, if it had trained more teachers. In a 1911 article in

the American Annals of the Deaf, Percival Hall – who had recently

assumed the presidency following the retirement of Edward Miner

Gallaudet – expressed his belief that if more than six students

were taken on in any one year, the quality of their education

would drop significantly. The numbers increased slightly over

the years, with eight students entering in 1921 and eleven in

1956 (Peterson 1966). This is the reason why only 325 students

had graduated from the Normal Department from its founding in

1891 to 1950 – the class sizes were simply too small to afford

opportunities for more students. It is possible, then, that if

the Normal Department had received enough funding to expand its

program, that even more deaf children could have benefited from

the highly qualified education received by those who did have

former normal students as their teachers.

In addition to the growth of the department, further changes

took place during the 1950s. In 1952, the Normal Department

awarded its last Master of Arts degree, and in 1953 adopted the

name Graduate Department of Education. This new department issues

PERUZZI 15

Master of Science in Education degrees, emphasizing a scientific

approach to pedagogy, as opposed to a Master of Arts in

Education, which allows for a more flexible approach to the

field. (Generally, Master of Education degrees are sought by

those who seek to enter administrative positions; this degree has

never been offered at Gallaudet University.)

The department saw its most radical shift in 1960, when it

was announced that deaf students would now be admitted, and in

fact would be required to complete graduate-level studies before

they could receive certification as teachers. Previously, deaf

students of Gallaudet College who wished to enter the field of

education completed the Bachelor’s program and immediately went

on to their jobs. This demonstrates unequal expectations for

deaf and hearing students, as hearing students were thought to

benefit from advanced training, while an undergraduate degree was

“good enough” for deaf students to get into the field. The

requirements for deaf students to enter the Graduate Department

were the same as those for hearing students (Peterson 1966),

although this posed the problem that Gallaudet undergraduates

were not being adequately prepared for graduate school; as a

PERUZZI 16

result, no deaf students entered the Graduate Department until

1962, two years after the initial announcement.

In 1965, the department changed its focus yet again. The

program was expanded from one year of study to two years, and

multiple degrees were offered for the first time. The Master of

Arts in Teaching degree was offered with elementary and secondary

education concentrations, and Master of Science degrees were

offered in audiology (this was later transferred to the

Department of Hearing, Speech, and Language Sciences), school

librarianship, physical education (later transferred to the

undergraduate Physical Education and Recreation Department), and

nursery education (Peterson 1966). Deaf graduate students were

expected to take the same courses as hearing graduate students,

with the exception of articulation, speechreading, and auditory

training classes, but they were not allowed to become candidates

for the same degrees. “Qualified deaf candidates” were only to

be admitted to the secondary education program and other special

programs (Peterson 1966).

As other departments expanded their offerings – the

Counseling Department was founded in 1971, the Administration and

PERUZZI 17

Supervision Department opened in 1975 – the Graduate Department

of Education also expanded its offerings. As of 2010, Gallaudet

University offers multiple graduate degrees in education. The

Master of Arts degree in Deaf Education includes three

subprograms: Teacher Preparation, which continues the original

mission of the Normal Department by preparing qualified entry-

level educators at the early education, elementary, and secondary

levels, as well as education of students with multiple

disabilities; Advanced Studies, which is targeted to teachers who

are already certified and seek to expand their knowledge; and

Special Programs, which are tailored to individual students. A

Master of Arts in Teaching degree is also offered, with a focus

on bilingual ASL/English education at the K-12 level; this

program can be combined with the B.A. in Education. There is an

Education Specialist degree, which is targeted to working

teachers who already have a Master’s degree; this program

contains specializations in Family-Centered Early Education,

Multiple Disabilities, and Reading. Finally, the department also

offers a Ph.D. in Deaf Education, the only doctorate program

offered by the department.

PERUZZI 18

Despite the Normal Department’s original history as a

proponent of the combined method, today only the Doctorate

program requires fluency in American Sign Language. The

Educational Specialist program requires signing ability

“sufficient to converse” with deaf people, and the remaining

programs require a score of 2 or higher on the American Sign

Language Proficiency Interview (ASLPI), except for the Teacher

Preparation and Special Programs tracks, which do not require any

ASL skills whatsoever. Graduate students interested in the

Teacher Preparation program are warned that all undergraduate

courses are taught in ASL, and that if they need to take any

prerequisites at the undergraduate level, they should do so only

if they are able to understand a course taught in sign language.

This raises the greatest problem the Graduate Department of

Education has faced since its inception in 1891: if ASL fluency

is not required by the department, how do culturally Deaf

students fare in their classes? Graduate-level classes are

sometimes taught in simultaneous communication or through an

interpreter (Tuccoli 2008), both of which deprive deaf students

of full access to the content of the course.

PERUZZI 19

Whether it is related to the lack of full access to courses

or for other reasons, it is undeniable that deaf students do not

enroll in the graduate programs at Gallaudet at as high a rate as

hearing students: as of the 2009-2010 school year, only 45% of

graduate students across all programs are deaf or hard of

hearing.

The reasons for the low enrollment of deaf and hard of

hearing students in the Department of Education’s graduate

program are varied. The most obvious reason is that many deaf

students are simply not interested in becoming educators; in the

past, teaching was one of the limited career options available to

deaf students. Since the passage of the Americans with

Disabilities Act in 1990, however, a number of other career

fields have opened up, and today deaf students can choose any

field they like for graduate studies (Bailes 2010).

The undergraduate program, however, is almost completely

populated by deaf and hard of hearing students. There are

usually 50 undergraduates majoring in education at any given

time, but the requirements for entering the graduate program have

been greater than some students can meet, resulting in Bachelor’s

PERUZZI 20

holders seeking their Master’s education at colleges and

universities other than Gallaudet. As of 2010, however, the

requirements for admission to the graduate program have been

relaxed, which department head Cynthia Bailes hopes will increase

the number of deaf students in the program (Bailes 2010).

Another significant change that has helped to increase the

population of deaf students is an increase in the number of

culturally Deaf professors in the department. In 1994, the

department had a total of sixteen faculty members, only one-

quarter of whom were deaf or hard of hearing. As of 2010, the

department consists of fourteen faculty members, half of whom are

deaf or hard of hearing, and one faculty member is a Child of

Deaf Adults (CODA). These changes are helping to shift the focus

of the Graduate Department of Education from its first seventy

years of operation as a department for hearing students only,

into the modern era where deaf and hard of hearing students are

recognized as qualified to teach deaf children.

Any shortcomings of Gallaudet’s program, however, are

insignificant when compared with those of other universities that

provide programs in Deaf Education. Virtually all of the courses

PERUZZI 21

offered at the graduate level at Gallaudet deal with educating

deaf children, regardless of the actual course topic, and a great

many more classes specifically targeted to teaching deaf children

are offered, compared to other universities. Many other programs

place their Deaf Education classes under the Special Education

department (such as the University of Arkansas at Little Rock),

Communication Science and Disorders department (as at University

of Montevallo), or other departments indirectly related to Deaf

Education, frequently offering courses as a “concentration”

within the major. Because the requirements for programs that are

not specifically targeted to Deaf Education frequently include

courses outside that topic focus, students whose sole interest is

teaching deaf children may find themselves learning about working

with children with autism or unique emotional needs, when their

time might be better spent learning about the needs of deaf-blind

children or how to teach English in a bilingual/bicultural

classroom. Many programs require at least one class in audiology;

the University of Hartford program, for example, requires

Master’s candidates to take Introduction to Clinical Audiology,

and Hearing Instruments – both classes that are more suited to

PERUZZI 22

those interested in becoming audiologists than teachers. At

Gallaudet, the course entitled “Audiology and Hearing Technology

for Educators and Counseling Professionals” is held through the

Hearing, Speech, and Language Sciences department, which reflects

the Department of Education’s focus on deafness as a cultural

identity, rather than a medical deficiency.

Gallaudet also benefits from its long-standing tradition of

the combined method, which allows for both sign-based and

auditory-based education. All classes in the graduate program

are available to all students, with ASL interpreters available as

needed for signing students, and voice interpreters available as

needed for non-signing students (Tuccoli 2008). Some colleges

have exclusively oral programs, such as the Auditory/Oral

Specialist program at Illinois State University, or Smith

College, which partners with the Clarke School for the Deaf to

train teachers on using the auditory-verbal method with children

who have cochlear implants.

The Deaf Education program at Gallaudet also has one of the

largest faculties of any of the nearly 75 deaf education/teacher

preparation programs in the United States. Indeed, with seven

PERUZZI 23

culturally Deaf faculty members (Bailes 2010), that group alone

is larger than the faculties of other deaf education programs.

Some programs, such as the Missouri State University Master of

Science in the Education of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, have

absolutely no culturally Deaf faculty members; even though sign

language is part of the curriculum there, it is taught by non-

native signers.

The many positive aspects of Gallaudet University’s program

clearly illustrate why hearing students come from other colleges

to Gallaudet for their graduate-level training – the quality of

education at Gallaudet is unmatched elsewhere. Additionally,

students can fully immerse themselves in Deaf culture, living

among culturally Deaf students and using sign language

exclusively. Unfortunately, not everyone chooses to do so, as

large numbers of hearing graduate students continue to use their

voices without signing in the cafeteria, dorms, and other public

locations on campus. Their reasons for doing so are varied, but

most include some version of how tiring it is to use sign

language all the time, when it is so much easier to just speak

with their voices (Tuccoli 2008). This does beg the question,

PERUZZI 24

however, of why these students would choose to come to a

university where sign language is expected in all venues; they

would surely have had an easier time at the many other

universities which offer education targeted to hearing students.

Of course, that question returns us to the previous question: why

is the enrollment of deaf and hard of hearing students in the

graduate program so much less than the enrollment of hearing

students?

There can be no single answer for why Gallaudet’s graduate

programs do not attract as many deaf and hard of hearing students

as they do hearing students. Myriad factors, such as inadequate

K-12 deaf education, the “crab theory,” simple economic need, or

a desire to do something else for a while can play a role in a

deaf student’s decision not to continue their education after

receiving a Bachelor’s degree.

Perhaps the most telling statement about the program comes

from the Department of Education itself:

The history of Gallaudet University's Department of Education dates back to 1891

when a "Normal Department" was established on campus to train teachers of

deaf children. Although the department values its history, it prides itself primarily

PERUZZI 25

on its ability to adapt to changing times and new challenges in the field of

educating deaf and hard of hearing students.

When viewed through a historical lens, the Normal Department

seems to have promoted the belief that only hearing teachers

could teach deaf children. But as the above statement explains,

history is not the most important part of the program’s legacy.

By adapting to new technology, different forms of pedagogy, and

unique challenges, the program has grown into one that fully

embraces its deaf and hard of hearing students as equally capable

of performing the teaching responsibilities it has always

prepared hearing students to take on.

To dwell on the history of the Normal Department is to

continue to live in a world supported by audism, however well-

intentioned, that was perpetrated by people who were thought to

be the most supportive of young deaf children. Only by moving

ahead into the future can the Department of Education face the

challenges put forth by the twenty-first century.

PERUZZI 26

Bibliography

Bailes, Cynthia Neese. 2010. Interview.

Becker, Valentine Albert. 1939. “Good Manners for the Deaf”.

Washington, DC: Gallaudet College.

Burschinger, Patricia Ann Sullivan, and Dale McClure Jones. 1950.

“The Normal Training Department of the Columbia Institution for

the Deaf, 1891-1950”. Washington, DC: Gallaudet College.

Craig, Sam B. 1942. The Normal Department of the Columbia Institution for the

Deaf. Washington, DC: Gallaudet Press.

Dirks, Arthur L. 1994. “A Brief History of Bridgewater State

College.”

http://webhost.bridgew.edu/adirks/ald/papers/bschist.htm.

Doctor, Powrie Vaux. 1942. “The Semi-Centennial of the Normal

Department of the Columbia Institution for the Deaf, 1891-1941.”

American Annals of the Deaf 87: 361–80.

Dunlap, Adda Lucille. 1924. “The Value of Home Economics”.

Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet College.

Gallaudet, Edward Miner. 1983. History of the College for the Deaf, 1857-1907.

Washington, DC: Gallaudet College.

PERUZZI 27

Gordon, J.C. 1892. “The New Departure at Kendall Green.” American

Annals of the Deaf 37 (2): 121–27.

Graham, Matthias. 1910. “St. John Baptist de La Salle.” The Catholic

Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08444a.htm.

Iles, E. W. 1912. “Written Language for the Deaf”. Washington, DC:

Gallaudet College.

Office of Enrollment Services. 1991. “1991 Enrollment Report”.

Washington, DC: Gallaudet University.

Peterson, David Richard. 1966. “A History of Gallaudet College’s

Graduate School”. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet College.

Schudel, Matt. 2008. “An Engaging Teacher, Whether In the Classroom

or With Pets.” The Washington Post, March 16.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/15/A

R2008031502265.html.

Scouten, Edward L. 1941. “The Gallaudet Normal Department: Its

History and Development”. Washington, DC: Gallau.

Tuccoli, Tiffany. 2008. “Hearing Privileges at Gallaudet?”

Washington, DC: Gallaudet University.

PERUZZI 28

Winefield, Richard. 1987. Never the Twain Shall Meet: Bell, Gallaudet, and the

Communications Debate. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University

Press.

Zatini, Franco. 2004. “Pio Istituto Sordi Di Milano.”

http://www.storiadeisordi.it/articolo.asp?ENTRY_ID=676.