Library Collections: Document: Full Text

WE have already noticed, with high commendation, this excellent Report; and we now return to it, not for the purpose of giving it any further examination as a whole, but in order to consider a single topic which is incidentally brought into it, and in respect to which we are compelled to dissent from the opinions expressed by Mr. Mann. We refer to the modes of instruction pursued in schools for the education of the deaf and dumb. Of the zeal and success with which Mr. Mann has devoted himself to the cause of popular education it is unnecessary here to speak. We yield to none in the hearty appreciation of what he has already accomplished, and we bid him God speed in his future efforts. Upon subjects which he has studied and understands we are disposed to receive his opinions with high respect, if not with implicit acquiescence. Even upon the subject of the instruction of deaf mutes, with which he is evidently not familiar, if he had based his conclusions upon any actual results attained, we should bow in silence to his verdict, however mortifying it might be to the self-love of our instructers, or injurious to the reputation and usefulness of our schools. But when we find, in a document of such general interest, emanating from such high authority, and destined for wide circulation through the country, a sentence pronounced upon the American institutions for the deaf and dumb, apparently without examination, evidently with very erroneous and defective views of their system of instruction, the effect of which will be to lower those institutions in the public estimation, and thus seriously to impair their usefulness, we cannot suffer it to pass in silence.

With the public schools and other institutions for education in Massachusetts Mr. Mann is certainly well acquainted; but there are in this State no schools for the deaf and dumb; and though in two of the adjoining States there are institutions of this class, among the largest in the world in point of numbers, and for years reputed among the most successful, all that he seems to know definitely concerning their system or their success is, that they do not teach articulation. "In Prussia, Saxony, and Holland," he finds that "the deaf and dumb, incredible as it may seem, are taught to speak with the lips and tongue"; and upon this, he judges "the schools for this class in those countries to be decidedly superior to any in this country." We have usually thought, that the superiority of an institution for education should be measured, not by what it attempts, but by what it performs. That the German schools attempt more than our own we admit; but that, in the great majority of cases, they accomplish more, we have no evidence. Mr. Mann, at least, has furnished us no data whatever, by which we can compare the intellectual attainments and skill in language of the pupils in those schools with those of the pupils in our own. And if, as we have good reason to believe, the German teachers of articulation sacrifice, in a great measure, the development of the intellectual and moral faculties of their pupils to an object that is, in most cases, but very imperfectly attained, we may well doubt whether they gain as much as they lose, and whether their success in the true object of education -- the unfolding of the capacities for happiness and usefulness -- is as great as that of our own teachers.

Among the American instructers of the deaf and dumb, there have been men as much distinguished for talents, learning, and zeal in the cause of education, as Mr. Mann himself. It would have been the part of fairness and caution to examine thoroughly and carefully the reasons in favor, and the results, of a system which such men have deliberately sanctioned, before condemning it; or at least, not to publish so conspicuously, and upon very slight examination, opinions which do grave injustice to them and to the scheme of instruction which they have patiently elaborated.

Though we were aware, that many erroneous notions were abroad on the subject of the instruction of deaf mutes, yet we were not prepared to find the secretary of the Massachusetts Board of Education, on a topic of this character, making such obvious errors as the following.

"With us, the deaf and dumb are taught to converse by means of signs made with the fingers. It is a great blessing to a deaf mute to be able to converse in the language of signs. But it is evident, that, as soon as he passes out of the circle of those who understand that language, he is helpless and hopeless as ever. The power of uttering articulate sounds, of speaking as others speak, alone restores him to society."

The reader who happens not to be better informed will inevitably form the idea from this paragraph, that all which our institutions propose to accomplish is to teach the deaf and dumb to converse by means of "signs made with the fingers," and that we enable them to hold social intercourse only in the circle of those who understand such signs. Small, indeed, would be the claim of the instructers to the title of benefactors of the deaf and dumb, if this were all they proposed to accomplish!