The Sheila Johnson Case

The Sheila Johnson Case

[PHOTO/CAPTION: Mary Willows]

[PHOTO/CAPTION: Sheila Johnson]

The Sheila Johnson Case:

University Prevented from Pulling a Fast One

by Mary Willows

From the President: There are those who tell me

that discrimination against the blind is a thing of the past. The laws are too strong, and

public sentiment is too great to permit such unreasonable behavior, they say. Blindness

may have been the basis for unjust actions in former times, but those who speak of the

need for equal treatment today are making a mountain out of a molehill. Such notions I

have sometimes heard, but the individuals who say these things are often seeking a salve

for their consciences rather than speaking the truth.

There are literally hundreds (perhaps thousands)

of blind teachers in the United States. These teachers work in elementary classrooms, in

high schools, and in the halls of higher education. Nevertheless, discrimination sometimes

still exists. Consider the following account by Mary Willows, President of the National

Association of Blind Educators. Here is what she says:

I am sharing this information with all of you

because it is still another example of "Why the NFB?" Sheila Johnson was a

National Scholarship winner in Anaheim in 1996. She entered the bilingual Education

Credential Program in the fall of 1997. This is supposed to be a two-semester program. She

was scheduled to complete the requirements for her credential in May of 1998. The

credential she sought would qualify her to teach in a bilingual classroom. Teachers with

these qualifications are in great demand in the San Diego area.

I will leave out the gory details of the numerous

unanswered e-mail messages Sheila endured before she finally turned to the NFB for help.

At the end of her first semester (December, 1997)

Sheila was told in a conversation with her university supervisor that she had made

satisfactory progress and would be getting credit for her first semester of student

teaching. However, when she called the grade line the following week, she discovered that

she had been given a grade of no credit for her student teaching experience. A series of

phone calls and e-mail messages ensued. She never received a satisfactory answer as to why

she did not get credit for class number 961.

In the meantime she was allowed to begin her

second semester of student teaching, class number 962. She worked throughout February and

March. San Diego State does not hold classes in April, so she resumed student teaching in

May. At her final meeting with her master teacher and university supervisor in mid-May,

she was informed that she would have to complete an additional eight weeks of teaching. So

she continued student teaching with yet another unqualified mentor teacher. By the way,

throughout her student teaching Sheila was placed in classrooms with teachers who had said

that they would be willing to work with her. However, these teachers were not veterans and

would not normally have been asked to mentor a student teacher. In fact, one of them was

just a first-year teacher. Also one of the goals of student teaching is to expose the

student to various grade levels. But for some reason Sheila was placed with third-grade

teachers only.

She completed her assigned placement on July 21,

1998. In addition, she was told that she would have to register for the fall, 1998,

semester course 961, even though she would not be attending any classes or doing any

student teaching. Her university supervisor (the placement coordinator) had not instructed

her to register for summer extension courses; therefore, she could not receive credit

until the fall. At this point she called me to request my help in straightening out this

mess.

In May she was told to submit her credential

application and $75 fee to the credentials office, which she did. A credential application

is normally held at the university credentials office until completion of course

requirements can be verified. But in Sheila's case—she was informed—verification

of completion could not be made until at least December, 1998, and probably January, 1999.

A credential application is good for only six months, which meant, of course, that in

October, 1998, (six months after her original payment) Sheila's credential application and

fees would become null and void. She would have to start the application process all over

again. The student is held responsible for any new laws, tests, or required courses which

may be added to credential requirements during the six-month period. As it happens, a new

Reading Instruction and Curriculum Assessment test requirement has in fact been added,

beginning in October of 1998.

On Monday, August 3, 1998, I flew to San Diego to

see what I could do to assist Sheila to clear up this mess and make her job-ready by

September, which is when the teaching jobs open. I worked with Colonel David Staley of our

North San Diego County Chapter as my reader. Sybil Irvin, also of North County, came to

observe this advocacy process.

I would like to stop here and say that, although

I had asked Sheila to go to the office and read through her file, it really does take a

trained person to know what to look for. Thanks to the advice of Allen Harris prior to my

trip to San Diego and my training in the NFB, I caught glaring paperwork errors and file

omissions. There was evidence that white-out had been used on her first semester

grade—the white-out credit grade had been replaced with the no-credit grade. Her

first semester university supervisor documented that, in her opinion, Sheila had made

satisfactory progress. However, if the placement coordinator would like her to edit,

subtract, add, or change the report, he should let her know. All of Sheila's February and

March observation evaluations had been removed from her file. Fortunately, Sheila had kept

copies of these observation evaluations, complete with dates.

The May through July observation evaluations were

numbered one through eight, with the mid-term evaluation at the beginning of June. The

final evaluation was dated in July, which made it appear as though Sheila's

second-semester student teaching had taken place from May through July, when actually it

had taken place in February, March, and the beginning of May. There was a handwritten note

dated July 22, which said that she had completed the work but must register for the fall,

1998, semester in order to get credit. This was the only way the university supervisor

would get his $250 fee for supervising her.

In an appointment with the chairman of the

department I laid out all the evidence I have presented here. Initially he did not want to

take any action. I told him that on behalf of Sheila I was requesting that she be granted

a grade change for the fall, 1997, student-teaching class, 961. This would give her credit

for all the work she had done; free up her credential application to be sent to Sacramento

for processing; and enable her to begin applying for jobs immediately.

Finally he agreed to a grade change. I told him

that I wanted something in writing before we left. He squirmed again, so I kept bringing

out more papers that he certainly would not want to have to explain in a grievance

hearing. The problem was resolved before the grievance process was discussed. He agreed

and went off to get the grade-change form. I offered to wait and deliver it. So we

hand-carried the paper to the credentials office and picked up the paperwork from the

university saying that Sheila's credential application was in process.

Blind students everywhere need to learn and

remember how crucial it is to read every word on important documents. Do not assume

anything without reading it. Keep copies of everything, and make sure that your records

match those of the university. I hope Sheila's experience will teach others to minimize

the chances of having an experience like hers. I am confident that she at least will be

more assertive in future if she notices that policies are being altered to her detriment.