TEACHING THE DEAF

New Zealand Times, Volume XL, Issue 9174, 14 October 1915, Page 8

TEACHING THE DEAF

AN UNUSUAL CASE APPLICATION FOR COMMITTAL TO SUMNER, SCHOOL. A case of an unusual nature, as far as New Zealand is: concerned, was heard by Mr YV. G. Riddell, S.M., at the*Magistrato’s Court yesterday, when William John Anderson, Director of Education, applied for the committal of a child to the school for deaf and dumb at Sumner. Mr \ T . E. Meredith appeared for tho Education Department, and Mr T. M. VVilford for tho child’s parents,, who, opposed the application. ' Mr Meredith said that the information was laid . under section 27' of the Education Act.', It was not contended cho child was stone deaf, but the point was whether its hearing was sufficient; to enable it to receive a proper education outside expert influence in respect to the deaf and dumb. It was not so much the medical evidence that counted in the case, but that of experts who had the handling of this class of child, and who would be able to state with authority- whether the child,could be pioptrly taught in institutions where there were no experts conversant with tho teaching of the deaf and dumb. The child iu question was exceedingly bright, and was not stone deaf. It would be shown that in eases of the deaf „ and . partly deaf it was material in the interests of' a child that it bo taken in hand as early as possible. It was considered that the best time to receive a child into a deaf and dumb institution was at six years of age. The child before , the court was now over ten years, and was being taught at a convent, where, it was stated, special attention was being given to it. Joseph Edward Stevens, director for the school for deaf and dumb at Sumner, said ho had 28 years’ experience with children whoso, hearing and speech were defective. During the last nine and a' half years he had been, director of the school, and had had from 340 to 350 children through his hands. At present there were 111 children in the institution. If children were secured in time, and were of normal state of mind, they could be taught to speak .intelligently,-'and-to hold conversation with others. He saw the child in court about January, 1913, when it was seven years and eigfht months of age. It was then partially deaf, able to talk a little, and say a few simple words, sncli as "father” and "mother.” On / that occasion he gave the mother some instructions in lip sounds and lip reading. . The. parents were very loath to part with their .child, and ho sympa-, thised with them. He again saw the child on July 24th, 1914. at a public* school, and also at the parents’ homo, and found- that her vocabulary: bad) improved. She had become, expert at lip reading, but ho did not notice any improvement in her .hearing. Ip his opinion the child, being a bright one, could be taught efficiently by exports. It was absolutely hopeless for this td bo done in a public school. After being three or four years in the hands of experts the child might be taken in hand by a private person with,; somd success.

Mr IWilford said he was aware that Mr Stevens had had giyat success with the teaching of deaf and dumb chil-' dren; in fact, he had done wonders/ He then examined the child, and demonstrated to the court,by lip move-' xnents, of which ho hnd knowledge, that she was exceptionally intelligent, and was able to answer all questions put to her in this manner. Ho inquired of Mr Stevens if the child would not improve in its education under the prex sent conditions. 1 ' He stated that the child was being taught in a convent singly hy a teacher who -had had 1 27 years*' experience, ■> ■ • ■ ■■•

Mr Stevens replied that -he would dwsire to know, before giving on answer, if the teacher in question had knowledge of articulation, also to see her and the child being taught during its lessons.

Mr Wilford: “Do you think that if the matter was adjourned for si* months, in order that it might be ascertained that the child ■ was making! progress, it would affect her education ?” Witness; “If the child is to come toi ■ns it shotild be sent at the beginning of the next term; The department is only too anxious to leave the child with its parents, and it is only in her owni interests that it is desirable to sendher. to the institution.. It. is impossible for a deaf or partially deaf child to bo taught efficiently in a class with children that 'have full powers of hearing."

Mr Wilford informed the bench that the parents did not desire to keopi their child back in any way, but wanted to do the best they oould for her, though naturally they did riot want tot part with her. Tie suggested that a last chance be given.

Mr Riddell concurred with what, counsel had said, and as Mr Stevens offered no objection, the matter was adjourned sine die, to be brought on at forty-eight hours’ notice after January 12th next. At tho end of three months Mr Stevens is to examine the child, and ascertain if it has progressed.