PRESIDENT MAURER TESTIFIES FOR A NATIONAL BRAILLE BILL

PRESIDENT MAURER TESTIFIES FOR A NATIONAL BRAILLE BILL

The Braille Monitor

June, 1989

(back)

(next) (contents)

PRESIDENT MAURER TESTIFIES

FOR A

NATIONAL BRAILLE BILL

On March 7, 1989, a hearing was conducted

before the Select Education Committee of the house

Committee on Education and Labor. Congressman Major L. Owens, Chairman

of the Select Education Subcommittee, invited President Maurer to appear

and give testimony on important questions dealing with the education of blind

children. The response of the Committee to Federation testimony was

enthusiastic. Here is what President

Maurer said:

Mr. Chairman, I am

Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind. Thank you for

giving me the opportunity to participate in this hearing today.

The subject matter

of concern is the amendment and extension of certain authorities in the Education

of the Handicapped Act. The National Federation of the Blind has a deep and

growing interest in legislation in this area. We are an organization of over

50,000 blind people from throughout the United States. We have a state affiliate

in each of the states and a local chapter in most sizable population areas.

All of our elected leaders and the vast majority of our members are blind.

The National Federation of the Blind is the blind speaking for themselves.

Because of the problems

in achieving a decent education for blind children, a growing number of blind

youngsters and their parents have become members of the Federation. In fact,

we have an extremely active Parents of Blind Children Division. We also publish

a magazine, called Future Reflections, which is distributed quarterly

to parents and educators of blind children by our organization. Future Reflections

reaches more homes where blind children live than any other publication

which focuses on education for blind youth. One of the benefits of participating

in the Federation is that blind youngsters have many in-depth contacts with

successful blind men and women who serve as role models.

The evidence we have

gathered points to a trend which is not at all comforting. The school systems

are often not using the resources of special education to give blind students

the tools and techniques (such as Braille) which they need to function on a

par with their sighted peers. If blind children are denied the alternative

techniques which they need in order to learn and compete in the classrooms

on terms of equality, the purpose of the law is not served, because blind students

are not getting an education. There is more to education, Mr. Chairman, than

physical proximity. Sometimes blind students are being taught in the same classroom

with sighted students, but the blind students are being forced to try to function

with visual techniques that do not work for them. This is not integration.

It is poor education, and it is second-class treatment. The sad truth is that

practices which deny blind students the tools of learning are commonplace in

America's public schools today.

There are those who

may believe that these comments are unfounded generalities, but the facts support

what I am saying. When blind students are not taught to read and write Braille

(a skill which is basic to literacy for the blind), they are denied the same

level of educational quality that the schools offer to the sighted. This happens

every day in our schools. According to some educators, a blind child is prohibited

from using Braille and forced to use print even when it is demonstrated that

Braille is more efficient. Those students who struggle to read print with severely

limited vision are seriously harhpered in their ability to function effectively.

Often, when we raise the question of teaching Braille, the excuse presented

by the teachers and the school systems is that they are simply complying with

the federal law to educate the blind student in the "least restrictive

environment." They say that it is "normal" to read and write

print, and that all children who can do so must use that method —whether

the student likes it or not, whether the parents like it or not, and whether

it is efficient or not. They say that Braille used by the blind child in the

classroom makes him or her different. Only when a child has no other option

(as in the case of the totally blind) will Braille be considered as a special

education service. This is a fair expression of the position most commonly

taken by many professional educators in their application of the "least

restrictive environment" concept.

Because many people

fear that they would not be able to perform effectively if they became blind,

they are afraid of the techniques used by the blind, and they think of these

techniques as inferior. However, this attitude is not reasonable, and it is

unfair to classify blind students as second-class or second-rate.

We ask that the language

of Public Law 94-142 be changed to encourage education of blind children with

the special tools and techniques these students need to function effectively.

We ask that the "least restrictive environments concept be altered so

that it cannot be interpreted to force blind children to use print when Braille

would work better. It is, perhaps, a commentary on the educational system that

we are discussing not the level of achievement of students who have matriculated,

but the tools they have been permitted to use. There was a time when books

were burned and certain scientific theories were prohibited by law. Although

it is astonishing that this is so, if the books are in Braille, they are often

still being banned.

Shall prejudice prohibit

education? We think the answer is simple and obvious. We are prepared to work

with you, Mr. Chairman, to draft the language to assist in bringing greater

educational opportunities to the blind.

(back)

(next) (contents)