From: ephost@epnet.com Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 7:38 PM To: dmercer@sfasu.edu Subject: EBSCOhost Email Result _____ Record: 1 Title: Decreased Braille literacy: A symptom of a system in need of reassessment. Author(s): Mullen, Edward A. Source: Re:View; Fall90, Vol. 22 Issue 3, p164, 6p Document Type: Article Subject(s): BRAILLE -- Study & teaching CHILDREN, Blind -- Education VISUALLY handicapped children -- Education UNITED States Abstract: Summarizes the reasons given most frequently for the decrease in Braille literacy in the United States. Analysis of the reason as indicators of faults in the American system of educating children with visual handicaps. Full Text Word Count: 2375 ISSN: 08991510 Accession Number: 9607211431 Database: Academic Search Premier DECREASED BRAILLE LITERACY: A SYMPTOM OF A SYSTEM IN NEED OF REASSESSMENT Table of Content Undercounting of Visually Handicapped Children Emphasis on Vision Attitudes Toward Braille Competency of Teachers The Braille Code and Technology Models of Service Delivery The Individual Education Plan (IEP) Process Conclusion REFERENCES The decrease in Braille reading and writing in the United States is a growing concern to consumers who use the Braille system and providers who teach or produce material in Braille (Spungin, 1989). The issue is not new but one that can no longer be ignored. The percentage of nonreaders among students who are legally blind and registered with the American Printing House for the Blind has increased from 20% in 1985--when the category of nonreaders was established--to 31% in 1988 (American Printing House (APH), 1985, 1988). This article will summarize the reasons given most frequently for the decrease in Braille literacy and will analyze them as indicators of faults in our system of educating children with visual handicaps. Undercounting of Visually Handicapped Children Improved medical knowledge and diagnostic procedures have resulted in the survival of more children with visual handicaps and additional disabilities. As much as 50% of the children who are visually handicapped may be multihandicapped. For the most part they are nonreaders with retardation or learning disabilities as their additional impairments. This fact alone would contribute to the statistical decrease in the reading and writing of Braille. In addition, the method of counting children with multihandicaps has an even more detrimental effect on Braille usage. These children's primary handicap is not listed as the visual one, and they are unserved or underserved by individuals with no knowledge of the effects of visual impairment on sensory, motor, and cognitive development. Consequently, the numbers of children with visual handicaps appear to be declining. When the numbers decline, so does the justification for funding programs and training teachers (Spungin, 1989). Emphasis on Vision The emphasis on use of vision has resulted in a decrease in the number of Braille readers. According to Spungin (1989): The work of Dr. Natalie Barraga, and others, initiated the use of residual vision and encouraged teachers and parents of low vision children to strive for visual utilization when possible. Dr. Barraga and her colleagues never intended her work in vision stimulation and vision efficiency to be applied to all visually handicapped children. But that is what we did and do, suggesting to the system and the children that to see is better than not to see (p. 5). To encourage the child with a visual handicap to use remaining vision at all costs has short-changed many children--and adults. Attitudes Toward Braille To many in society, Braille equates to blindness while print equates to sight. On an emotional level, conscious or unconscious, the attitude persists that to be sighted is to be normal, whereas to be blind is to be dependent and inferior (Schroeder, 1989). Schroeder tells of a visitor to a classroom of visually handicapped children who was told by the teacher: "This little girl reads print. This little girl has to read Braille (Schroeder, 1988, p. 355). According to Schroeder (1989), a leading blind spokesman, professionals tend to view literacy as a financial, training, or technical problem; blind people believe that the real cause of Braille illiteracy is rooted in societal beliefs and misconceptions about blindness. If a teacher does not believe that a blind child can compete in terms of true equality, then the teacher will settle for and even praise inferior performance. If a teacher harbors negative attitudes toward blindness, then the teacher may wish to avoid dealing directly with blindness and avoid teaching Braille. Rex (1989) offers a different view of Braille illiteracy: I do not hear negative statements opposing braille usage, but I do hear many statements which are not supportive of braille usage. Some of the lack of support may be the result of [the teachers'] own lack of competency in the use of the code and/or in the teaching of reading of braille (p. 307). By depriving students who are visually handicapped and clearly read at less than functional speed of the right to Braille rather than print is to deny them equal access to life. It suggests that perhaps Braille is inferior, and, therefore, print or having sight is superior. Competency of Teachers Negative attitudes about blindness and lack of Braille teaching experience may be reasons why teachers of the visually handicapped opt to teach print rather than Braille. Inadequate Braille teaching also reflects on teacher preparation programs at colleges and universities where Braille instruction is inconsistent. Spungin (1989) writes: Some programs are strong with equal emphasis on braille code acquisition and the methods for teaching reading and math. Others limit braille to the level of a transcriber's knowledge with inadequate instruction or no instruction on how to teach a young learner to read (p. 63. A number of sighted instructors have indicated that they regard their own instruction in Braille as inadequate for assuming teaching responsibilities in this field. If a Braille teacher must struggle with fundamentals and has no grasp of the diversity and flexibility of the system, the student can hardly be expected to be "turned on" by the prospect of reading and writing Braille (Stephens, 1989). These critical observations indicate an urgent need for teacher preparation centers to undergo self-evaluations. Rex (1989) suggests including in such an evaluation: number of credit hours in the curriculum, the textbooks, instructional strategies, levels of proficiency, and attitudes of instructors. The evaluation should also assess development of proficiency in the teaching of reading. It is her opinion that teacher preparation programs, on an optional basis, should use the Braille code proficiency test administered by the Association for Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired (AER) as part of their self study. She notes that the test assesses only writing skills and not reading skills, which are often used more. She states that the improvement of Braille preparation programs will not affect the standard of proficiency of teachers already in the field. In her view "teacher training centers should be offering refresher courses or workshops to meet the needs of teachers who are not competent in the braille code or in the reading and writing of braille" (p. 311). However, the problem of competency cannot be laid in the collective laps of preparation centers. Many teachers who are providing services to students who are visually handicapped have been trained in another area of special education or in general elementary education and have become certified with as few as three visually handicapped courses (Rex, 1989). Employing teachers with a minimum of preparation reflects the critical shortage of teachers of the visually handicapped. Furthermore, teacher shortages may become more acute because fewer college students are choosing to enter the field. The Braille Code and Technology The Braille code is frequently mentioned as one of the causes for a decrease in Braille literacy; however, the amount of space in the consumer and professional literature devoted to the topic appears to indicate that it is not considered a primary factor. Not only does no one want a repeat of "the war of the dots," but no research supports the allegation that the code is a cause for illiteracy. Given their confidence in technology and their resources to produce it, it is easy to convince Americans that technology can find the means for persons who are visually impaired to communicate in ways other than Braille. Although there may have been no intent to decrease Braille literacy, the headlong drive to increase visual communication for persons with low vision may have allowed many to see only the benefits of the new technology and not the limitations. Schroeder (1989) states that many professionals have sought to explain away the low level of Braille literacy through claims that "braille is too complicated and difficult to learn, too bulky and costly to produce, and antiquated by tapes and speech technology" (p. 290). In addition, educators have asserted that with appropriate low vision devices, many blind people can become competent print readers, thereby making it unnecessary to learn Braille. Schroeder is of the opinion that "alternatives to braille frequently come with problems of their own" (p. 290). Tapes are helpful for reading large quantities of text; yet, they do nothing to enhance spelling, to teach syntax, or to educate a child about punctuation and format. Tapes may be compact and relatively inexpensive. However, it is difficult to skim a tape or to turn quickly to a specific section of a text. Tapes do not give an individual a portable means of taking notes, keeping name-and-address files, making grocery lists, or keeping recipes. There is a place for tapes, but not as a replacement for Braille. Alternatives to Braille such as low vision devices often limit the amount of reading material that can be viewed at one time to one word or even to one or two letters of a single word, thereby significantly reducing reading speed and comprehension. Models of Service Delivery Eighty-one percent of legally blind learners are served in public day schools (APH, 1988). The services in public day schools range from the self-contained model to the teacher-consultant model, but the model currently used most commonly is the itinerant teacher, who usually visits every second or third day, perhaps weekly for some more independent learners (Tuttle, 1986). According to Rex, "the teacher consultant model, which provides even less instructional time, is being selected with increasing frequency" (p. 311). The special educator needs to teach factual reading readiness, the Braille and mathematics codes, and the use of the Brailler and the slate and stylus. The special teacher also needs to assess reading and writing skills, transcribe assignments and tests, and perhaps even translate assignments and tests for the regular teachers. Rex feels that fewer than three visits per week by an itinerant teacher seems inadequate for both the learner and the regular teacher. The teacher-consultant model does not provide for such a concentration of in struction. The itinerant-teacher model can, but may not. It is not the model that is at fault but the implementation. Case loads are usually too large to permit an adequate number of visits or length of visit to permit instruction of high quality. Hours of travel also decrease time needed to prepare instructional materials. "When these conditions exist, the services delivered to blind children are not appropriate and the environment is a restrictive one" (Rex, p. 312). The Individual Education Plan (IEP) Process In the IEP process, experts, parents, and, when appropriate, students come together to plan the academic course of the visually handicapped student for the year. This process is so critical that its application for all school-age children seems obvious. However, where it falls short is in relying on the following assumptions: 1. All members of the IEP team are equally able and willing to assess the visually handicapped child's needs and plan a program accordingly. 2. All parents are committed to the process and work together with the school district and the professionals who work with their child. 3. The school district has desire, access, and money for trained visually handicapped teachers, orientation and mobility instructors, and books and equipment. 4. The IEP team and parents will work to solve problems and use due process as a last resort. 5. All parties agree on the definition of appropriate education in the least restrictive environment (Spungin, 1989). Sometimes these five points are in place and programs flourish. "However, there are other instances where this is not the case and limitations shape the results rather than need and expectations" (p. 10). When the latter occurs, deficiencies will appear in all aspects of a Braille learner's education, including his or her reading and writing literacy. Conclusion Each reason for the decrease in Braille literacy identified a weakness in the present system of educating children with visual handicaps. Until these weaknesses are corrected, children with visual impairments will not have the equal educational opportunity to learn that all children deserve. Unfortunately, there is no quick-fx. Many of these weaknesses have crept in gradually, caused often by mis-understanding, misinterpretation, desire for easy solutions, an absence of national standards, insufficient preparation, weak commitment, administrative priorities, and negative attitudes toward blindness. Action to remove these stumbling blocks would not only cause an improvement in Braille literacy but would also lead to upgrading other aspects of student education-independent living, recreation, social, orientation and mobility, and prevocational skills. Persons with visual handicaps are a small group. The professional provider group is a small component within special education, with limited power to fight for a larger share of the education dollar or to lobby for legislative changes. Yet, in the past, vocal, committed minorities have achieved their goals through perseverance. As leaders among providers and consumers of Braille discuss the need to increase Braille literacy, the importance of the issue will become more widely recognized. REFERENCES American Printing House for the Blind. (1985). Distribution of federal guota based on the registration of eligible students. Louisville, KY: Author. American Printing House for the Blind. (1988). Distribution of federal quota based on the registration of eligible students. Louisville, KY: Author. Koenig, A. J., & Holbrook, M. C. (1989). Determining the reading medium for students with visual impairments: A diagnostic teaching approach. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 83(6), 296-302. Rex, E. J. (1989). Issues related to literacy of legally blind learners. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 83(6), 306-307; 310-313. Schroeder, F. (1988). Braille: Pedagogy, prejudice, and the banner of equality. Braille Monitor, August, 352-356. Schroeder, F. (1989). Literacy: The key to opportunity. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 83(6), 290-293. Spungin, S. J. (1989,July). Literacy: Issues for consumers and providers. Paper presented to the national convention of the National Federation of the Blind. Denver, Colorado. Stephens, O. (1989). Braille-Implications for living. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 83(6), 288-289. Tuttle, D. W. (1986). Education programming. In G. T. Scholl (Ed.), Foundations of education for blind and visually handicapped children and youth: Theory and practice (pp. 239-254). New York: American Foundation for the Blind. ~~~~~~~~ By EDWARD A. MULLEN Edward A. Mullen, who is currently an orientation and mobility instructor in Beaumont, Texas, has had wide international experience in that field. This article was adapted from a paper that was part of his work toward certification as a teacher of children who are visually handicapped To the top _____ Copyright of Re:View is the property of Heldref Publications and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. Source: Re:View, Fall90, Vol. 22 Issue 3, p164, 6p Item: 9607211431 _____ This email was generated by a user of EBSCOhost who gained access via the STEPHEN F AUSTIN STATE UNIV account. Neither EBSCO nor STEPHEN F AUSTIN STATE UNIV are responsible for the content of this e-mail.