Home| Keynote Speeches| Workshop Papers| Other Documents
Mr. Zurita's comments are well taken. New technologies, those designed for persons with visual disabilities or those intended for the general public, must receive our continuous monitoring and input. I appreciate his comments on technologies and wish to ask him to expand his cautions. For too long, low tech devices have held the promise of providing access to the visual environment for people with low vision but have been underutilized. For too long, optical devices have not been considered viable alternatives or complementary tools to Braille, large type, and/or auditory approaches in many countries or within specific areas of other countries.
When speaking of persons with low vision, Mr. Zurita states, "...under no circumstances should they not be taught to read in Braille, if this system can be used as their main reading and writing code." This statement saddens me. It does not allow for those who, with optical devices can become print-efficient readers. Mr. Zurita recommends large type. In the U.S. the standard for large type is 18 point print. As regular print is approximately 12 point, this accounts for 1.5 times enlargement of the regular size. A majority of students who can benefit from optical devices will need 4X-10X levels of magnification. I have seen youngsters with low vision fluently read standard print with such near vision devices and develop functional reading speeds with adequate visual stamina and comprehension. Too many students seem to plateau in reading level and reading speed with large print as their sole reading medium. Further, large print is expensive and does not provide access to standard print materials which do not come in an enlarged format such as maps, directions on food packages, and newspapers. Students who receive large print rarely receive evaluations for distance devices and they do not receive access to such information as that found on chalkboards, street signs, the theater or scenery. Large type just isn't large enough for many students who do have the visual capacity to become print-efficient. In 1924 Ann Sullivan Macy, Helen Keller's teacher, was shown a pair of distance optical devices. They were crude by today's standards and a well known professional stated that few people would want to be seen wearing them in public. Ms. Macy, however, stated, "You may be as enthusiastic as you wish on my behalf. I never knew there was so much in the world to see." I am hoping today, that 73 years later, all children and adults will have the same opportunity and the World Blind Union will add the availability of optical devices to their agenda.
I believe that one reason why there appears to be a bias toward Braille for all students with low vision is that those who should have learned Braille as children, for a primary or complementary reading media, and who never received this opportunity are the primary advocates for all children with low vision to read Braille. Those of us who grew up with low vision, and who became print efficient are not the ones who give testimony before legislatures or hold leadership roles within consumer organizations. I prefer that Mr. Zurita and the World Blind Union advocates not be so adamant about everyone with severe visual disabilities learning Braille. Children with low vision should receive clinical low vision evaluations for optical devices before a learning media is determined. I consider Braille to be a viable and functional media for those who wish to learn it and for those who do not have the capacity to acquire functional print reading speeds with comfort and stamina. And, there are those who can become print and Braille readers.
While I do not presume to speak for all people with low vision, and am not representing an organization of persons who have low vision, I am compelled to question some of Mr. Zurita's assumptions that the World Blind Union speaks with a "progressive" and "proper" philosophy on the issue of Braille. I wonder to what extent the WBU speaks for all of its members with functional vision who have become print-efficient.
Here we may get into a philosophical disagreement. Should those who have serious visual disabilities but who become print efficient, with or without Braille as a complementary or secondary tool, be represented by a union whose name indicates its primary interest in those who are blind? Are persons with low vision who read standard print, and perhaps even drive motor vehicles, welcome and represented in such organizations? This is not a comment solely for the World Blind Union but for all organizations which have chosen to exclusively retain "for the blind" in their names. Perhaps the leadership of those organizations are not sensitive to the impact of their names on their members with low vision or perhaps the membership with low vision does not see a need to advocate for a change. Perhaps those with low vision who join organizations "for the blind" do feel comfortable with an identity indicates they are blind.
Now, let me turn to three of Mr. Zurita's conclusions. I applaud Mr. Zurita's call for full and complete survey to determine the demographics of persons with visual disabilities world wide. I wish to extend this recommendation so that along with the gathering of demographic information, we also receive information regarding the extent to which education and rehabilitation services are available in each country. In the United States we are currently facing a critical shortage of service providers. During the academic year 1995-96, we prepared an average of 6 newly certified teachers of students with visual impairments for each state and fewer than 2 newly certified orientation and mobility instructors. Worldwide, we must address the shortage of trained personnel and ensure that the knowledge and skills as well as the theory, research, and practice be conveyed to new generations of professionals.
The second of Mr. Zurita's conclusions I wish to address relates to the struggle for inclusion in regular education classes with appropriate supports and with an assurance of quality education. We cannot rest until this becomes a right of all children. However, I also ask you to consider those students for whom this is not yet a reality or those students whose needs cannot be met in regular education programs. The ten year old who would benefit from knowing others with a visual disability but who lives too many miles from any children or adult mentors who have visual disabilities, the seven year old who needs concentrated orientation and mobility services but whose school district cannot locate a mobility instructor, or the teenager whose family cannot provide a nurturing environment because of their grief or family circumstances-these students need an array of educational services, not just the regular education setting as an option. Possibly for a brief time in their lives, or for a longer period, they will need other types of educational placements. We must work to maintain a full array of placement options.
I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Zurita's conclusion that parents, teachers, and people who have visual disabilities must work together to promote educational opportunities. In the United States the National Agenda for the Education of Children and Youth with Visual Impairments, Including Those with Multiple Disabilities epitomizes such a partnership. Briefly, it's co-chairs are a parent of a 12 year old youngster who is blind and a professional who is superintendent of a special school. The Advisory Board consists of parents, professionals, and adults with visual disabilities. Together we are accomplishing what each group alone could not achieve. Mr. Zurita understand the empowerment that comes with such true partnerships.
Today, in 1997 there are numerous issues which we have come together to ponder, to discuss, to seek out new resources and strategies, and possibly to solve. However, ICEVI members, working alone as one organization cannot and should not work in isolation. I propose a new partnership be formed. I propose a summit, bringing together the leadership of such organizations as ICEVI, the World Blind Union, the International Society for Low Vision Research and Rehabilitation, and the International Mobility Conference. When the organizations committed to international outcomes come together, a more powerful dialogue will take place with heightened communication and action.
From new technologies to low tech devices, from personnel shortages to an array of educational options, we have covered much ground. I wish to thank Mr. Zurita for stimulating our thoughts, for proposing unifying efforts, and for taking hard stands on those issues to which he believes we must all respond with commitment and conviction.
When I discussed the new grocery store customer-operated hand scanner with two friends who are blind, together we designed an add-on which might not only solve the initial problems but provide additional information to the customer about each product. I wonder if, when I return home, I will hear from the manufacturer with their ideas and solutions.