LET'S HEAR IT FOR BENIGN NEGLECT

LET'S HEAR IT FOR BENIGN NEGLECT

Future Reflections Fall 1989, Vol. 8 No. 3
(contents) (next)
LET'S HEAR IT FOR BENIGN NEGLECT:
THE CHEADLES FIGHT THE SYSTEM FOR THE RIGHT
TO HAVE THEIR SON LEARN BRAILLE
by Barbara Cheadle
The following is reprinted from the January,
1989, issue of the Braille Monitor.
As Monitor readers know, Barbara and John
Cheadle have been active and committed
Federationists for a number of years. In Idaho,
Missouri, and now Maryland they have worked
and laughed and cried with us as we struggle
toward freedom and equality. Mrs. Cheadle is the
President of the Parents' Division of the National
Federation of the Blind, and Mr. Cheadle has
been for several years a member of the staff of
the National Office.
Their son, Charles (known to everyone as
Chaz) is an active, bright, ten-year-old. He is also
blind in one eye and severely limited visually in
the other. Chaz needs Braille now and will need
it much more in the years to come. He is lucky
that his parents recognize this fact and are
prepared to fight for his right to learn Braille and
to use it. He is unlucky in finding himself in the
clutches of so-called "professionals" in special
education who have declared (among other
things) that Braille and print are incompatible.
As you read the following article, keep in
mind that there are probably no more
knowledgeable parents in the country today,
working to protect their blind child's educational
rights. Mrs. Cheadle has served as a parent advocate
in Individualized Educational Program
(IEP) meetings all across the country. Both of
the Cheadles have learned from hundreds of
blind friends just what can be accomplished with
proper training and reasonable opportunity.
They have a painful understanding of the absolute
necessity for blind people to master
Braille as early as possible. They believe unswervingly
that, if they can give their son the tools
he needs, he can achieve whatever he has the native
ability to accomplish. And they are determined
not to allow benighted school officials to
destroy Chaz's future. Here is the Cheadles'
story as it has unfolded to date. Read it and ask
yourself what you would do if it were your child
whose future lay in the balance.
In our local school district all fourth, fifth, and
sixth graders are required to take music. They
may sing in the chorus, play an instrument in the
band or orchestra, or take general music. But
one thing is certain -- a child will have music. So
far as we know, it doesn't matter if the student is
tone-deaf and has absolutely no musical talent.
Music is required, and that is that. This same
school district, which includes some of the best
schools in the state of Maryland, will not teach
our blind, partially-sighted son how to read and
write Braille.
The school district will spend thousands of dollars
to teach children to sing and play musical instruments
but will not spend a penny to insure
literacy for a nearly-blind child. Please don't
misunderstand us. We are not opposed to music,
and we have no desire to change the school's
policy regarding it. But while the other children
sing and play their instruments, the door to
literacy for a lifetime --Braille --has been
slammed shut for our son, Chaz. It sounds incredible,
and we didn't really believe that it
would happen to us, but it has.
Chaz, who is now ten years old, is totally blind in
one eye (due to glaucoma) and has severely
limited vision in the other eye due to cataracts
and nystagmus. We have been told by several
ophthalmologists that his vision will never get
better (surgery won't help) but that it is likely to
get worse as his eye muscles weaken with time.
Chaz will probably experience a noticeable and
significant difference in his vision before he
graduates from high school. He will not be able
to read as long as he can now (he begins to get
tired after about thirty minutes of reading), and
he will suffer more eye fatigue. Magnification
aids, one told us, will not be helpful to him until
his eye muscles begin to weaken. When this happens,
magnifiers will only substitute for what he
can now do by bringing the material close to his
eye.
However, when we mentioned Braille as an alternative
or supplement to print, one of our doctors
assured us Chaz could "get by." Well, "getting
by" is not what we had in mind for any of our
children! We see no reason why we should not
have the same expectations of Chaz as we do for
the others. Furthermore, Chaz is a bright child.
Teachers and parents of other children get upset
and worried when their bright students or
children just manage to "get by." They call conferences
and plan strategies to get the child to live
up to his or her potential. Surely our blind son
deserves the same concern.
With the encouragement and support of blind
friends in the National Federation of the Blind,
we decided Chaz should learn Braille as well as
print in school. We had some false starts, but we
finally got one good, solid year of instruction in
the third grade through the Baltimore City school
system.
But there was still a long way to go. He had
learned most of the Braille contractions and
rules, but he hadn't done much tactile reading.
He needed more instruction and more prac
and he needed to start using Braille regularly i|
the classroom.
Then, in the fall of 1987, we moved to Baltimc
County. We were in a different home, a differei
neighborhood, and a very different school dis trict. Our first meeting with school officials
teachers in the new school took place on Septer her 17, 1987. It passed without incident. We
agreed to continue the Individualized Education]
Program (IEP) drawn up in his old school in Bal-1
timore City until it was up for review in Novemj her. In that IEP Chaz was getting four hours
week of Braille instruction, large print texts and tests, and other materials as needed as well as
consultation services from the itinerant teacher
of the blind to the classroom teacher about alternative
techniques and adapted materials that he
would need. Waiting until November, we were
told, would give Mary Buchheister, the teacher for the visually impaired in our new school, time
to get to know Chaz and do her own evaluation.
We got our first insight into Mrs. Buchheister's
attitudes about blindness at that meeting when
she said that she didn't like to use sleep shades.
She thought it was wrong to take away a child's
sight. We disagreed and pointed out that his IEP
stipulated that he would use sleep shades during
his Braille lesson so he would learn to trust his
sense of touch. The only thing that bothered him
about the sleep shades was that they itched. But
we decided not to make an issue of it then. We
thought that we could work it out when she
started teaching Chaz.
A few weeks later I got a call from Mrs. Buchheister.
She wanted to talk about Braille. She said
something to the effect that Chaz had terrible
Braille reading technique and he was slow. But
most of all she couldn't understand why we
wanted to teach him Braille anyway. After all, Braille was so slow and tedious. Those are not her
exact words, but that was the sense of them. So I
talked about all the reasons why Chaz needed
Braille and why I disagreed with her statement.
She didn't seem to understand or believe what I
said. I was beginning to worry. Still, I tried to look
at the positive side. She said she was a stickler for
technique, and Chaz certainly needed work on
that. Maybe she would come around.
Later I asked Mrs. Buchheister if she was willing
to be his certifying authority for the National
"Braille Readers Are Leaders" contest. She halfheartedly
agreed and shortly thereafter sent
home a Grade 1 Braille book for Chaz to read.
Since Chaz had already learned most of the
Grade 2 Braille contractions, enough anyway to
read children's books, I was not impressed.
Neither was Chaz. After a few tries, he declared
that he preferred to read the Grade 2 books I had
gotten for him. Grade 1, he said, was too slow.
We never resolved the sleep shade issue either.
She really believed that it was bad, even
traumatic, to take away his vision. Even though
his IEP stipulated that sleep shades would be
used, she absolutely refused to use them.
In the meantime, John and I were getting an
education in just what schools expect of bright
kids these days. We had a sighted son in the gifted
fifth-grade class, and Chaz had been placed in the
gifted fourth-grade class. Every time I looked at
my fifth-grade son's homework, I thought to
myself, "How is Chaz going to do this next year?"
His need for Braille became more and more obvious
to us. And we recognized he needed it immediately.
Then
we got our notice for the November IEP
meeting. The list of officials who were coming to
the meeting included Ms. Harden, an area supervisor
from the county office of Special Education.
As soon as we read that name, we knew that the
professionals were up to something. They
wouldn't send someone of Ms. Harden's importance
if this were going to be a routine meeting.
But the school didn't kick about our request for
more Braille instruction. They didn't scream
when we said we wanted him to start using Braille in the classroom. They just handed us the evaluation
which Mrs. Buchheister, the teacher for the
visually impaired, had done. She said he didn't
need Braille. So Chaz would not get Braille -- end
of discussion.
Actually, we had a lot of discussion, but to no
avail. We knew now why Ms. Hardin, the supervisor,
was present at our IEP meeting. It was clear
that whatever we said, whatever documents we
presented, they had made up their minds that
they were not going to teach Braille to Chaz. In
fact, when we pointed to Doris Willoughby's
evaluation--which was part of his file -- it turned
out that several of the team members hadn't even
read it.
The whole tenor of the meeting was, "We are the
professionals, and we know what is best for your
child."
The evaluation Mrs. Buchheister did, by the way,
was not well done. For example, she recommended
hand-held magnifying aids without ever
having him use one. At one point she said his print reading speed was "adequate." Then later,
when she recommended against Braille, she
reported that he "reads with excellent speed and
comprehension." She said that he could see her
smile at a distance of four feet and retrieve a pencil
he had thrown across the room. We never
could decide what that had to do with whether he
should or should not be learning Braille. Besides,
it was clear that she hadn't considered the possibility
that Chaz could have been using alternative
techniques in place of, or in addition to, his
vision for these tasks.
John and I talked and talked about all the reasons
Chaz needed Braille. We pointed out that two
other school districts had agreed with us, and had
included Braille instruction in his IEP. No dice.
They wouldn't budge. At one point we were told
that they did not have to do anything about teaching
him Braille unless he started to fail academically,
and only then if we could prove that his
vision was responsible for it and that Braille was
the only thing that would help him make passing
grades.
But the real clincher came when the itinerant
teacher asked us -- and it was obvious that she was
upset --"Why do you limit him by calling him
blind?" We were stunned. Here we were trying
to get a skill (Braille) for our son that would expand
his options and opportunities, and she was
accusing us of limiting him!
We said something to the effect that we didn't
think there was anything shameful about blindness
or being blind. Of course, we knew it was a
limitation, but no more so than a hundred other
characteristics. That was the way we saw it. But
she didn't. Blind was bad. Braille was bad. And
we were bad because we weren't ashamed or
afraid to use the word "blind" with our son who
has partial vision. We would not sign an IEP at that meeting. We told them that we only wanted
materials (large print books, etc.) while we
thought the impasse over.
When we left that meeting, we had to make a
decision. We decided that what Chaz really
needed was good, positive Braille instruction.
Even if we forced the issue then and won, he
couldn't get that from this teacher. We decided
to let things stand as they were at school for a
while and arrange to pay for private Braille lessons.
We would try again later. It was still hard to
believe that they would not eventually see
reason.
One thing we did after our November meetii
with the school was to arrange for another inc
pendent evaluation. Maybe, we thought, wit
more documentation and the evidence of Chazi
success with Braille in private lessons, we coul
bring the school around to our view. Fre
Schroeder, former director of the special educ
tion programs for the blind in the Albuquerque,!
New Mexico, school system and currently Direcj
tor of the New Mexico Commission for the Blind,!
did this one. The results were the same. Cha*|
should learn Braille.
Since we had not signed an IEP in November, we
had another meeting in December to approve an
IEP officially. This time, however, Dr. Betsy
Zaborowsky came with us as our advocate. The
county beefed up their representation, too. Dr.
Gloria Ergnoth, Director of Special Education
for the district, was there this time along with the usual team members (school principal, classroom
teacher, teacher for the visually impaired,
and the school counselor).
We had decided that we would not ask for Braille
instruction, but we would ask that Chaz be allowed
to use Braille in the classroom for some
class work. This would mean that the county
would provide some Braille materials and possibly
some Braille transcribing service.
When we went to the meeting, we took Fred
Schroeder's evaluation with us, handed copies to
everyone, and waited while they read it. After the
teacher for the visually impaired (Mrs. Buchheister)
read it, she said she wanted to discuss
some of the points with us, but Dr. Ergnoth cut
her off. It was clear that the county had taken a
position against Braille for Chaz, and any evaluation
we presented simply was not going to be considered.
Dr.
Ergnoth was delighted, then, when we told
her that we had arranged for Chaz to receive private Braille lessons. She thought that was
great. She praised us and compared us to parents
who go out and get private music or foreign language
lessons for their children (nice but unnecessary
was the message). We told her we
didn't think this was at all analogous, and we still
believed that the school district should be
responsible for teaching him Braille.
She didn't like that idea, but the meeting went
reasonably well until we said that we wanted to
write into the IEP that Chaz would have the option
of using Braille in the classroom. We had already
agreed that Chaz could choose to use large
print materials and magnifiers as he needed
them. It seemed only reasonable that he should
also have the option of choosing Braille.
And that's when the meeting fell apart. We were
told in no uncertain terms that we could have
nothing about Braille in the IEP; they would not
even concede that Chaz could choose Braille
materials to read, or that he could choose to do
an assignment in Braille. The message was loud
and clear...no Braille whatsoever!
John was so angry at that point that he walked out
of the meeting. Even Dr. Zaborowsky, who had
been so calm throughout the meeting, was absolutely
floored. At the end of the meeting, she
asked Mrs. Buchheister why she was so opposed
to Chaz's learning Braille. The reply was, "Because
print and Braille are incompatible." Now
that was a new argument to all of us! I suppose,
if it hadn't been our son's education and future
we were talking about, we would have laughed;
that's how silly it was. We did sign an IEP
(without Braille) that day. But we told them that
we did not consider this the last word on the subject.
We would be back.
In the meantime, Chaz started private lessons
with Mrs. Marie Cobb, a member of our local
NFB chapter. She was not a certified teacher, but
she was enthusiastic and committed. She liked
Chaz, he liked her, and she really believed in the
importance of Braille. She had been a partially
sighted child who had learned Braille when she
was in the fifth grade, and she was still a print and
Braille reader. She was a great role model for our
son.
In about four months Chaz learned to read Grade
2 Braille with his fingers well enough to read
stories aloud to the family. Some time around
March he was evaluated by a certified Braille
teacher, who said he was reading at a second
grade level --pretty good progress for a boy who
could barely identify the alphabet with his fingers
when he started. He also read over 400 Braille
pages from December 1,1987, to March 1,1988,
for the NFB Braille Reading contest. We were on
the way. But he had to have more. He especially
needed to be able to use Braille in the classroom
for classwork.
Chaz was beginning to give oral reports in class,
and print notes would not help. On one report
students who used print notes got extra points.
Chaz typed out his notes, memorized them,
pretended to use them when he gave the report,
then turned in the notes for credit. We didn't
know he was going to do this, and we didn't condone
it, but without Braille, what else could he
have done?
We called another IEP meeting in March, and
James Gashel, Director of Governmental Affairs
for the National Federation of the Blind, went
with us to try to get Braille. Even the right to use
it in the classroom with support services would
have been helpful. We began with the concept
that in addition to the visual techniques (large
print and magnifiers) Chaz needed non-visual
techniques, materials, and services. They agreed.
Yes, he needed keyboard skills (typing and computer),
readers, and taped books. But once again, when we came to Braille -- no way! He could have
everything else, but no Braille.
We then filed for a due process hearing at the
county level. It took place on June 2, 1988, and
in preparation we arranged for yet another
evaluation of Chaz's visual needs and skills. This
time we paid Jane Kronheim, a specialist who is
certified in Massachusetts and Ohio. She came
to Baltimore to do the evaluation. Her conclusions
supported our plea for Braille. We also
prepared a video tape showing Chaz reading over
an extended period. The tape showed with painful
clarity what happens to him as his eyes tire.
After a half hour he complains that the print is
jumping, and his speed and accuracy fall
noticeably. He becomes restless, and his attention
wanders. Armed with these new pieces of
evidence and bolstered by Jim Gashel's
presence, we faced the crowd of officials from the
school system drawn up against us at the county
hearing.
The County Board of Education appointed the
hearing officer, who was supposed to be impartial.
The school system designated not one, but
two, advocates to face Jim Gashel. These attorneys,
Marjorie Raffel and Ronald Kaplan, tried
to gang up on Mr. Gashel, but he objected to
being double teamed, and the hearing officer did
agree that only one at a time could question a witness.
Everyone on both sides stipulated that the
IEP which had continued to be in force all year
was inadequate. Chaz clearly needed typing and
computer skills, recorded materials, and penmanship.
Braille
continued to be the stumbling block.
Mrs. Buchheister testified that, based on test
results in Chaz's file, she would not recommend
Braille. It did not matter that many of the tests
in question had been administered while we still
lived in Baltimore, and, based on those test
results, the city schools had recommended Braille. The evaluations of Chaz that had
done by Doris Willoughby, one of the most
tinguished teachers of visually impaired childr
in the country; Fred Schroeder, an expert
blindness and programs for visually impaire
youngsters; and Dr. Betsy Zaborowsky,
licensed clinical psychologist, were rejected
of hand because we had not paid for them.1
Kronheim's evaluation could not be dismissed,
but it was one against the experts ranged on the] other side. Not surprisingly, Maynard Simmons, i
an educator at the Maryland School for the Blind, i
testified that it is damaging to a child to be taught
Braille simultaneously with print. He suggested
strongly that we bordered on being abusive
parents. He as much as told the hearing officer
that video taping Chaz's print reading was cruel.
In mid-June the hearing officer rendered his
decision. In an astonishingly poorly reasoned
opinion he found in favor of the school system.
Among other oddities he discounted the
ophthalmologists' finding that Chaz's sight will
not improve and will probably worsen. He said
that anyone at that hearing might someday go
blind, but that fact was not justification for teaching
all of these adults Braille. With this piece of
logic as a sample of his thinking, his decision
came as no surprise. Chaz could not have Braille.
He could not be taught Braille; he could not use
Braille. He could not have anything to do with
Braille. Braille was out.
In the final moments before Jim Gashel and we
left for the National Federation of the Blind convention
in Chicago, we completed the State
Board of Education's paperwork in order to file
an appeal of the county's decision. That hearing
was scheduled for August 25,1988, and we were
allowed to choose from a list of names of appropriate
people the three members of the panel
who would hear our case. The state named Dr.
Burton H. Lohnes, Director of the Forebush
School, a part of the Shepard Pratt Hospital, to chair the panel. The transcript of the June hearing
would be part of the evidence.
At the August hearing we also had Fred
Schroeder and Doris Willoughby as experts
prepared to testify. The school system had no
new witnesses. Early in the proceedings Jim
Gashel called attention to the fact that the county
hearing officer had misreported one piece of
information from the June hearing. In response
to a question from Jim Gashel, I had testified that
the schools had never offered us the option of an
impartial assessment of Chaz. The hearing
officer's opinion stated that we had refused such
an offer. (The transcript of the June hearing is
clear, and so was the testimony it recorded. The
schools never so much as mentioned the possibility
of an impartial assessment.) Ron Kaplan,
the head of the county's advocacy team, broke in
to say that the schools had offered me this option,
but, if I had not understood the offer, they were
prepared to make it again.
At this point the character of the hearing
changed. It became a negotiating session to work
out the terms by which an impartial party could
be identified to do an evaluation. Cay Holbrook,
a County expert, and Fred Schroeder went into
another room to try to agree on names of people
to do the evaluation. Fred suggested several
names, and they agreed on two. The expert they
were able to reach was Dr. Sally Mangold, a
professor at San Francisco State University. On
September 2 Dr. Lohnes, Fred Schroeder, Cay
Holbrook, and John and I talked by conference
call with Dr. Mangold and determined that she
probably could conduct an independent assessment.
Before
we had left the hearing, Ron Kaplan insisted
that (in order to insure Dr. Mangold's impartiality),
everyone pledge not to contact Dr.
Mangold. Everyone agreed. We further agreed
that, after her report was in hand, all of us at the
local level would try again to agree on the IEP.
Only if we could not would we return to the
suspended state-level hearing.
On September 20,1988, John got a call from the
State Board of Education instructing him to have
Chaz report for his test on the following Friday.
It was obvious from the conversation that the
County schools had been in touch with Dr. Mangold
despite their agreement to the contrary, so
Jim Gashel called her and learned that Ron
Kaplan (the very Ron Kaplan who had insisted
on everyone's keeping away from the independent
expert) had been in contact with her. In
fact, his was the only name associated with the
case that she recognized. Dr. Lohnes called Mr.
Gashel almost immediately to say that Kaplan
was "bouncing off the walls" because Mr. Gashel
had talked with Mangold. Mr. Gashel explained
the whole story and told Lohnes that he was writing
a letter to all parties explaining what had happened
and raising our doubts about Dr.
Mangold's independence since she had clearly
been in prolonged contact with the county advocate.
Dr. Mangold was in fact about to board a
plane to come to Baltimore, so we decided to go
ahead with the test despite our reservations.
Putting aside the matter of the county's contact
with Dr. Mangold, we were still troubled about
her ability to give an unbiased evaluation. But she
is clearly a professional in the classical sense of
the term--which means that she is not willing to
compromise her principles, yield to pressure, or
say what somebody wants her to say. She made
the evaluation, and here are her recommendations:
DEFINITION
OF TERMS
Primary Learning Medium
The primary learning medium is the medium
most frequently used during classroom instruction.
It should allow access to the greatest variety
of educational materials. A primary learning
medium can be utilized in a wide variety of settings
inside and outside of the classroom. It
should permit both reading and writing.
Secondary Learning Medium
A secondary learning medium is occasionally appropriate
for a student. It is learned in order to
allow a student to perform specific tasks not easily
performed in the primary learning medium. It
may alleviate fatigue experienced when using the
primary learning medium for extended periods
of time.
Reading --Charles should:
1. use print as his primary learning medium, especially in subjects such as spelling and basal
reading;
2. use Braille as a secondary learning medium (a minimum of three forty-minute periods of
Braille instruction per week);3. complete daily assignments for Braille reading and writing;
4. be given the alternative of using tape recorded texts as a secondary learning medium
when the classroom or homework assignments
require extensive periods of reading in subjects
such as social studies and science (tape recorded
material should not be used for subjects such as
basal reading, spelling, and grammar);
5. be reintroduced to the potential use of optical
aids for near and distant reading (stand magnifiers
for near-point viewing and telescopic lenses
for distance viewing). Distance viewing might
include reading the chalkboard, street signs, and
numbers on buses.
Writing--Charles should:
1. Receive instruction in typing during a min-j imum of three thirty-minute periods each week, j
A silent, portable, battery operated typewriter '¦ should be used for writing long assignments, and
taking notes in class. The portable typewriter
should be an LED display and a variable print
size output (i.e. Canon).
2. Use a unique style of writing composed of some manuscript and some cursive letters. The
style should be so developed as to allow him to
write clearly and require him to lift the pen point
from the page as little as possible.
3. Continue to receive instruction in penmanship
until he can consistently write short amounts
of information and read them back easily.
4. Receive computer keyboarding instruction as an extension of his typing lesson. As soon as
possible he should be operating a computer
equipped with a voice synthesizer.
5. Should be introduced to talking software and its appropriate academic applications.
6. Receive instruction in the use of the Braille slate and stylus after he can demonstrate third
grade competency on the Braille writer.
Orientation and Mobility
It is recommended that a complete evaluation
by a certified orientation and mobility instructor
be conducted in order to determine the current
needs Charles may have in this area.
Activities of Daily Living
The academic skills learned in the classroom
should be useful outside of the classroom. Such
academic skills should be useful in making
grocery lists, recording telephone numbers obtained
from information, reading bus schedules,
and reading recipes. Since Charles' focusing distance
is very close to the work surface, his tactile
abilities should be developed to help in performing
certain jobs such as adjusting gas flames,
manipulating range settings situated behind burners, cutting with a knife, pouring hot liquids,
etc. If Charles is trained to use his tactile sense in
performing certain tasks, he may function more
safely and/or effectively.
That is what Dr. Mangold found, and for anyone
who can read, the message is clear. Chaz needs
Braille. With this independent assessment in
hand, we awaited the IEP meeting, which was set
for November 15,1988. Unknown to us, both of
the county advocates were to be present, as well
as the usual array of professionals which we have
come to expect as standard stage props. Prior to
any IEP session, the school system is required to
send the parents a notice of meeting, which is to
include a complete list of those who are to attend.
Marjorie Raffel's name appeared on this list.
Ron Kaplan's did not. Mr. Gashel was to go with
us, and for this we were very grateful. We kept
telling ourselves that the battle had been won and
that Braille would be offered now that the independent
expert had agreed with us, but...
We should have known from past performance
that the county would not willingly see reason.
When we walked into the room we discovered
that Ron Kaplan was not only present but planning
to take an active part in the negotiations. As
a result, the atmosphere was very tense even
before we began talking. Mr. Kaplan opened the
meeting by stating, in a cold and hostile voice,
that they did not like the evaluation, but they
would work with it. Mr. Gashel then managed to
get consensus on beginning our negotiations by
working with the IEP framework we had devised
last year, based on the IEP's developed in the
Baltimore City schools and upon the evaluations
we have had since. At first we made slow and
grudging progress even though the "professionals"
were highly annoyed about using our
IEP outline. But the tone was bad. Mrs. Buchheister
made a number of snide and defensive
remarks to Mr. Gashel throughout the meeting.
Miss Davis, Chaz's classroom teacher this year,
has been wonderful with him. She has taken
extra time and has provided him with the kind of
flexible, sensitive guidance that is unfortunately
all too rare today. She would be an ideal teacher
to work with Chaz as he integrates Braille and
keyboard skills into his learning. But when we
began talking about the daily Braille assignments
that Dr. Mangold had recommended, she was
clearly uneasy. I tried to reassure her that you
don't have to be an expert to assist a child who is
working in Braille. The print text enables the teacher or parent to help sound out words and
follow instructions. But it was no good. It
seemed clear to me that Mrs. Buchheister had
succeeded in convincing Miss Davis that we and
Dr. Mangold had conspired to increase her
workload.
By this time we had reached an impasse. We insisted
that Chaz use Braille every day. The county
refused. They demanded that Mrs. Buchheister
decide when and how and if he would use
it. We were not prepared to let the experts
sabotage the Braille instruction which Chaz
needs and Dr. Mangold had recommended. The
county had no intention of abiding by either the
letter or the spirit of the assessment, so the meeting
fell apart.
We have now notified the State Board of Education
that we are unable to agree on an IEP for
Chaz. In January of 1989 (this is being written in
early December of 1988) the hearing that was
recessed August 25 will begin again where it left
off. That panel, chaired by Dr. Lohnes, will then
write an IEP that will be binding on both sides.
We hope for the best. The panel pinned great
hopes on the independent evaluation. Now that
it is so clear and so supportive of what we wish to
have happen for our son, perhaps one small boy
will have a chance to acquire the tools he needs
in order to make his full contribution to the
world.
It is hard to know what the impact of all this struggle
has been on Chaz. He is still an outgoing, active
boy, who is clearly bright. But his grades have
fallen this year, as we knew they would. He needs
the tools that are being withheld. We know what
he needs, and we have fought as hard as we can
to win the right for him to receive that instruction.
And still our son suffers.
I wonder sometimes about all the youngsters
who, like Chaz, are being denied this necessary
training and whose parents do not know what is
going wrong--and all in the name of professionalism,
a pseudo professionalism which cloaks
ignorance, shelters the inadequacy and laziness
of the teacher who has not learned Braille, and
promotes nothing but ego. The experts assure
lawmakers that a Braille bill is not necessary in
Maryland because every child who needs Braille
will get it. I have experienced to the marrow of
my bones the destructive effects of that lie.
Children who need Braille in Maryland and in
every other state are not getting it and will not get
it, I am afraid, unless their parents and the members
of the National Federation of the Blind fight
for their right to literacy and a decent education.
Is this so much to ask for our children? Is it unreasonable
to believe that one trusting, intelligent
ten-year- old blind child should be allowed
to have the tools and training that will give him
the opportunity to compete in the world, live a
normal life, and earn his own way? I don't think
so, and I don't think the members of the public
(once they are informed and understand) will
think so either.
POSTSCRIPT: The state of Maryland did rule
in favor of the Cheadles and ordered the Baltimore
County school district to teach Charles (Chaz)
Cheadle Braille. The details, including the IEP
written by the state review board, is in the article,
"Maryland Rules in Favor of Braille: Victory in the
Charles Cheadle Case" from the June 1989, Braille
Monitor. You may get a free copy of that issue in
print, Braille, cassette, or disc. Send your request
National Federation of the Blind, Attentic
Materials Center, 1800 Johnson Street, Baltimo
MD 21230. Please be sure to designate font
desired.
(contents) (next)