The Impact of Braille Reading Skills

The Impact of Braille Reading Skills

Ruby Ryles

The Impact of Braille

Reading Skills on Employment,

Income, Education, and Reading Habits

by Ruby Ryles Ph.D.

From the Editor: As a society we

have become increasingly alarmed in recent years about the growing illiteracy

rate among our children and young adults. This increase is occurring, of course,

at the very time in our nation's economic life when the need for true literacy

is increasing. Today's jobs require much more skill and technical expertise

than ever before, and unskilled and manual-labor jobs are on the decline. In

response to this national crisis, literacy programs are springing up everywhere,

and both governmental and private-sector programs are being created and publicized.

Just about everyone agrees that increased literacy means increased opportunity

and a better chance for a real share in the American dream.

For blind people improved Braille literacy

has been the focus. It has always seemed self-evident that our chance for success

and to share in the American dream increases in direct proportion to our ability

to read and write effectively.

However, while our common sense has told

us that blind people must master Braille to succeed, supposed common sense

has also told many in the field of special education that such skills are not

important for the blind and that tapes or computers or large print or magnification

devices can be just as effective as (or maybe even more effective than) reading

and writing Braille.

Now we have a chance to take a look at

this important question, not merely applying common sense and using anecdotal

experience, but examining empirical data derived from an objective, professional

study. The results are not only interesting but enlightening and instructive.

We can only hope that an entirely new body of knowledge is emerging—data

that once and for all can settle the question of the critical need for Braille

for all blind people who cannot read print easily, rapidly, and steadily.

This study was conducted several years

ago by Dr. Ruby Ryles, now head of the Orientation and Mobility master's degree

program at Louisiana Tech University. This was her first major study examining

the effectiveness of Braille (since its completion she has done a much more

extensive study of Braille-literacy skills). The following article was peer-reviewed

and published in the May/June, 1996, issue of the Journal of Visual Impairment

and Blindness.

Dr. Ryles began her professional career

as a first and second grade teacher of sighted children. She specialized in

reading and taught sighted children for nine years.

Then her son Dan was born blind. In order

to help Dan more effectively, Dr. Ryles returned to school to specialize in

the education of blind children. Armed with these new credentials and her practical

experience as the mother of a blind child, she worked for a number of years

teaching blind children in Arkansas, Alaska, and Washington State.

Because of her personal experience as

a mother and teacher and her increasing understanding of the problems faced

by blind adults, Dr. Ryles began to recognize the need for a new kind of training

and preparation for teachers of the blind. She recognized the need for teacher

training dealing with attitudes about blindness and stressing the need for

Braille literacy. She began to understand that this very specific teacher training

must occur if blind children are to have the chance to develop into confident,

competent, and successful blind adults. Therefore, she enrolled in a doctoral

program in special education at the University of Washington.

While she was working on her doctorate,

Dr. Ryles conducted her first major study of Braille versus print for partially

blind people. She did not consider the reason or reasons for the drastic decline

in the use of Braille in America. Rather she was interested in obtaining objective

information about the effectiveness of Braille: specifically, were economic

and other benefits a predictable and measurable outcome when people had been

taught and were using Braille?

In order to qualify for the study, candidates

had to be congenitally legally blind, be between the ages of eighteen and fifty-five,

and have no other disabilities. Of the seventy-four adults in the group, forty-three

subjects had learned Braille as their "original, primary medium,"

and thirty-one had learned to read using print. This study begins to provide

the objective information we need on the question of Braille versus print.

The study reveals that those who were taught Braille from the beginning had

higher employment rates, were better educated and more financially self-sufficient,

and spent more time doing pleasure and other reading than the print users.

The pertinent parts of the study as reported

in the Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness follow:

The decline in the number of Braille

readers since 1963 (American Printing House for the Blind, 1991) has been widely

discussed by professionals and censured by consumer groups (Rex, 1989; Schroeder,

1989; Stephens, 1989). Although there is no consensus on the causes of this

decline, a number of factors have been cited. Among them are the rise in the

number of visually impaired children with additional disabilities who are nonreaders

(Rex, 1989), disputes on the utility of the Braille code (Thurlow, 1988), the

decline in teachers' knowledge of Braille and methods for teaching it (Schroeder,

1989; Stephens, 1989), negative attitudes toward Braille (Holbrook & Koenig,

1992; Rex, 1989), and the greater reliance on speech output and print-magnification

technology (Paul, 1993).

Pressure from consumers and advocacy

groups has led twenty-seven [now twenty-nine] states to pass legislation mandating

that children who are legally blind be given the opportunity to learn Braille.

These laws have created further controversy in the field (Rex, 1992; Schroeder,

1992; Virginia State Department, 1991). Whereas professional groups such as

the Council of Executives of American Schools for the Visually Handicapped,

have called for a renewed emphasis on teaching Braille (Mullen, 1990), others

have stressed that Braille is only one educational option (Paul, 1993).

The majority of literature in the field

regarding Braille reading is in the form of qualitative studies and position

papers. Without the balance of quantifiable data, how can any position on the

use of Braille be rationally supported or refuted? How can teachers determine

when to teach Braille and to whom or consider more basic questions: Should

the field continue to emphasize Braille? Do the outcomes of early Braille training

justify the educational resources required to provide it? Can training in Braille

reading be linked to measures of the economic success of adults?

A causal relationship between reading

medium alone (either Braille or print) and the economic success of adults is

difficult to establish. However, the possible effects of a particular reading

medium on the lives of visually impaired children and adults warrant more objective

and quantifiable research than has been conducted so far. The aim of the study

presented here, which was part of a larger study of the reading habits and

employment of legally blind adults, was to add to the knowledge in these areas.

Most disciplines accept that the primary

indicators of socioeconomic status in this society are employment and education.

Therefore, if higher education, employment, and financial self-sufficiency

are considered indicators of success in adult life, the following research

questions become evident:

1. What impact does early Braille training

have on the employment rates of visually impaired adults?

2. Does the skill of early Braille reading

influence the reading habits of visually impaired adults?

3. Do visually impaired adults who learned

to read Braille as their original reading medium have higher rates of economic

independence?

Method

A search of the literature revealed few

longitudinal studies that measured or defined the success of educational decision

makers in determining reading media for visually impaired children. For obvious

reasons an experimental design was considered inappropriate for the study.

Therefore, because the author was interested in obtaining quantifiable data,

she chose a structured-interview design with a variety of open-ended, multiple

choice free-answers, and dichotomous questions. She then conducted telephone

interviews with adults who fit the criteria for inclusion. To assess interrater

reliability, random subjects were informed that a third party would quietly

listen in on the interviews and record answers on a scoring sheet.

Identification of subjects: The Washington

State Library for the Blind and Physically Handicapped (WSLBPH) identified

adults on this registration list who met the following criteria: they were

legally blind, aged eighteen to fifty-five, and had no concomitant disabilities;

fifty-five was chosen as the cutoff point to avoid the confounding effect of

unemployment because of retirement or ill health in old age. Although the majority

of adults in the state who are legally blind are registered with WSLBPH, the

fact that the study was restricted to eligible adult patrons of the library

who resided in Washington is a limitation of the study. (WSLBPH also serves

some persons who live outside the state, but they were not included in the

study.)

For the larger study WSLBPH mailed a

packet to 900 identified people that included a letter explaining the study

and a return postcard. The potential subjects were asked to return the postcard

indicating their willingness to participate and to include their telephone

numbers and convenient times for them to be interviewed. Twenty-three packets

were returned unopened because of incorrect addresses, and 303 response cards

granting permission to be interviewed for the larger study were received. To

protect the potential subjects' anonymity, the response cards did not include

identifying information, such as names and addresses. Thus it was not possible

to do follow-up mailings to track non-respondents.

During the actual interview process fifty-one

potential subjects who could not be contacted on the first try were called

four or five times during the eight-week project before they were considered

ineligible. Another seventy-seven were eliminated when they were called because

they did not meet the criteria for inclusion but had not been ruled out during

the initial screening. Most of those who were eliminated had concomitant disabilities

(deaf-blindness or cerebral palsy); in addition, several were above the age

ceiling of fifty-five, and one was under eighteen. From the pool of the remaining

175 subjects, a subgroup of seventy-four persons was identified who met all

the criteria and were congenitally visually impaired. These seventy-four persons

were the subjects of the smaller study reported here.

Interviews: The majority of the telephone

interviews were conducted in the evenings, according to the subjects' preferences,

and lasted an average of fifteen to twenty minutes. Numbers were assigned to

the subjects, and the original phone numbers were not entered with the data.

During the interviews the subjects were

asked thirty-five to forty questions. These questions were designed to elicit

their visual history; current visual status; preference for and perceptions

of past and present reading media (Braille or print; listening to audiotaped

books was not included); educational background; and current employment, income,

occupation, and reading habits.

The subjects' responses were categorized,

coded, and analyzed using descriptive statistics (chi-square). To measure the

accuracy of the scores and categories of responses, a second scorer simultaneously

listened to the interviews and scored and categorized a randomly selected sample

of eight subjects. The interrater agreement for the sample was 96 percent.

Subjects: All seventy-four subjects were

congenitally legally blind at the time of the interviews, having been diagnosed

as legally blind before age two, and therefore had no memory of normal vision.

Of the seventy-four, forty-two were women and thirty-two were men, who lived

in rural and urban areas. As was mentioned earlier, the subjects ranged in

age from eighteen to fifty-five; seven (9 percent) were eighteen to twenty-four,

twelve (16 percent) were twenty-five to thirty, eight (11 percent) were thirty-one

to thirty-six, thirty-two (43 percent) were thirty-seven to forty-two, nine

(12 percent) were forty-three to forty-eight, and six (8 percent) were forty-nine

to fifty-five.

Thirty-one subjects were employed, six

part-time and twenty-five full-time, and forty-three were unemployed, yielding

an unemployment rate of 58 percent. (The unemployment rate for the 175 in the

larger study was 66 percent, which parallels the national unemployment rate

for visually impaired adults reported by Kirchner & Peterson, 1988). The

subjects' annual personal incomes ranged from less than $7,000 to $70,000;

the majority (thirty-nine, or 53 percent) reported annual incomes of less than

$7,000.

The majority of the subjects (forty-two,

or 57 percent) reported current vision levels of no light perception or light

perception only (nineteen men and twenty-three women). In addition, twenty-two

(29 percent) had vision levels between 20/300 and shadow vision, and the vision

of the remaining ten (14 percent) ranged from 20/200 to 20/300. Eleven subjects

said that their visual acuity had deteriorated before they graduated from high

school, and eighteen said that it had deteriorated afterward; three reported

improved visual activity during their school years.

With regard to educational levels, ten

subjects (14 percent) had a high school education or less, twenty-three (31

percent) had attended college but had not graduated, twenty-four (32 percent)

had bachelor's degrees, and seventeen (23 percent) had graduate degrees. The

women tended to be slightly better educated than the men; twelve (12 percent)

of the forty-two women, compared to six (19 percent) of the thirty-two men,

had graduate degrees.

With regard to reading media, forty-three

subjects (58 percent) had learned to read Braille as their original primary

medium (hereafter referred to as the BR group), and thirty-one subjects (42

percent) had learned to read print as their original primary medium (hereafter

referred to as the PR group) in childhood. One of the subjects who had initially

learned to read Braille uses both Braille and print as an adult.

Results

Employment: As figure 1

shows, the BR group had a significantly lower unemployment rate (44 percent)

than did the PR group (77 percent) (X2=10.499; p<.0148). Of those who were

employed, 16 percent of the BR group and 13 percent of the PR group were in

professional positions, 23 percent of the BR group and 10 percent of the PR

group were in skilled positions, and 16 percent of the BR group,but none of

the PR group, were in unskilled positions. Furthermore, 42 percent of the BR

group versus 23 percent of the PR group were employed full-time (forty or more

hours per week), and 14 percent of the BR group, but 3 percent of the PR group,

were employed part time (X2=7.031 p<.0297).

FIGURE 1: Employment breakdown by original readium medium.

NOTE: Figure 1 represents visually the

data reported in the text.

The extent of Braille use in adulthood

was an important variable in examining the employment rates of the BR group.

Using qualifying criteria for each category, the author determined Braille

use to be extensive, some, or minimal. Extensive Braille use did not guarantee

employment, but within the BR group it was apparent that the subjects who reported

extensive personal and/or professional use of Braille had a far lower unemployment

rate (33 percent) than did the total sample (58 percent). Of the twenty-four

subjects in the BR group who were employed at the time of the study, twenty-two

met the criteria for extensive Braille users.

Five subjects in the PR group were taught

to read Braille after they learned to read print. None reported using Braille

extensively, and all were unemployed at the time of the study.

Reading Habits: Addressing reading in

this type of research design is problematic, particularly because the study

was based on self-reported data. Therefore, three symbols of literacy in this

society were examined: the number of hours per week spent reading (Braille

or print), the number of books read in an average year, and the number of magazines

currently subscribed to. Figure 2 compares the number of hours in an average

week that the BR and PR subjects spent reading (for their jobs and for pleasure).

It is significant that sixteen subjects in the BR group and five in the PR

group read more than twenty-one hours per week (X2=13.852: p<.0166), whereas

three in the BR group versus nine in the PR group read one hour or none during

an average week.

FIGURE 2: Number of hours a week spent reading.

NOTE: Figure 2 represents the number

of hours spent reading each week--0 to 1 hours, Braille readers 3, print readers

9; 2 to 5 hours a week, Braille readers 4, print readers 9; 6 to 10 hours a

week, Braille readers 9, print readers 4; 11 to 20 hours a week, Braille readers

10, print readers 4; and 21 or more hours a week, Braille readers 16, print

readers 5.

As Figure 3 shows, the BR group read

significantly more books per year than did the PR group (X2=23.138:p<.0008).

Thirteen of the forty-three BR subjects but only three of the thirty-one PR

subjects read twenty-one or more books per year, and three BR subjects versus

fourteen PR subjects read no books per year. These findings are consistent

with the greater number of hours per week that the BR group spent reading.

Furthermore, in accord with the greater amount of time spent reading and books

read, the BR group reported subscribing to significantly more magazines than

did the PR group (X2=13.435: p<.0038). For example, eight BR subjects but

eighteen PR subjects subscribed to no magazines (see Figure 4).

NOTE: Figure 3 represents the number

of books read per year—zero books a year, 3 Braille readers, 14 print

readers; 1 to 5 books a year, 16 Braille readers, 5 print readers; 6 to 10

books a year, 4 Braille readers, 7 print readers; 11 to 20 books a year, 7

Braille readers, 2 print readers; and 21 and over books a year, 6 Braille readers,

3 print readers.

Figure 4 represents magazine subscriptions

at the time of the study—zero subscriptions, 8 Braille readers, 18 print

readers; 1 to 3 subscriptions, 19 Braille readers, 7 print readers; 4 to 6

subscriptions, 9 Braille readers, 5 print readers; over 7 subscriptions, 7

Braille readers, 1 print reader.

FIGURE 3: Number of books read per year.

FIGURE 4: Magazine subscriptions at the time of the study.

Table 1 depicts the point basis for a

scale on which each subject was assigned points based on values of the three

variables previously discussed.

Table 1: Basis for Scale.

NOTE: The table represents points awarded

for hours a week spent reading, books a year read, and magazine subscriptions.

Hours spent reading a week: 0 points for 0 to 1 hour, 1 point for 2 to 6 hours

a week; 2 points for 7 to 20 hours a week; 3 points for 20 or more hours a

week. Number of books read a year: 0 points for 0 to 1 book read; 1 point for

1 to 5 books read; 2 points for 6 to 20 books read; and 3 points for 20 or

more books read. Number of magazines subscribed to: 0 points for none; 1 point

for 1 to 3 magazines; 2 points for 4 to 7 magazines; and 3 points for 7 or

more magazines.

The total points attained by the subjects

were plotted on a 10-point scale, and the subjects were divided into four groups.

The subjects in Group 1 scored 0 or 1 point; those in Group 2 scored 2, 3,

or 4 points; those in Group 3 scored 5, 6, or 7 points; and those in Group

4 scored 8 or 9 points. For example, a subject who read twelve hours in an

average week, read four books in the previous year, and currently subscribed

to six magazines would receive a total of five points and hence would be placed

in Group 3.

Thirty-six percent of the PR subjects

and four percent of the BR subjects were in Group 1, 35 percent of the PR subjects

and 33 percent of the BR subjects were in Group 2, 26 percent of the PR subjects

and 47 percent of the BR subjects were in Group 3, and 3 percent of the PR

subjects and 16 percent of the BR subjects were in Group 4. The results were

significant (X2=14.674: p<.0021), the most noticeable difference being in

Group 1.

Education: The overall difference in

the mean educational levels of the BR and the PR groups was small and not statistically

significant (X2=4.035; p<.2577). The distinction between early Braille readers

and early print readers was at the highest level of education: Thirteen (30%)

of the 43 BR subjects but only four (13%) of the thirty-one PR subjects obtained

graduate degrees. It is also worth noting that only two of the subjects in

this sample (n=74) and in the larger sample (n=175) had doctoral degrees; both

were in the BR group.

Self-Sufficiency: Although the overall

income levels of the two groups were not statistically significant (X2=7.059,

p<.2163), the representation of the BR and PR subjects in the three income

ranges—highest range ($25,000 to $70,000), middle range ($7,000 to $25,000),

and lowest range ($7,000 or less)--are of interest. The BR group was over-represented

in the highest range, and the PR group was over-represented in the lowest range,

but both groups were similarly represented in the middle range. Thus 25 percent

of the BR group versus 7 percent of the PR group were in the highest range,

28 percent of the BR group and 31 percent of the PR group were in the middle

range, and 47 percent of the BR group but 62 percent of the PR group were in

the lowest range. In addition, the subjects' responses to the question, "Do

you receive money on a regular basis from a nonemployment source, such as SSI

(Supplemental Security Income), SSDI (Social Security Disability Insurance),

public assistance, food stamps, or Medicaid?" were significant (X2=4.805;

p<.0284): 49 percent of the BR group, compared to 74 percent of the PR group,

regularly received such public entitlement benefits.

Past and Present Reading Ability: In

any study self-reported data, especially retrospective data, must generally

be considered suspect. Nevertheless, the subjects' responses to questions regarding

their perceptions of their past and present reading ability tended to follow

the other trends reported here:

1. As a junior high school student could

you read as fast and as fluently as your classmates? Nine of the thirty-one

subjects in the PR group, compared to thirty-five of the forty-three subjects

in the BR group answered yes.

2. Do you consider yourself a good reader

today? Nineteen of the thirty-one subjects in the PR group versus forty of

the forty-three subjects in the BR group answered yes.

Visual Acuity: Of the seventy-four subjects,

fourteen

reported having had 20/200 visual acuity

since birth that had remained stable throughout their adult lives. This level

of acuity is the upper limit of the definition of legal blindness. Thirteen

of these fourteen subjects learned to read print and were included in the PR

group; seven of the fourteen subjects received Braille instruction later in

life but used print as their current primary reading medium. Four of the fourteen

subjects were employed. Although most subjects in the PR group reported little

knowledge of the Braille code, the four employed subjects in this group all

reported knowing "some" Braille.

The only one of the fourteen who was

taught to read Braille as a child said that she reads both print and Braille

as an adult but uses print as her primary reading medium. She was one of the

four who were employed in this group. Since this group contained thirteen PR

subjects and only one BR subject, quantitative analysis of the data was not

possible.

Instruction in Braille reading has traditionally

been reserved for students with the most severe vision loss—those who

cannot see print. It is typically assumed by the general public that the greater

the amount of vision a child or adult has, the greater his or her advantage

in employment and education. The findings of this study did not support that

supposition: acuity was not a statistically significant factor in the employment

or educational levels the subjects attained. However, the recipients of public

entitlement programs were exceptions to these findings. Those with partial

sight were represented in significantly greater proportions than were those

with little or no sight (X2=6.045; p<.045). (This finding also held true

for its subjects in the larger study [X2=7.648: p<.0218].)

Contrary to common perceptions, more

sight was not synonymous with a lower unemployment rate and financial independence

in this study. The subjects who reported the least vision—light perception

only or no light perception—had an unemployment rate of 52 percent, whereas

those with the greatest degree of vision--20/200--20/300--had an unemployment

rate of 67 percent.

Discussion

It is an effort of gargantuan proportions

to attempt to isolate the impact of a reading medium on the life of an adult

who is visually impaired. The interaction of a multitude of confounding variables

(such as mobility, financial disincentives, and social biases) complicates

and confuses attempts to study employment rates and measures of literacy or

financial independence.

The legally blind adult subjects were

chosen and screened to provide as representative a sample as possible of otherwise

non-disabled visually impaired adults in the state of Washington. However,

because questions of home support, motivation, intellectual ability, educational

placement, and the like were not addressed, it is possible that an analysis

that would include these variables would also yield significant results. Nevertheless,

it is rational to expect that the diverse values of these independent variables

existed in both the BR and the PR groups and thus should not have significantly

altered the findings. However, these issues and their impact on the concerns

addressed here should be the focus of future studies in the field.

It is sometimes confusing and always

disturbing to read the staggering unemployment rates of adults with visual

impairments. The implications for the future of today's generation of children

with visual impairments are sobering for professionals in the field. Rather

than focusing on the seemingly overwhelming task of determining why so many

adults with visual impairments are unemployed, this study concentrated on one

possible common factor of the 33 percent who are employed.

The impact of Braille reading skills

on the subjects' employment rates was significant—with qualifications.

Having a knowledge of Braille, even as a primary reading medium, did not increase

a subject's chances of employment, but those who had learned to read Braille

as their original reading medium and used it extensively were employed at a

significantly higher rate. Thus the early acquisition and extensive use of

Braille reading skills were the two factors that had a strong impact on employment

rates. The subjects who had been taught to read Braille as children were employed

(either full time or part time) at more than twice the rate of those who were

taught to read print. However, the subjects who learned Braille after they

learned to read print did not have a higher employment rate than those who

had not learned Braille.

In this society the ability to read well

is highly valued. It is an ability to which school districts devote copious

amounts of funds and resources. Classroom teachers spend countless hours coaxing

children to develop the lifelong habit of reading. In this study the BR subjects

demonstrated those positive reading habits at a significantly greater rate

than did the PR subjects. They spent substantially more time reading, read

more books, and subscribed to more magazines. This finding is particularly

noteworthy when one considers the comparative availability of print and Braille

materials. Because higher education depends to a great extent on a background

of reading skills and habits, it is not surprising that the BR group also had

more graduate degrees.

Not only were the BR subjects more prolific

readers, but they perceived their reading abilities, both as children and as

adults, in a more positive light than did the PR subjects. Whether those who

were taught to read Braille were actually more fluent, skilled readers as children

than were those who were taught to read print is an issue for further study.

The point of interest here is that the overwhelming majority of the BR subjects

(81%) had elevated perceptions of their abilities compared to only 29 percent

of the PR subjects.

Rehabilitation is also affected by the

inability of visually impaired children to read. Excessive rehabilitation dollars

are spent annually on visually impaired young adults who are recent graduates

of public (and residential) school programs for visually impaired children.

Rehabilitation programs that were originally designed to retrain adventitiously

blind adults designate a large portion of their annual budgets to congenitally

visually impaired adults who, in theory, should have been habilitated in childhood

education programs. But in reality many visually impaired young adults are

not sufficiently accomplished in literacy or alternative skills to complete

higher-level degrees or obtain employment.

As Koenig and Holbrook (1989) noted,

the 10-15 percent of visually impaired children who are totally blind should

present little concern to educators regarding whether they should be taught

to read Braille since those children who are cognitively and physically capable

of reading will be taught to read Braille. It is the remaining 85 percent of

visually impaired children with various degrees of residual vision who present

the print-or-Braille dilemma to their multi-disciplinary teams. The results

of this study suggest that teaching Braille as an original primary reading

medium to children with visual impairments may encourage them to develop the

positive lifelong habit of reading as adults, enhance their later employment

opportunities, and thereby increase the possibility of financial independence.

Recommendations

As the field of education moves toward

the full inclusion of students with disabilities in regular school programs,

it is imperative that vision professionals resist the urge to normalize visually

impaired children by insisting that they read only print. All too frequently

decisions on reading media are based on available resources, rather than on

the needs of students. According to Tuttle and Heinze (cited in Caton, 1991),

over 1,400 additional certified teachers are needed nationwide to meet the

educational needs of unserved and under-served children with visual impairments.

Teachers of children with visual impairments are typically expected to teach

sixteen or more students who are widely spread over large geographic areas

(Caton, 1991). Given such conditions, dedicated itinerant teachers are frequently

forced to assume consulting rather than active teaching roles. Children cannot

adequately be taught to read (in print or Braille) by consultants.

It is tragic that school districts (and

professionals) may opt to recommend print as a reading medium under such circumstances.

This article does not address that critical shortage. However, it should be

noted here that in the face of the restructuring of many university teacher-training

programs, it is imperative to retain and support the growth of categorical

teacher training programs in the field. The shortage of qualified teachers,

as well as researchers, has contributed heavily to the problems the field now

faces. Without qualified teachers alternative skills, such as Braille, which

are specific to individuals with visual impairments, will by necessity be taught

so infrequently that they will eventually become all but extinct. If the results

of this study are an indicator, omitting Braille reading instruction from the

curriculum of visually impaired children may well create a handicap far more

debilitating than blindness—chronic unemployment.

References:

American Printing House for the Blind.

(1991).

Distribution of federal quota based on

the registration of eligible students. Louisville, Kentucky: Author.

Caton, H. (Ed.) (1991). Print and Braille

literacy: Selecting appropriate learning media. Louisville, Kentucky: American

Printing House for the Blind.

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, 296-302.

Koenig, A.J. & Holbrook, M.C. (1992).

Teaching Braille reading to students

with low vision. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness. 86, 44-48.

Kirchner, C. & Peterson, R. (1988),

Employment: Selected characteristics.

In Data on blindness and visual impairment in the U.S. (pp. 169-177). New York:

American Foundation for the Blind.

Mullen, E. (1990), Decreased Braille

literacy: A symptom of a system in need of reassessment. RE:view, 23, 164-169.

Paul, B.J. (1993, Spring), "Low

tech" Braille vital to high-level literacy.

Counterpoint, p. 3.

Rex, E.J. (1989), Issues related to literacy

of legally blind learners, Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 83,

306-313.

Schroeder, F. (1989), Literacy: The key

to opportunity, Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 83, 290-293.

Schroeder, F. (1992, June), Braille bills:

What Are They and What Do They Mean? Braille Monitor, 308-311.

Stephens, O. (1989), Braille—Implications

for living, Journal of Visual

Impairment & Blindness. 83, 288-289.

Thurlow, W.R. (1988), An alternative

to Braille, Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 82, 378.

Virginia State Department for the Visually

Handicapped, (1991), A Study of Braille literacy in Virginia's public schools

(Senate Document No. 31), Richmond: Virginia State Department for the Visually

Handicapped.

Reprinted with permission from the Journal

of Visual Impairment and Blindness. Copyright 1996 by American Foundation for

the Blind, 11 Penn Plaza, Suite 300, New York, New York 10001. All rights reserved.