in the same atmosphere as has prevailed at this conference, the world would indeed be a better place." – Gabriel Farrell"We are here, ladies and gentlemen, to contribute, not to dictate." – C.H.W.G. Anderson
"I believe that if all the questions which are troubling the world today could have been settled
"I should like to commend the initiative of educators to come together from all over the world to discuss specific problems of the education of blind children and blind youth, and I hope that records of your conference will be sent to us for our guidance in the future." – Dr. Wall, UNESCO.
During this period ICEVI is primarily a vehicle for the directors, some former staff, and staff from well-established schools and organizations for the blind to come together to exchange ideas and information. ICEVI is founded in Bussum, Netherlands. The second international conference is held in Oslo, Norway.
The first ICEBY Conference got underway in 1952, with the general theme, "The Needs of Blind Youth in Education." "From Norway and New Zealand, from Greece and Guatemala, from Holland and Haiti, from Africa, from America, from the four corners of the earth, representing 35 nations in all" (Colligan 1952) they came to the Institute for the Blind in Bussum, Netherlands, and together accomplished the most widely representative conference on education of the blind to date. They had come, as C.H.W.G. Anderson, Royal School for the Blind, Edinburgh, reminded them at the start of the conference, "to contribute, not to dictate". Their focus was primarily on blind youth, and at the formal opening they were reminded by A.Q. Mees, chairman of The Institute for the Blind, Bussum to keep the spirit of Louis Braille among them and to follow his example: "The noble purpose of his life became directed solely toward the happiness of his fellowmen [the blind] and especially his fellow teachers of blind children."
When we look at this small group of men and women, shown in a memorable photo that was taken during the conference, we are in the presence of the "movers and shakers" in the field of education of the blind at that time. It was a kind of "old boys’ club," comprised of people who had come to know each other over a period of many years. Now they were gathering together at the pinnacle of progress and proven successes of schools for the blind: never before (or since, for that matter) had these schools been at full capacity with such high functioning blind children. In retrospect, this seems somewhat surprising, since for several years there had been a marked decline in the number of blind children in many countries, especially those in North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand. The decline in enrollment stood in direct proportion to a decrease in the causes of childhood blindness: smallpox, scarlet and typhoid fevers, tuberculosis and, at the turn of the century, syphilis. However, there were still a certain percentage of children who had been blinded or visually impaired due to diabetes, glaucoma, retinoblastoma, and hereditary and congenital conditions and accidents.
In the 1930s educators of the blind, like the former director of Perkins School for the Blind, Edward Allen, were talking openly about the potential closing of schools for the blind in the United States, due to a lack of blind students. Yet this had all changed, as Christine Palm says, "in the 1940s, as advances in medical technology grew exponentially [and] science was able for the first time to save infants born three and four months premature." At the time of the conference, these children with retrolental fibroplasia (RLF) represented the largest group within blind schools in the developed countries.
This, then, was the world from which most of these notable delegates emerged – a world in which the majority of students had only blindness or visual impairment, with few additional physical problems. These people did a noble work; some would call it a vocation. It was said that they – the educators – "brought light to the blind", and they were determined to direct that light along the paths they knew by using tried and true methods.
The conference participants had a shared mission: to discuss and debate the major issues in education of blind youth at that time, and to forge relationships that would be of mutual benefit to all involved. In the course of this mission, they got to know each other better, and some long-lasting connections were made. The education of blind youth was a rather small area in the larger field of blindness and one that these educators believed was overshadowed by the matters of welfare and rehabilitation of the adult blind. And so the gathering in Bussum, to establish an international forum for educators of blind youth, was of profound importance to them.
At the 1952 conference, attendees were addressed by speakers who were already established leaders in the field. Summaries of the papers were presented which would later be published in full in the proceedings of the conference. The 11 work sessions covered these topics: Needs of the Pre-school Child, Additionally Handicapped (this was the term used for the multiimpaired), Needs of the Average Child, Physical Education in School, The Child of Superior Intelligence, Continued General Education for Youth, Social Needs in a Seeing World, Staff Cooperation in a School, Cooperation of Schools with Parents, Books and General Educational Media, and Educational Psychology. The text of the proceedings also included brief descriptions of educational facilities for blind youth in 30 countries.
The officers of the conference were outstanding leaders in the field of the education of the blind. The chairman was Gabriel Farrell, who for the previous twenty years had been director of the Perkins School. It was Farrell who had made certain that the Perkins Braillewriter had been redesigned, and just the year before the conference it had gone into full production. The associate chairman, E.H. Getliff, was headmaster of the Royal School of Industry for the Blind in Bristol. He was also deeply involved with the College of Teachers of the Blind in the UK (later he would become the second director of ICEVI). Pierre Henri, director of the Institute Nationale de Jeunes Aveugles, Paris, and an outstanding educator of the blind, served as the associate chairman of ICEVI. Secretary Edward Waterhouse was the new director of Perkins and had been a teacher there since the early 1930s. Associate Secretaries were John Colligan, secretary-general of the NIB (now RNIB) in London, and P.S.N. Oost, Principal, Prins Alexander Stichting School, Netherlands. Representatives came from around the world, from Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Lebanon, Nyasaland, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, South Africa, Spain, Ceylon, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States of America, Venezuela and Yugoslavia. The group assembled in Bussum generated enough interest among the general public that the proceedings were broadcast by the Netherlands broadcasting system. A tape recording of the proceedings was made by the Philips Corporation of Amsterdam and then typed at Perkins. Copies could be obtained from the AFB and RNIB at a cost of two dollars (U.S.).
Funding for the 1952 conference was limited, so those attending the conference paid a conference fee. Two major founding organizations, the AFOB and the RNIB, contributed not only funds but also use of their staff, and additional support came from AFB, Perkins, John Milton Society, Royal School for the Blind (of Edinburgh, Scotland), Boston Society for the Blind, and International Business Machines (IBM). In addition, a great deal of support was had from the WCWB, UNESCO and several organizations within the host country, including the Institute for the Blind, Bussum; Bartimeus Institute, Zeist; Dutch Foundation for the Blind; and St. Henricus Institute, Grave.
Even as the conference was underway, cracks were appearing in the walls of the new organization, so much that within a few short years they would shake it to its very foundations. There were issues, which had long lain dormant, but now they were in increasing need of attention: Mainstreaming (Integration), Low Vision (Partially Sighted), Multi-impaired and Physically Handicapped.
Integration of blind children into regular schools had been a subject of discussion for many years. Dr. Howe, the first director of Perkins School for the Blind, made a firm stand for integration as far back as 1866. In the 1950s a growing number of parents wanted their blind children to be educated in their local schools. Integration in the 60s would be linked in the United States with the civil rights movement (Silverman 2000). Parents of children who were blinded by ROP [RLF] played the most important role in bring about a shift in school placement from segregation in residential schools to integration in regular schools with sighted playmates. This change spearheaded the mainstreaming movement for the schooling of children with other disabilities.
Since the early 20th Century low vision children were thought to destroy their vision by reading normal print or having a close reading distance (Fonda 1970). During the period from 1920 to 1950, many children with low vision were labeled and treated as blind, referred to institutions/ schools for the blind, and taught Braille as their reading medium. The practical observation of sight saving teachers was quietly disconfirming the sight use prohibition of the Myope School advocates.
The multi-impaired, including those with mental disabilities, were seldom educated in regular schools for the blind. This was especially so during the RLF years when most schools were filled with "normal blind." In developing countries there was the added problem of the economics of caring for the needs of blind children. Multi-impaired children were seldom given a proper medical examination to ascertain the true nature of their disability or a psychological evaluation to determine the degree of retardation.
The educational needs of these children were handled mainly by special schools and residences which were set up for them. Tragically, some children, those thought of as having severe mental disabilities, were placed in mental institutions where they languished for most or all of their lives.
At the time of the conference, most schools for the blind were inaccessible for those with physical disabilities and especially for those in wheelchairs. The numbers of deafblind children were relatively small and the children were cared for mostly in special schools for the blind and deaf. Yet numbers were increasing due to hereditary causes and birth defects, and this pre-dates the 1962-63 rubella (German measles) epidemic in Europe and North America.
These were the crucial issues that needed to be brought to the table, but they were largely ignored. The representatives would now return to their countries to write about what they had seen and done. Their work appeared in such publications as New Beacon (RNIB), New Outlook for the Blind (AFB), International Journal for the Education of the Blind (AAIB), Teacher of the Blind (Britain), Blindness Annual (AAWB) and in the publication of the conference proceedings. Colligan, in the New Beacon, informed his readers, "No one who attended it [the conference] can fail to have returned home fortified in his or her determination, not only to do everything possible to bring about the implementation of the resolutions of the conference itself, but also to enable youth all over the world to be given the fullest opportunity for general and vocational education, so that they might ultimately enjoy the full benefits of citizenship and contribute to the strength of the community."
Still, there was no headquarters for the organization. No staff had been assigned and no journal or newsletter had been established. The representatives had simply decided to meet regularly every five years. However, there is substantial evidence in the literature that the conference spurred greater communication among colleagues through letter writing and phone calls. The world of education of the blind was evolving and an increasing number of educators wanted to play a role in the changes that were to come.
The most positive result of the conference was its impact on government involvement in the education of the blind. Upon their return home, the two delegates from Australia and New Zealand, who attended both this conference and the next in Oslo, submitted reports to their respective governments (Rogerson 2001). Their conclusions and recommendations were to affect government policy and open the way for the interchange of ideas and the creation of a wider network of communications with educators of the blind and organizations in other parts of the world. The delegates also had considerable influence in the establishment of The Australian and New Zealand Association of Teachers of the Blind.
The spark kindled in Bussum would remain just that – a spark. It would not yet develop into a fire that would set the field of education of the blind ablaze. During the following few years there was no organized meeting. The group remained a kind of "happy family" in which the members knew their positions and acted accordingly. The heads of the family from the major schools and organizations for the blind would arrange the next "family gathering". They would send out invitations (in fact, for many years attendance was by invitation only) and the family, including "relatives" from developing countries, would gather. Yet from its very conception – and until today – as Tore Gissler noted in a letter, ICEVI "does not have the means to act between conferences, especially because of lack of a secretariat". And so it was that they came together in 1957 at the Huseby School for the Blind in Oslo, Norway.
"It is our privilege, as it is our duty, to work for these benefits [best educational services] in the education of every blind child in every land." – E.H. Getliff
"It [ICEBY] stresses the importance of properly developed facilities for disseminating information to parents or foster parents through the medium of parents’ meetings, school visits, family units in the schools, Braille classes, and associations established to further a good relationship between parents and school staff." – Resolution of the 1957 conference
The five years between the Bussum conference and the Oslo conference saw satisfactory progress in different parts of the world, resulting from work carried out at Bussum (Getliff, 1957). In large part, the participants who attended the second conference were those who had attended the first, with a few minor changes in representation from the developing countries. The constitution adopted at the Oslo conference stated that "delegate representation to the International Conference of Educators of Blind Youth shall be on total population ratio as follows: Total population under 20 millions - 2 Delegates, total population 20-40 millions - 4 Delegates, total population over 40 millions - 6 Delegates". The organizers always made sure that each area of the world was adequately and appropriately represented. Total numbers of delegates were also limited, as the first four conferences were held in schools for the blind, where there was limited accommodation for general sessions, meetings, and social activities.
The agenda at the 2nd Conference followed a format similar to the one adopted at Bussum, with papers forming the basis of conference resolutions (Heisler 1977). However, at Oslo these papers were not read by their authors; instead, each author was given a few minutes to emphasize the points, which he deemed most important, and a short discussion on those points by the conference in full session followed. Most deliberations took place in smaller groups, using various languages. Out of these discussion groups came the resolutions included in the proceedings.
It was at Oslo that attention was first called to the vast problem of providing for the educational needs of blind children in emerging countries (Heisler 1977). In an address delivered at the conference, Sir John Wilson, Director of the RCSB, stressed the great need for bringing education to children in large areas of Africa, who until then had received no education or training. Other conference topics included: Parent Education, Educational Facilities with Amblyopic Pupils, Vocational Training and Placement, Blind Children in Rural Communities, The Blind Child’s Contact with Seeing Children, Guidance and Vocational Counseling, Preparing Blind Pupils to Take Their Place in the World, and Teacher Training.
The two hundred and thirty seven plus who attended the conference, including forty-eight delegates, returned home. They knew, as after the Bussum conference, that they would meet again in five years, this time in Hanover, Germany, and again under the chairmanship of E. H. Getliff of Great Britain. At the suggestion of Sir John Wilson of the RCSB, there would be a new theme: "The Development of International Cooperation to Meet Educational Needs in Emergent Countries and the Means by Which These Needs Can Best Be Met."
Participants of the Oslo conference left with the sure knowledge that the ten days spent in conference- session in Oslo had added to a worldwide interpretation of the major dilemmas to be confronted and the answers to be offered in the education and training of blind youth (Getliff 1957). The various working groups gave valuable opinions representative of many ideas and strategies for the future development of the field of education of blind youth, which were circulating through the sessions.
The Resolutions formulated at the conference would assist all countries in furthering their programs for the education of the blind, and the wide range of representation enjoyed at the Oslo conference ensured a more significant contribution on individual topics. But what did the future hold for blind youth? It was difficult to predict, but it was surely changing more quickly than ever before. The combined knowledge and experiences of these early world leaders helped to create for all of us a graphic picture of what was occurring at that moment in time in the education of the blind.