by Kenneth Jernigan
This article is reprinted from the August, 1987 Braille Monitor.
Before I came to Maryland in 1978, I had never had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Richard Welsh, the Superintendent of the Maryland School for the Blind. That deficiency in my social experience has now been remedied. On more than one occasion during the past nine years Dr. Welsh and I have occupied the same platform, sat in the same room at meetings, and shared with one another such wisdom as each of us possessed.
Last fall at the convention of the National Federation of the Blind of Maryland Dr. Welsh was a speaker. He did not come willingly or with good temper but only after a number of contacts had been made with members of his board to suggest that it was inappropriate for the superintendent of the state School for the Blind to refuse to attend. After all, the NFB of Maryland is the largest organization of blind people in the state, and the School has (or should have) a certain degree of accountability.
Dr. Welsh's segment of the agenda was not characterized by placidity. In fact, one might call it tempestuous. He said, among other things, that it might be a bad thing for a growing child to try to learn both print and Braille since it might slow both processes. I got the impression that he was saying that a child had a certain amount of reading capacity and that if you split it between print and Braille, you would probably come out with around fifty percent efficiency in each. It was certainly a novel theory, but novelty was about all that it had to recommend it.
When some of us pointed out to him that children sometimes learn two languages simultaneously and seem to have increased proficiency in each because of the experience of having learned the other, he only answered with emotion instead of logic. He seemed to feel that Braille was vastly inferior to print and that a child should, if possible, read print at all costs, even if Braille would be faster and more efficient. I got the definite impression that Dr. Welsh felt that print was "normal" and that Braille was subnormal.
He said that if a family really felt that their child should learn Braille, that this should be taken into consideration, but it was made very clear that the School would discourage it. He also made a great point of the fact that all children are different and that they should not be treated alike or fitted into a rigid mold. It sounds good, but what does it mean? To Dr. Welsh it meant that blind children should not be (as he put it) pressured or forced to learn Braille. We asked him whether sighted children should be put into a rigid mold and forced to learn print. He thought this was different. It is "normal" to read print.
In the circumstances it is not surprising that Dr. Welsh did not believe that teachers of blind children (even those who teach reading) should be required to have proficiency in Braille. We asked him whether a teacher of French should be required to know French. He thought this was not relevant. We asked him whether a teacher of math should be required to know math. He didn't think that was relevant either. Certain legislators who were present thought it was extremely relevant. Dr. Welsh was not happy. Federationists are trouble makers. They are militant, too.
Not surprisingly, a bill was introduced into the Maryland legislature early this year to require that Braille be made available to every blind and severely visually impaired child in the state. Also not surprisingly, the special education teachers and Dr. Welsh (some of the very people who certainly should and often don't know Braille) came out in force to oppose the bill. Dr. Welsh's performance was not only in poor taste but also possibly even worse than that. He brought small children and their parents to the legislature to talk about how terrible it would be if they were forced into the rigid mold. It was enough to make one cry, and a number of people did--some for one reason, and some for another. Temporarily Dr. Welsh got his way. For another year blind children in Maryland will not be "forced" to learn to read. They will avoid the evils of literacy. But the battle is only beginning.
Under date of April 15,1987, a letter from Mary Ellen Reihing, President of the Baltimore Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind of Maryland, appeared in the Baltimore SUN:
LITERACY CRISIS FOR THE BLIND
Editor: A whole generation of blind children in Maryland is in grave danger of becoming functionally illiterate. Special education teachers certified to teach blind children, both at the School for the Blind and in public school programs, are discouraging their students from learning Braille. Of the 120 children in academic programs at the Maryland School for the Blind, the school reports that only 33 are learning Braille.
Why? Poor teacher training programs account for part of the problem. It is possible to become certified to teach blind students in Maryland without being able to read Braille fluently. Volunteer Braille transcribers, who often do not have college degrees and are not accorded "professional" status, must demonstrate a knowledge of Braille to be certified which is greater than that required of a teacher of the visually impaired seeking a master's degree. Fall 1987 FUTURE REFLECTIONS
The root of the literacy crisis for blind children goes beyond the poor quality of teacher preparation. At its heart is the notion that the techniques used by blind people are inferior to those used by the sighted. It is "normal" to read print. It is "abnormal" to read Braille. Therefore, a blind child with residual vision, no matter how poor that vision may be, is taught to read print even when Braille would be more efficient.
Joe can see well out of the corner of his eye, but he can't focus on any detail work. He can't read the banner headlines in a newspaper. If he uses a closed circuit television system, he can read print so enlarged that four or five letters will fit on a twelve-inch television screen. Since he has not learned Braille, he has no way to read any of the notes he has written until he can return home to use his closed circuit television.
Jane was born with cataracts which were removed when she was a baby. She also had a condition that caused her eyes to jump uncontrollably. Focusing caused her pain, but she could read regular print very effectively--for about ten minutes. If she tried to read longer, tears rolled down her face, and she was unable to focus on anything at all for several hours. Her teachers told her she was being lazy when she said that she couldn't read any more. As she got older, and reading demands increased, she fell farther and farther behind. Jane became convinced that she was stupid and dropped out of high school. Jane has come to understand that her reading problems are visual, not mental. Even so her attitudes about reading are fixed. Though she could read books that have been recorded on tape, she structured her life to avoid books in any form.
Lynn read large print when she was a child. She had friends who were totally blind, and she wanted to learn Braille so she could write letters to them, but her teachers refused to help her learn it. In fact, they punished her for trying to read Braille because she wasn't "blind." Shortly after she graduated from high school, Lynn lost the rest of her vision. She had to quit her job as a secretary to learn Braille. Fortunately for Lynn, she was able to find another secretarial job after her training. If she had known Braille from the beginning, she would not have had to interrupt her career.
Expense has been given as a reason for denying literacy to blind children. No one is suggesting that regular classroom teachers become proficient in Braille. The only teachers who would be involved are the special education instructors who are already supposed to be fluent in Braille. The Library of Congress offers a free course to anyone who wants to learn Braille transcription. Those who talk about expense should think about the life-long cost of illiteracy and noncompetitive functioning for blind people.
Administrators say that many blind students at the Maryland School for the Blind see too well to need Braille. One is left to wonder what such students are doing in a specialized program for blind children if they really do not need any of the techniques of blindness. Perhaps the real problem is that those charged with the responsibility of teaching our blind children really do not believe that blindness is respectable. ~ Mary Ellen Reining, Baltimore.
Under date of April 25,1987, Dr. Welsh replied. He said that it was perfectly proper for blind children in Maryland not to know Braille since blind children in the rest of the country don't know it either. If only fifteen percent of the blind youngsters in the country can read Braille, Maryland's thirteen percent is only two percentage points worse. In other words illiteracy is all right if you can just prove that other people are almost as uneducated as you are. One has to wonder if Dr. Welsh really understands the implications of what he is saying.
He went on to say that some ninety five percent of the students at his school had other handicaps besides blindness, from which one was presumably meant to reason that it is all right to push a multiply handicapped child toward reading print but not all right to push him or her toward reading Braille. Besides, the argument about multiple handicaps is always trotted out by anybody and everybody with a weak case--the sheltered workshops, which don't want to pay decent wages; the airlines, which don't want to let blind persons sit in exit rows; the schools, which don't want to teach Braille.
Next Dr. Welsh said that current state and federal laws require that the program for a handicapped child's education must be based on an assessment of that particular child's individual needs and abilities. He jumped from this to the conclusion that blind children need not be taught Braille. He then threw in a few words about his rigid mold and topped it off with some comments about how bad it was that the schools of twenty years ago taught visually impaired students under blindfold. Twenty years ago is always bad. Blindfolds are bad. By implication, Braille is bad.
In the rest of his letter Dr. Welsh talks about the damage which was done to the blind children of a generation ago who were forced to learn Braille. I know a great many of those people, and my observation contradicts Dr. Welsh's theories. I believe the people to whom he refers were neither educationally nor psychologically damaged by being taught Braille. Toward the end of his letter Dr. Welsh says: "Respect for blind people begins with the recognition that each blind person is an individual, and each should be treated as such."
"Bravo!" one cries. But what does this have to do with learning to read? I favor the flag and the Bill of Rights. Does this mean that sighted children should not be taught to read print? I have always thought that freedom and literacy went hand in hand, that liberty and education were almost synonymous. Apparently Dr. Welsh thinks otherwise. But let him speak for himself. Here is his letter:
BRAILLE ISN'T FOR ALL SIGHT-IMPAIRED KIDS
Editor: On April 15 you published a letter from Mary Ellen Reihing, President of the local chapter of the National Federation of the Blind, which pointed out that most visually impaired students in Maryland do not use Braille. The writer concluded that the reasons for this are that teachers are poorly trained, that it is too expensive to teach Braille and that administrators do not believe that blindness is "respectable"; therefore, the techniques used by blind people are considered to be inferior, and are not taught.
The 1986 report of the American Printing House for the Blind indicates that only fifteen percent of all visually impaired children in the United States use Braille. This is very close to the thirteen percent of the students at the Maryland School for the Blind who use Braille. But the reasons for these facts are very different than those suggested by Ms. Reihing.
First, ninety-five percent of the children who attend the Maryland School for the Blind have additional handicaps to their visual impairment. Forty percent have severe and profound developmental disabilities which make them incapable of reading, regardless of the medium they are using. Many have orthopedic or neurological impairments which make it impossible to read Braille. Most have some degree of usable vision which they can use efficiently to read print.
We have many teachers who are proficient in reading and teaching Braille, and we capably provide this instruction when it is needed. We also teach other special techniques and adaptations which are used by blind people, not only for academic learning but also for independent mobility, vocational training, daily living skills and leisure activities.
Current state and federal laws require the educational program provided each handicapped child to be based on an assessment of that child's needs and abilities and to be approved by the child's parents. This is an improvement over past educational practices, which were influenced by general theories about what was best for all children in a particular category, regardless of the needs of the individual child. Fortunately, most schools do not operate that way anymore.
Thirty years ago, it was the general belief that all visually impaired children should learn Braille, whether they needed it or not. Children who had enough vision to learn to read print were blindfolded and forced to read Braille with their fingers.
The vast majority of these children never used Braille again in any functional way, and many had to teach themselves how to read print after they left school. It is the position of the Maryland School for the Blind and most educators that, in general, if a child has the cognitive ability required for reading and is able to recognize print symbols, then strong consideration is given to print as the reading medium for that child. Print is the more common communication system used in the community, and more information is available in print than in any other medium.
If a child is unable to use print as an efficient reading medium then Braille, along with auditory and/or multiple media, is considered as a possible reading and learning mode. In some cases, a child whose primary medium is either print or Braille may also be taught to read in one or more of the other media, when that child's visual prognosis or personal interest suggests that learning to read in multiple media may be of value. This is particularly true when the child is clearly going to lose all useful vision.
During each of the last two legislative sessions, the National Federation of the Blind has requested that legislation be introduced which would change state law to reflect their philosophy on the use of Braille. Both times, the responses of visually impaired students and their parents, blind adults and educators who are trained in this specialty have led to the defeat of this proposed legislation.
We cannot return to the practice of treating all people in a given category as if they are the same. We do not educate children without handicaps in this matter, and we should not allow it for handicapped children. Respect for blind people begins with the recognition that each blind person is an individual, and each should be treated as such. --Richard L. Welsh, Baltimore.
As one reads Dr. Welsh's letter, various emotions compete for ascendancy. Perhaps the only appropriate response is a piece of doggeral:
A kiss is dry without a squeeze;
So is a rarebit without some cheese.