I found this article in the June, 1996 issue of the Braille Monitor, published by the National Federation of the Blind. You can view the entire issue by going to http://www.nfb.org/bm/bm96/brlm9606.htm. THE CASE FOR BRAILLE From the Editor: The following statement was presented by the National Federation of the Blind in late fall of 1995, to the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth, and Families of the House Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities. The draft language of the House version of the revised Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is more constructive than that of the Senate bill, S. 1578, which has now been reported out of committee and will go to the Senate floor for consideration during the next several months. The Senate bill no longer contains language to require an IEP team to follow certain procedures, such as considering a blind child's need for Braille instruction or materials. In other words, the Senate bill would leave the present law, which is silent on Braille, silent. The House draft still contains strong language, including the requirement that Braille instruction and the use of Braille must be part of a blind child's IEP unless all members of the IEP team concur that Braille is not needed. Although this provision is very strong in its present form, a definition of "blindness" has not been included. This could mean that the provision on Braille, now in the House bill, would apply to very few children, especially if school districts are free to define blindness very restrictively, which is something they may choose to do. We will be working in the weeks and months ahead to correct the problems with both versions of this legislation. Meanwhile, everyone with an interest in improving the lives of blind children should continue educating members of the House and Senate about the importance of including provisions in IDEA that will insure the right to learn Braille to children who cannot see well enough to read print effectively. Here is the NFB statement: Statement of the National Federation of the Blind Re: Basic Literacy Instruction for Blind Children: A Compelling Educational Need It is the policy of our nation as stated in the National Education Goals that by the year 2000 "Every adult American will be literate and will possess the knowledge and skills necessary to compete in a global economy and exercise the rights and responsibilities of citizenship." In order for blind adults to achieve this goal, literacy instruction must be strengthened for children. The trend is shocking. Nearly half of all blind elementary- and secondary-level students can read neither Braille nor print. The percentage of those who can read at all is declining. This statement will discuss the underlying factors which have led to these conditions and describe a proposal for remedial federal legislation. The Problem Basic literacy skills are fundamental to an appropriate education. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) declares that a "free appropriate public education" must be provided to children with disabilities. Impaired vision can have a profound impact on reading and writing performance. Therefore, the selection of instructional methods and materials--Braille, print, auditory instruction, or a combination thereof--to be used for each child is a critical educational decision. The process used to develop an Individualized Education Program (IEP) for each child should lead to appropriate choices of reading and writing media, but entirely too many children who are blind or visually impaired receive inadequate instruction with the result that they become functionally illiterate. In the information age it is obvious that reading and writing skills must be highly developed for almost anyone to lead an independent, self-fulfilling life. Participation in the social mainstream is becoming virtually impossible without basic literacy skills. Successful communication using print can be correlated to having normal or nearly normal eyesight and the ability to process information. With print as their sole alternative, persons with defective vision often find themselves struggling just to keep up with fellow students or colleagues whose vision is unimpaired. Still, among educators who teach blind and visually impaired children, use of print as the instructional format is decidedly favored. Special educators who are trained to serve children who are blind are officially referred to as "instructors in vision" or "vision teachers." This professional designation reflects an educational philosophy which is then expressed as a planned instructional approach. The philosophy is that use of eyesight is the customary way by which people receive and process information. Therefore, use of the visual sense for learning is preferred. If a child who is blind still has some sight, it is predictable to a virtual certainty that the child must first demonstrate an inability to achieve progress in school before use of non-print media occurs. As a result of this philosophy the individualized planning process used under IDEA leads to adopting print (requiring use of eyesight) as the preferred form of instruction for blind students. Data collected by the American Printing House for the Blind in Louisville, Kentucky, show that in 1968--the first year for which figures are available--9 percent of the blind students in elementary and secondary schools in the U. S. did not have reading or writing skills. They used neither print nor Braille. Students classified as "blind" are generally those whose vision is less than 10 percent of normal eyesight. During 1968 40 percent read Braille and 45 percent read large type or regular print. Four percent read both. There were 19,902 blind students enrolled in elementary and secondary schools in 1968. In January, 1993--twenty-five years later--there were 50,204 blind students enrolled. Fewer than 9 percent read Braille, 27 percent read print, and 40 percent read neither. These figures reveal the shocking magnitude of the literacy crisis among blind youth. The tragedy is that lives can be wasted unless intervention and literacy skills training occur at some point for those who are not being taught to read and write in school. Their recourse is to receive training from vocational rehabilitation or to face lives of dependency, subsisting at public expense. In preparing for and seeking employment, blind people face some obvious physical restrictions in performing work (such as unskilled labor) which may be available to others who are not literate. This is why the ability to read and write using the alternative skills of blindness such as Braille is absolutely critical for today's blind youth. Current Efforts It would be misleading and certainly inaccurate to attribute the literacy crisis for blind people solely to the mandate in IDEA for school placements in the "least restrictive alternative." The underlying causes are far more complex and must be addressed by professionals in special education, parents, and blind students themselves. Recognizing this fact, leaders in the field of blindness services have begun to respond to this acknowledged literacy crisis. Projects to improve Braille literacy skills training for blind adults have been funded in recent years by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research and the Rehabilitation Services Administration in the United States Department of Education. State laws are also beginning to echo the concern that blind people in growing numbers are graduating from school without the ability to read and write. Bills, generally entitled the "Blind Persons' Literacy Rights and Education Act," have now been passed in essentially the same form in 26 states. [By the time of publication this number had risen to twenty-seven. (See Bennett Prows's article elsewhere in this issue.)] These state laws generally require that each blind student must receive a Braille literacy skills assessment and instructional services using Braille unless all members of the IEP team concur that the student's visual impairment does not affect the ability to read and write proficiently. The proficiency standard stated in the law for blind students is the same as that expected for a sighted student of comparable ability and grade level. There is a presumption stated in the law that using Braille is necessary for a blind student to communicate at the expected level of proficiency. Essential Principles The principles listed below have been unanimously agreed to by all of the major organizations both of and for the blind in the United States: (1) If a child is unable to read print by reason of total blindness or visual impairment and if literacy skills are to be taught, the child should be taught to read and write Braille by a certified teacher competent to teach Braille literacy skills to the blind, unless by reason of multiple disabilities it is impossible for the child to read Braille.(2) If a child has a visual impairment and if literacy skills are to be taught, the child should, if the parent or parents want this to be done, be taught to read and write Braille by a certified teacher competent to teach Braille literacy skills to the blind. If a dispute arises between the parent(s) and the local educational agency regarding appropriate reading media, both print and Braille shall be taught. (3) No teacher should be considered competent to teach Braille literacy skills to the blind unless such teacher has passed the Braille competency test developed by the National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped of the Library of Congress. The passing of the Braille competency test should not be considered a substitute for or an alternative to regular training and certification of a teacher but should be in addition to such training and certification. Need for Federal Legislation Individualized planning for instruction is one of the fundamental principles of IDEA. That principle is sound. Each disability is unique, and individuals are often uniquely affected by essentially the same disability. Therefore, the IEP process is appropriately designed to create an individually tailored response to each child's disability-related needs. Because the policy of individualized planning is sound philosophically, it is ironic that it has contributed to diminishing opportunities for blind students with some vision to learn to read and write in Braille. However, there is no question that this has happened. Those who have opposed state-level Braille literacy laws have often argued that a legislatively expressed preference for virtually any form of instruction would violate IDEA. The response is that the state laws very carefully preserve individualized planning as the starting point for each child, while acknowledging the likelihood that the child who is blind has a high probability of needing Braille. Those who say that a preference for Braille violates IDEA claim that the choice of reading and writing media for a child must be governed solely by the IEP. This position has never been tested in the courts, but it raises an ominous warning that state laws in and of themselves may be insufficient to make Braille instruction and the availability of Braille materials priority considerations for schools. As a matter of practical reality (although such an interpretation would probably lack legal soundness), an interpretation that the state Braille literacy laws conflict with IDEA can be envisioned and would certainly threaten the small amount of progress that has been made. It is clear that using IDEA as a roadblock to literacy for blind children is undesirable and definitely not consistent with the purpose of the law. This is precisely what is happening, however, when state policy makers and legislators are told that an expressed preference for Braille for blind students would place the state in jeopardy of losing Federal assistance. Therefore, a Federal solution in the form of amendments proposed for IDEA should be considered. The legislation must preserve IDEA's individualized planning process and ensure that such planning acknowledges an express right for each blind child to receive instruction in Braille without first being required to fail at reading and writing print. Proposed Amendment Legislation to amend and reauthorize the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is now under active review in the first session of the 104th Congress. Bills have been developed by both the Clinton Administration and the responsible subcommittees in the House and Senate. While the bills are sharply divergent in certain respects, they are essentially identical in regard to proposing new provisions for the IEP process. As compared to current law, the bills under review generally provide more precise direction on the process for developing the IEP. While the makeup of the IEP team would be consistent with current regulations, certain considerations which must be made by the team are brand new. One of these is the provision concerning the IEP for a child who is blind, to wit: "In the case of a child who is blind or visually impaired, consider whether the child needs instruction in Braille or in the use of Braille." If this language is adopted as currently proposed, the IEP team would be fulfilling its responsibilities for the blind child merely by considering the child's need for Braille instruction. As a standard the obligation of "consideration" is clearly minimal. Even worse, it could actually become harmful. The state laws which have been enacted to promote Braille literacy training for children have already been described. All of these laws have standards for the IEP process which go far beyond the mere "consideration" of the blind child's need for Braille. Generally the laws state a "presumption" that Braille skills will be needed for the blind child to read and write at grade level. Exclusion of Braille from the IEP is permitted in individual cases if all members of the team concur that the child's visual impairment does not restrict reading and writing performance at grade level. Also the child's future literacy needs must be evaluated by the team. In response to the "consideration" standard, organizations representing blind consumers and service providers have jointly developed a substitute provision. The language (attached) would specify that Braille skills training will be made available to all blind and visually impaired children. Consistent with both the state Braille literacy laws and the individualized planning principles of IDEA, Braille instruction would not be provided to a given blind child if all members of the IEP team concur that it is not needed. Once again, the child's future literacy needs must also be evaluated in making decisions about Braille training. In contrast to the draft bill language on "considering the blind child's need for Braille," the substitute language would better support and complement the state-level efforts now underway to address the literacy crisis among blind youth of school age. Most important of all, the substitute language would not overturn the existing state laws and would actually do a great deal to strengthen them. IDEA: Proposed Amendment on Braille Literacy Section 614. (d) INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PROGRAMS.-- (3) In developing an IEP, the IEP team shall-- ..... (E) in the case of a child who is blind or visually impaired, as defined in clause (ii) of this subsection-- (i) provide for instruction in Braille and the use of Braille unless all members of the IEP team concur that, after an evaluation of the child's reading and writing skills, needs, and appropriate reading and writing media (including an evaluation of the child's future needs for instruction in Braille and the use of Braille), instruction in Braille or the use of Braille is not appropriate for the child. (ii) For purposes of this subparagraph, the terms "blind" and "visually impaired" mean-- (I) visual acuity of 20/200 or less in the better eye with the use of a correcting lens or a limited field of vision so that the widest diameter of the visual field subtends an angle no greater than 20 degrees; (II) a medically indicated expectation of visual deterioration; or (III) a functional limitation resulting from a medically diagnosed visual impairment which restricts the child's ability to read and write standard print at levels expected of other children of comparable ability and grade level. Note: This legislative language was developed jointly by the American Council of the Blind, the American Foundation for the Blind, and the National Federation of the Blind. Though the Association for Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired (AER) chose not to participate in this exercise, its leaders have agreed not to oppose the three organizations' efforts to get the language incorporated into IDEA. [PHOTO: A young woman is standing at a table in the convention exhibit hall examining a Braille 'n Speak. CAPTION: Shannon Ramsey]