American Action Fund for Blind Children and Adults
Future Reflections Special Issue on Braille ADVOCACY
by Kimberly Christenson
From the Editor: Kimberly Christenson is a special education advocate and disability consultant for blind and low-vision individuals. She is a graduate student in the Professional Development and Research Institute on Blindness at Louisiana Tech University and a longtime member of the National Organization of Parents of Blind Children (NOPBC). She lives in the Texas Hill Country.
There is a persistent, systemic problem in special education when it comes to blind and low-vision students. It shows up in IEP meetings across the country regardless of district size, staffing, or teacher experience. The issue is clarity.
The law is clear. Its application is not.
Federal law states:
“In the case of a child who is blind or has low vision, the IEP Team must provide for instruction in Braille and the use of Braille unless the Team determines, based on an evaluation of the child’s reading and writing skills, needs, and appropriate reading and writing media, including future needs, that instruction in Braille is not appropriate.” (34 CFR §300.324(a)(2)(iii))
Braille is literacy. Braille is access.
Under federal law, Braille must be considered first and ruled out only with data.
Too often, IEP teams apply the framework backwards. They treat Braille as something to offer instead of something they must justify denying.
The wrong question becomes:
Does this child need Braille?
The correct question is:
What data shows that Braille is not appropriate for this child?
That shift places responsibility where the law requires it to be.
When a student is identified as blind or low vision:
Evaluation supports decision-making. It does not justify unnecessary delays in providing literacy access.
For blind and low-vision students, Braille functions as print does for sighted students. It is a literacy system used throughout every area of life.
The breakdown often begins early.
Delaying Braille instruction when the need is evident conflicts with the law, delays literacy development, and limits future independence, education, and employment outcomes.
A common and harmful belief in the field is that Braille should be introduced only after a student’s vision declines significantly.
The law does not require delayed reaction. It requires consideration of both current and future literacy needs.
Literacy develops over time.
When Braille is introduced early, students build fluency, confidence, and independence. When it is delayed, gaps form that become increasingly difficult to close.
When Braille is treated as optional:
This is not an isolated issue. It is systemic.
Federal law already provides the correct framework:
This framework restores clarity, accountability, and access.
Braille is the default.
Braille is considered first and ruled out only with data.
Braille is not delayed when need is evident.
Braille is not earned through failure.
Braille is not optional when it cannot be clearly ruled out.
Until this framework is applied correctly, students will continue to lose access to literacy—not because the law is unclear, but because the law is being applied backwards.
Braille is the default.