                     LITERACY: THE KEY TO OPPORTUNITY 
                            by Fred Schroeder 

On February 3, 1989, Fred Schroeder (member of the Board of Directors 
of the National Federation of the Blind, Director of the New Mexico 
Commission for the Blind, and authority on the education of blind 
children) addressed the Josephine Taylor Leadership Seminar, sponsored 
by the American Foundation for the Blind. The seminar was held in 
Atlanta, Georgia. Mr. Schroeder's remarks were insightful and very 
much to the point, so we have decided to print his entire text. Here 
it is: 
 
In today's information age there can be no question that literacy
represents the primary tool by which individuals compete. Literacy unlike
other skills is not an end in itself, but rather the means to a virtually
unlimited variety of ends. It is the very key to prosperity since literacy
opens the way to information by tearing down barriers of myth and
ignorance. 

Blind people have come to value Braille, recognizing its role as the 
primary means to literacy for the blind. Dr. Abraham Nemeth has described 
Braille as having "liberated a whole class of people from a condition 
of illiteracy and dependency and given them the means for self-fulfillment 
and enrichment." Nevertheless, large numbers of blind people do 
not know Braille and, therefore, find themselves in a state of functional 
illiteracy. As a result, blind people have lacked many of the fundamental 
opportunities which enable them to become self-supporting, contributing 
members of society. 

It is estimated that seventy percent of working-age blind people are 
unemployed. Those who are employed are frequently under-employed or 
trapped in entry level jobs. While it would not be fair to say that 
the staggeringly high unemployment rate among the blind is due solely 
to lack of Braille literacy, Dr. Nemeth observes that, "Braille 
makes it possible for a blind person to assume a role of equality 
in modern society, and it can unlock the potential within him to become 
a contributing member of his community on a par with his sighted fellows." 

Many professionals have sought to explain away the low level of Braille 
literacy through claims that Braille is too complicated and difficult 
to learn, too bulky and costly to produce, and made obsolete by tapes 
and speech technology. In addition, they argue that many of today's 
blind children are multi-handicapped and therefore cannot be expected 
to master Braille reading. Finally, modern pedagogy has asserted that 
many blind people, given appropriate low vision aids, can become competent 
print readers, thereby rendering Braille unnecessary. 

Yet, alternatives to Braille frequently come with problems of their 
own. Tapes, while helpful for reading large quantities of text, do 
nothing to enhance spelling or teach a child about punctuation or 
format. Similarly, while tapes may be relatively compact and inexpensive, 
it is difficult to skim a tape or turn readily to a specific section 
of the text. In terms of writing, unlike tapes, Braille allows the 
individual a portable means of making notes, keeping name and address 
files, making grocery lists, keeping recipes, and so on. This is not 
to say that tapes have no place. My point is simply that their role 
is not to replace Braille. Other alternatives, such as low vision 
aids, often reduce reading speed and comprehension by virtue of diminishing
the amount of material that can be seen at one time. Still other low 
vision aids (the closed circuit television, for example) are certainly
large and cumbersome. Nevertheless, as with the use of tapes, low 
vision aids have an important function, provided that their use is 
kept in perspective. Braille, tapes, low vision aids, and speech technology
comprise a cadre of techniques which, when applied correctly, enables 
the blind person to function on terms of real equality.  

The small number of blind people using Braille is a problem receiving 
increasingly sharp attention from the National Federation of the Blind. 
We believe that, given proper training and opportunity, blind people 
can compete on terms of equality with the sighted. Central to this 
conviction is the understanding that true equality is a product of 
having the skills necessary to compete and the confidence to put those 
skills into practice. It is our conviction that, while blind people 
need training, training alone is not sufficient. For it to be effective, 
the blind person must believe that it is respectable to be blind and 
that he or she possesses the capacity to compete on an equal footing 
with his or her sighted peers. As with many other issues facing the 
blind in education and rehabilitation, blind people and professionals 
often have strikingly different views concerning the cause of this 
problem. 

The profession tends to view problems from the perspective of the 
technocrat. Declining Braille literacy indicates a flaw in the code, 
a problem of cost, or proof that Braille is antiquated. Similarly, 
the profession may acknowledge a lack of skilled personnel, summing 
up the Braille literacy problem as merely a training issue. Given 
this orientation, the solutions proposed by the profession are predictable-
-provide more money for teacher preparation, simplify the Braille code, or 
replace Braille with low vision aids or speech technology. 

The blind, however, believe that the real cause of Braille illiteracy 
is rooted in societal beliefs and misconceptions about blindness. 
What professionals believe about blindness has direct bearing on both 
their methodology and their expectations. As a result, if a teacher 
does not believe that a blind child can truly compete on terms of 
equality, the teacher will settle for and even praise inferior performance.

The teacher's conception of blindness becomes the yardstick by which 
performance is measured. Professional judgments become clouded and 
are ultimately shaped by age- old myths and misconceptions about the 
abilities of the blind. Dr. Kenneth Jernigan, Executive Director of 
the National Federation of the Blind, observed that "Many of the 
very people who administer and work in the governmental and private 
agencies established to provide services to the blind have all of 
the misconceptions and false notions about blindness possessed by 
the public at large." If a teacher harbors negative attitudes 
about blindness, then he or she may wish to avoid dealing directly 
with blindness and, therefore, avoid the teaching of Braille. As a 
result, parents and educators find themselves increasingly at odds 
over the question of which children should be taught to read print 
and which should be taught to read Braille. 

A case in point concerns a young blind child who possesses a fair 
quantity of residual vision. When this child began kindergarten the 
school he was attending felt that his vision was not adequate for 
all of his reading needs and, therefore, began the process of teaching 
the child to read Braille. In the first grade his family moved to 
another state. Being convinced of the importance of Braille they sought 
Braille instruction from the new school district in which their child 
was enrolled. The new district agreed and continued Braille instruction
throughout first, second, and third grade. Beginning in fourth grade the
family again moved, enrolling their child in yet another school district.
This one conducted its own educational assessment and determined that
Braille instruction was not needed. 

If the story were to end here, it could be written off as nothing 
more than a lack of precision in generally accepted assessment criteria. 
However, the story does not end here. The district in question not 
only refused to teach Braille, but launched a vicious attack against 
the parents, accusing them of treating their child as if he were blind, 
thereby causing him significant emotional and educational damage. 
The district asserted that a child could not be taught to learn both 
print and Braille. To do so (they alleged) would result in the child's 
functioning poorly in both reading media. When the parents pointed 
out that their son would never be a fully competent print reader because 
of his impaired vision, the district argued that they were wrong, 
pointing to the fact that their son was reading print at grade level--at 
least for short periods of time. 

This shows the first in a long series of ensuing contradictions. If 
the child was reading at grade level in the fourth grade and yet had 
received both print and Braille instruction from kindergarten through 
third grade, then what evidence is there to show that simultaneous 
instruction in print and Braille will reduce efficiency in both? 
The parents, concerned for their son's future, sought three independent 
evaluations by qualified professionals to determine whether their 
son should, in fact, receive instruction in Braille reading and writing. 
I conducted one of the evaluations in November of 1987. I hold a master's 
degree in the education of blind children from San Francisco State 
University and have worked as a teacher of blind children and as a 
special education administrator responsible for programs for blind 
children in the Albuquerque Public Schools. The other two evaluators 
were similarly qualified, experienced teachers of blind children. 
Although each of the evaluations was done independently, all three 
of us agreed that this child should be instructed in Braille. 
The basis of our findings was not a wild-eyed fanaticism that all 
children, regardless of degree of visual functioning, should be taught 
Braille. Instead, our conclusions were based on experience and direct 
observation of the child's visual functioning. For my own part I considered
such factors as the child's suffering eye fatigue after a period of 
only 20 to 30 minutes of reading. In addition, the child had great 
difficulty copying material and was virtually unable to read back 
his own handwriting. He was unable to read small print such as a
conventional dictionary and was not helped by low vision aids. Large print
was not beneficial since this child's eye condition includes a field
restriction. 

Large print simply reduced the number of words or letters he could 
see at a time, reducing his reading efficiency. Again, because of 
his particular eye condition, glare was a problem making him highly 
dependent on particular lighting conditions. In short, I concluded 
that this child needed Braille both as a reading and writing system. 
Armed with three independent evaluations and a renewed conviction 
that their child needed Braille, the parents again approached the 
district. Nevertheless, the district persisted in its refusal to teach 
Braille, resulting in the matter's being brought to a hearing. The 
hearing officer, appointed by the district, concluded that the district 
was correct in refusing to teach the child Braille. In spite of the 
fact that the child had received Braille instruction for four years and in
spite of the fact that three qualified evaluators had independently 
arrived at a recommendation for Braille instruction, the hearing officer 
brushed the evidence aside and concluded that the district was correct 
in refusing Braille instruction. To add insult to injury, the hearing 
officer dismissed my evaluation by saying that since I knew the parents 
through my affiliation with the National Federation of the Blind, 
my report contained the "smell of doubt," thereby discounting 
its validity. 

At this point, fourth grade had drawn to a close. The child had lost 
an entire year of critical instruction. Last August, in a final attempt 
to secure Braille instruction, the parents arranged for a hearing 
before a panel representing the State Board of Education. At that 
hearing the parents presented all of the relevant documentation, including 
the three independent evaluations which they had secured. The district, 
presumably operating on the "smell of doubt" principle, stated 
that the evaluations were not independent. In particular they discounted 
my evaluation as being suspect because of my affiliation with the 
National Federation of the Blind. The district's representative stated 
that the National Federation of the Blind believed that any visually 
impaired child regardless of circumstance should automatically receive 
Braille instruction. 

The district asserted that it had alternatively proposed its own impartial 
evaluation which the parents had refused. It came out that the district 
had given the parents a list of names prepared by the district and 
had offered to allow the parents to select any name they chose from 
the list. As could be anticipated, the parents questioned whether 
this process would truly yield an independent, impartial evaluation. 
It was finally agreed that the parents and the county would jointly 
select an individual to conduct the evaluation. The individual selected 
was perhaps the most renowned expert in Braille instruction in the 
United States. The parents hoped that by employing a professional 
of her caliber the question of Braille instruction could be settled 
once and for all. It looked promising since the district agreed during 
the hearing to accept the findings of this expert as representing 
a truly independent evaluation. In late September, 1988, the evaluation 
was conducted and shortly thereafter the report received. It contained 
a recommendation for a minimum of three-forty minute periods of Braille 
instruction each week. Was it finally over? No. 

In November, the district proposed an Individualized Education Program 
(IEP) that included a grudging provision for including Braille in 
the curriculum. Rather than recognizing the validity of Braille as 
a reading system and the need for Braille for this particular student, 
the district characterized Braille as a subordinate, substandard, 
laborious method only to be used as a last ditch alternative. One 
of the short term instructional objectives identified in the proposed 
IEP was that "to alleviate fatigue," the child "will use 
his existing Braille skills when occasionally appropriate." 
Regardless of the technical inadequacies of this instructional objective, 
the tone is very clear. The district, in a cloud of bitterness and 
professional arrogance, persists in its conviction that Braille is 
nothing more than a second-class reading medium, connoting inferiority. 
It is interesting to observe that, while the district accused the 
National Federation of the Blind of holding an arbitrary view that 
all visually impaired children be taught Braille, the district, on 
the other hand, seemed unshakably rooted to the equally arbitrary--albeit
opposite--point of view that a low vision child, regardless of 
need, should be taught print to the exclusion of Braille. 
It is not difficult to understand what drives this kind of thinking. 
To the district and to many others in society, Braille equates to 
blindness while print equates to sight, and on an emotional level, 
be it conscious or unconscious, the attitude persists that to be sighted 
is the be normal while to be blind is to be dependent and inferior. 
This thinking, not learned research and educational theory, drives 
the decision-making process of selecting which children will be print 
readers and which will be Braille readers. Dr. Kenneth Jernigan tells 
the story of visiting a classroom of blind children and being told 
by the teacher: "This little girl reads print. This little girl 
has to read Braille." The development of negative attitudes toward Braille
can be traced back to the instruction provided in some of our nation's
teacher preparation programs. Many teacher preparation programs regard the
slate and stylus as a relic of bygone days, assuming that they are
mentioned at all.
 
Throughout the nation it is not unusual to see blind children using 
Braille writers for taking notes in class. As recently as a generation 
ago, teachers of the blind would have thought it ridiculous to use 
Braille writers in class. Braille writers are awkward and heavy to 
carry around, not to mention noisy and disruptive to others. 

The truth of my assertion can be seen in the marketing strategies 
being used by manufacturers of portable Braille note taking devices. 
They point out that these high tech, portable Braille writers are 
smaller and quieter than Braille writers, making them superior to 
Braille writers for note taking. While I cannot disagree that many 
high tech devices offer advantages over lugging a Braille writer from 
class to class, it strikes me as significant that the profession does 
not automatically recognize the important role that the slate and 
stylus play in personal note-taking. The slate is certainly more
economical--$10.00 as compared to $1,000.00 or more--and is still the
smallest and most portable note-taking device. The battery never gives out
and I have never known a slate to "crash."  I do not mean to suggest that
high tech devices do not offer real advantages in specific situations. 
Instead I believe it is necessary to understand that for a blind person 
the slate and stylus is equivalent to the sighted person's pen or 
pencil. The sighted, as well as the blind, are finding laptop computers 
convenient and efficient, yet use of the pen and pencil is not a vanishing 
skill for the sighted. 

Why then is use of the slate and stylus virtually a lost art? I believe 
it is because today's teachers of blind children have never worked 
with a slate long enough to become comfortable with it and thereby 
convinced of its usefulness. Instead, I am frequently told that the 
slate is too difficult because children have to learn to "write 
backward." 

Problems with teacher preparation are not limited to the slate and 
stylus. In a very real sense teachers of blind children receive only 
nominal instruction in reading and writing Braille. Poor mastery of 
Braille coupled with prevailing social attitudes about blindness combine 
to lead teachers to seek alternatives to Braille. In my professional 
life I started as a teacher of blind children. I have observed children 
using print in situations and under conditions which defy reason. 
In particular I can vividly remember watching a child being instructed 
in print using a closed circuit television at full magnification. This
child could not see well if there was any glare in the room, so before he
started reading, the blinds were closed. To complicate matters further,
this child could not read letters that were at all stylized. Therefore, the
teacher would first retype all of the child's material, using a sans serif,
large print typewriter, which made very plain typewritten letters. After
the teacher had retyped the child's material, closed the venetian blinds,
and turned the CCTV to full magnification, this child was able to read a
few letters at a time with excruciating slowness. In another case, after a
dispute with parents, a teacher was compelled to instruct a young blind
child in Braille. The teacher "attempted to comply with the order in a 
way which would seem laughable if it were not so painfully tragic. 
The child had almost no sight. Yet she tried to teach him Braille 
by using flash cards with large print representations of Braille dots." 

I do not wish my comments to be construed as an attack on all professionals
in the field of work with the blind. There are many professionals 
who have devoted their lives and talents in the fields of education 
and rehabilitation. It is not simply lip service to say that dedicated 
professionals have made significant contributions to the advancement 
of work with the blind and specifically in the area of Braille instruction.

Were the problems not so widespread it would be enough to say that 
all chains have their weak links and that the good work of the many 
should not be overlooked because of the failings of a few. Unfortunately, 
the problem of Braille literacy is not isolated to a few poorly trained 
individuals. It is for this reason that the profession finds itself 
at odds with blind adults and parents of blind children over the question 
of Braille instruction. 

Many parent organizations throughout the nation have sought introduction 
of "Braille bills" in their respective states. These Braille bills have
been viewed by the profession as an attack against the role of
professionals in identifying which children should receive 
instruction in Braille. As a result, opposition to various Braille 
bills has been widespread and intense. I believe the introduction 
of Braille bills is perhaps the best example of the gulf that exists 
between modern educational thinking and the desire of parents to prepare 
their children for a complex and competitive future. Each of the Braille 
bills with which I am familiar holds as its primary purpose to make 
Braille instruction available to any legally blind child upon the 
request of the child's parents. Opponents of Braille bills invariably 
argue that these bills would require that all visually impaired children, 
regardless of need, would be forced to learn Braille, often against 
their will, resulting in educational and psychological harm. They 
argue that the decision to teach Braille must, as a matter of law, 
be decided individually through the IEP process. They argue that the 
IEP is collaborative between teachers and parents. In the case previously 
described it is not hard to understand why parents might feel that 
the IEP process is only collaborative when parents agree with the 
recommendations of professionals. 

No Braille bill that I have seen requires Braille to be forced on 
visually impaired children. In fact, Braille bills do not even require 
that all legally blind children be taught Braille. Instead, they simply 
provide that a legally blind child, as a matter of right, have available 
Braille instruction upon the parent's request. Why should such a simple and
eminently reasonable provision be fought so forcefully? What should have
ever brought us to the point where parents of blind children would feel it
necessary to take the decision of Braille instruction out of the hands of
the IEP process? The answer is simple. There clearly exists a large segment
of parents who cannot get their local school districts to provide Braille
instruction to their children. As in the case discussed earlier, many
parents are frustrated by the lost time and wasted energy of pursuing
lengthy hearing processes to obtain simple literacy for their children. 
If the problem were isolated or limited only to the views of a few 
radicals, then it would not be receiving the concerted action reflected 
in the introduction of numerous Braille bills. Instead, the problem 
is widespread. Today, adult rehabilitation centers throughout the 
nation are teaching Braille not only to the newly blinded, but to 
young adults who grew up as legally blind children. Many of these 
young adults attended public school programs for the visually impaired 
and others are graduates of schools for the blind, yet they never 
received instruction in Braille reading and writing. As a consequence 
they find themselves functionally illiterate and unable to pursue 
meaningful careers. The Braille bills represent a commitment to seizing 
opportunity for blind children of today. As Marc Maurer, President 
of the National Federation of the Blind, has said, "We have come 
to understand the importance (indeed, the necessity) of knowing when 
to refuse to wait, when to reject patience, when to say no to delay--the 
courage and judgment to insist that freedom and opportunity must be 
now, not tomorrow!" 
A parent wishing to have his or her child read print, no matter how 
slowly or inefficiently, is routinely encouraged in this conviction. 
On the other hand, a parent wishing to have his or her child be instructed 
in Braille is accused of causing psychological damage by treating 
the child as if he or she is blind and threatened with being responsible 
for educational harm on the grounds that Braille and print reading 
taught together will cause a child to be deficient in both. 
A number of years ago a leading professional organization circulated 
a proposed position paper prepared by a nationally recognized expert 
in the field of education of blind children. This expert, who heads 
up a teacher preparation program, proposed that if a child could read 
print at a minimum of ten words per minute, then that child should 
be taught to read print to the exclusion of Braille. The message is 
clear. Use of vision, regardless of efficiency, is preferable to techniques
associated with blindness. Last May, a parent of a blind child attended 
an awards ceremony at a residential school for the blind. One of the 
awards given was a "mobility award." The parent expected that 
the award "would have something to do with improvement in on-campus 
travel." Instead, the mobility award was given to a student who 
had "demonstrated the most advancement in the use of his residual 
vision."  Astounding as it may be, the school offered no award 
for Braille reading. 

When we as blind people seek to change the conception of blindness 
held by professionals and by society at large, we meet resistance 
founded in the belief that it is the professional who knows what is 
best for the blind. Never mind high unemployment and lost opportunity--we 
are asked to accept that the training and technology with which we 
are plied are the best that can be offered. Never mind that many of 
us lack the basic dignity that comes from true literacy. As Dr. Jernigan 
puts it, "For all the good will beamed at us by public opinion; 
for all the aids and services, boosts and assists, props and prosthetics
pressed upon us, we, the blind people of this great society, are not 
yet really free--not yet fully independent--not yet truly equal."
 
What bars us from first-class status is not inferiority inherent in 
blindness, but rather the tacit acceptance of a diminished role with 
minimal expectations and minimal opportunity for full participation. 
The message I wish to bring is not one of bitterness or hopelessness. 
Instead, it is my conviction that out of strife and conflict can emerge 
a new image of the blind as able to compete on terms of equality. 
To do this we must have available the tools to make it possible. We 
must develop an attitude that it is respectable to be blind and that 
the tools associated with blindness constitute the very foundation 
on which first-class status can be based. It is the negative conditioning 
of society which leads us to believe that blindness constitutes inferiority
and that the tools of blindness likewise equate to inferiority. When 
we rid ourselves of this false doctrine, then we  will  be able to 
free ourselves from the failure concept associated with Braille--a concept
which promotes the idea that Braille is a last alternative only to 
be used when all else fails. 

Braille has been proven time and time again to be the way to literacy 
for the blind. It can be produced more easily and more cheaply than 
ever before in history. With Braille and the other skills of blindness, 
we as blind people can fulfill our potential and take our true place 
as contributing, participating, taxpaying members of society. To achieve 
this goal will take concerted and collective action. As Mr. Maurer 
has said, "The blind of this nation (organized in the National 
Federation of the Blind) are committed to achieving equality and
first-class citizenship. We regret that there is apparently a certain
amount of conflict built into the transition from second- to first-class
status. But we know that blind individuals, blind people as a group, and
our entire society will benefit if the worth we represent is recognized 
and given its proper place."
