
            PROBLEMS OF PLACEMENT AND RESPONSIBILITY:
                     MAINSTREAMING REVISITED
                        By Fred Schroeder

     From the Associate Editor: On Friday afternoon, July 3, Fred
Schroeder, Director of the New Mexico Commission for the Blind
and a member of the Board of Directors of the National Federation
of the Blind, delivered an address to the 1992 NFB convention.
Because of his many years of teaching and administrative
experience in the education of blind children, Mr. Schroeder is
an expert in this field, so his remarks on the question of
appropriate educational setting for these youngsters were taken
seriously and should be carefully considered by everyone with an
interest in this important subject. The issue is complex, and the
correct placement for each child depends on the individual mix of
needs and opportunities. Here is what Fred Schroeder had to say: 

     In 1940 when the National Federation of the Blind was
founded, a mechanism was created by which blind people could at
last guide their own destinies. The achievement of the past fifty
years has not been the product of good fortune or happenstance,
but rather the just and inevitable outcome of concerted action.
     As our organization has grown, we have increasingly come to
recognize that it is our shared philosophy about blindness that
enables us to keep our energies focused and our goals clearly in
view. During Dr. Jernigan's tenure as President of our
organization, he articulated our philosophy in clearly defined
principles. He taught us that, given proper training and
opportunity, blind people can compete on terms of real equality
with their sighted peers. The truth of this statement is
recognized by all of us and forms a cornerstone upon which policy
and political action are built.
     Our shared philosophy makes us strong, coordinating
individual effort in collective action. We believe that, given
training and opportunity, blind people can compete on terms of
equality. It naturally follows that, for blind children to be
successfully integrated into society, they too need training and
opportunity. Early residential schools for the blind started with
an assumption that, if blind children mastered fundamental
literacy skills through Braille, they were capable of becoming
well educated. Many schools for the blind practiced mainstreaming
long before the term became fashionable. I remember Lawrence
"Muzzy" Marcelino, a long-time leader in our organization,
telling me that in the 1920's and 1930's high school students at
the California School for the Blind would attend public school
classes armed with a slate and stylus and a portable typewriter.
These students were expected to compete and had the training to
make that expectation a reality. 
     After World War II, with the advent of the RLF generation,
schools for the blind found themselves overcrowded, and hence the
practice of integrating blind children into regular school
programs became more and more widespread. Yet a curious thing
began to happen. Blind students educated away from the
residential school experienced difficulty receiving training,
particularly in Braille reading and writing, and therefore found
themselves educated under a substandard, watered-down curriculum.
Gone were the expectations that came with real literacy. Instead,
blind children encountered a conception of blindness which
expected, and even rewarded, inferior performance.
     In the late 1970's, with the implementation of Public Law
94-142, the integration of disabled children was popularized
under the concept of mainstreaming. This movement was premised on
the belief that blind and other disabled children should be
educated in the least restrictive environment, alongside non-
disabled children in regular classes. The missing element from
the mainstreaming movement was an examination of expectations for
blind children. When I attended graduate school, we were told
that blind children educated in isolation had numerous social
problems, making them ill-equipped to function in a sighted
world. The clear focus of mainstreaming was social integration,
with substandard academic performance tacitly accepted.
     Today there is a resurgence in the mainstreaming movement
with an even more radical view of integration. Modern-day
mainstreaming, which goes by the name of inclusion or the regular
education initiative, asserts that all disabled children should
be educated in regular classes, eliminating pull-out programs
altogether. Proponents of inclusion argue that differences in
people are found throughout society and therefore artificial
distinctions which label and categorize are unnecessary and
undesirable in our educational system. They believe that regular
classroom teachers should be able to educate all children,
regardless of their needs for specialized training. However, as
with the mainstreaming movement, the modern-day inclusion
movement fails to address academic achievement as an essential
element of public education.
     On its face the concept of inclusion appears both common-
sense and morally correct. The practice of labeling children--and
with it the implied stigma of dysfunctionality--seems contrary to
the spirit of American democracy. I am concerned, however, about
the impact of inclusion on the education of blind children.
     For the blind child successful mainstreaming is dependent on
the child's ability to compete with his or her sighted peers.
Braille reading and writing constitute an alternative to print
reading and writing. Similarly, use of the abacus allows the
blind child to perform mathematical computations quickly and
efficiently. The typewriter and, more recently, the computer,
while not special devices for the blind, are vital tools by which
the blind child can communicate with the sighted. For the blind
child to function competitively, it is also necessary that he or
she be able to get around with the same degree of independence as
his or her sighted peers. Thus competence in the use of the white
cane for independent travel is essential. These techniques,
representing a separate and distinct set of skills, are not
inferior, but simply alternative. 
     Under the concept of inclusion, integrating blind children
from kindergarten on may deny them the opportunity fully to
master the skills needed to keep up with their classmates. Blind
children are subject to the same social conditioning about
blindness as the public at large. Myths and misconceptions about
blindness are rampant. The blind child exposed to prevailing
attitudes about blindness will inevitably internalize at least
some of these attitudes and question his or her own competence.
The child may come to feel that because of blindness he or she is
automatically inferior to his or her classmates and unable to
perform comparable work.
     Conversely the well-trained blind child possessing the
alternative techniques needed for full participation will find
that he or she can function on an equal footing with his or her
sighted peers. The application of alternative techniques serves
to strengthen the blind child's confidence in his or her ability
to function competitively. In this way the blind child can begin
to tear down his or her own misconceptions about blindness and
become convinced that he or she will be able to be a fully
participating, contributing member of society.
     Under today's special education system, the alternatives for
blind children are very few. Parents are faced with the real
problem of getting the existing service-delivery systems to
respond to their children's needs for training in Braille, cane
travel, and the other skills of blindness. It is not likely that
this situation will be improved by a push for a widespread
desegregation of blind children. Rather than achieving meaningful
integration, blind children would be faced with having to compete
without having the opportunity to acquire the skills necessary to
be successful. The end result would be diminished educational
opportunities for blind children while making them erroneously
believe that they are unable to compete because of blindness.
     A distinction should be made between segregation for
segregation's sake and specialized services for the purpose of
providing the training necessary for meaningful integration. A
young woman I know attended our state's residential school for
the blind for her elementary school training. The academic and
social skills she acquired enabled her to return to a public
school setting for the balance of her education. Without this
early mastery of fundamental literacy skills through Braille
reading and writing, along with the other skills she acquired, it
is doubtful that she would have had either the confidence or the
ability to achieve true integration. Rather than isolating her
from society, her experience at the school for the blind gave her
the ability to function successfully in society. Today this woman
works as a personnel specialist for the Los Alamos National Labs
and is married and raising two young children. She is living a
normal life, in large part because of the opportunities she
received through specialized training.
     The process of integration should not be confused with
desegregation. Placing blind children with sighted children may
desegregate them, yet integration is an active process which
blind children can only initiate if they have the confidence and
tools to make it happen. Inclusion is, of course, the most
desirable outcome, but, as with integration, it cannot be
accomplished merely through a process of desegregation. To my way
of thinking, inclusion for blind children must, by necessity,
start with a substantial period of specialized training. This
training may take place in a regular class, a resource room or
itinerant program, or a residential school for the blind.
     The question, therefore, is not whether the regular class is
preferable to the resource room or school for the blind, but
rather which setting offers the best prospect for blind children
to acquire training and confidence. If we believe that blind
children can compete on terms of real equality, then our
expectations for them will be driven by this belief. Children
must be challenged to achieve and challenged to compete, and by
so doing, they will experience inclusion in the true meaning of
the word. Blind children and their parents need the encouragement
of adult role models who can help them expand their conception of
blindness and their belief in the ability of blind people. Blind
children and their parents need the National Federation of the
Blind and the philosophy that comes with it. We as blind people
comprise a minority, and as such we are subject to public
misunderstanding. Yet we have learned that through the National
Federation of the Blind we have a vehicle for collective action
directed by a shared philosophy about blindness which gives us
determination, strength, and the prospect of real equality.

