THE BRAILLE MONITOR Barbara Pierce, Editor Published in inkprint, Braille, on talking-book disc, and cassette by THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND MARC MAURER, PRESIDENT National Office 1800 Johnson Street Baltimore, Maryland 21230 * * * * Letters to the President, address changes, subscription requests, orders for NFB literature, articles for the Monitor, and letters to the Editor should be sent to the National Office. * * * * Monitor subscriptions cost the Federation about twenty-five dollars per year. Members are invited, and non-members are requested, to cover the subscription cost. Donations should be made payable to National Federation of the Blind and sent to: National Federation of the Blind 1800 Johnson Street Baltimore, Maryland 21230 * * * * THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND IS NOT AN ORGANIZATION SPEAKING FOR THE BLIND--IT IS THE BLIND SPEAKING FOR THEMSELVES ISSN 0006-8829 THE BRAILLE MONITOR A PUBLICATION OF THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND CONTENTS FEBRUARY, 1994 ARE SPECIALIZED EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS FOR CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES IMMORAL? by Barbara Pierce STAYING THE COURSE, SHIFTING THE EMPHASIS: THE BLIND IN THE 1990'S by Gary Wunder GEORGIA EDUCATOR TEACHES SCHOOL SYSTEM NOT TO DISCRIMINATE by Scott LaBarre THE OREGON BRAILLE BILL: AN EXERCISE IN COOPERATION by Carla McQuillan WALKING ALONE AND MARCHING TOGETHER IN ALAMOGORDO THE NFB IN ACTION by Kevan Worley BASIC RIGHTS AND HIGHER PRINCIPLES by Fatos Floyd EXPECTATIONS: THE CRITICAL FACTOR IN THE EDUCATION OF BLIND CHILDREN by Fredric K. Schroeder 1994 CONVENTION BULLETIN MICHIGAN: THE FIRST, THE BIGGEST, AND THE BEST FEDERATIONIST HONORED RACE AND REASON: A BLACK PERSPECTIVE ON A DARK ISSUE by John W. Smith NEW FACULTY MEMBER MAKES A PLACE FOR HIMSELF SOCIAL SECURITY, SSI, AND MEDICARE FACTS FOR 1994 RECIPES MONITOR MINIATURES Copyright ž 1994 National Federation of the Blind, Inc. [2 LEAD PHOTOS: PHOTO 1) Four men in National Center for the Blind kitchen, cleaning and doing dishes. PHOTO 2) President Maurer and Mr. Cobb stand on ladders cleaning walls in an office. CAPTION: Whether it's walking a picket line, stuffing envelopes, or helping to clean at the National Center for the Blind, Federationists have never been afraid of hard work. Above, members of the Board of Directors of the National Federation of the Blind wash dishes after a meal during the Board's annual Thanksgiving weekend meeting. Below, President Maurer and Tony Cobb of the National staff wax the paneling in the new street-level area at the National Center. Working or playing, members of the National Federation of the Blind enjoy spending time together.] [PHOTO: Barbara Pierce standing at microphone. CAPTION: Barbara Pierce.] ARE SPECIALIZED EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS FOR CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES IMMORAL? by Barbara Pierce The nation's highest ranking governmental official dealing directly with disability issues is Judy Heumann, Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services in the Department of Education (DED). The fact that Ms. Heumann uses a wheelchair and therefore understands and shares the views of a significant number of the people whom her programs ultimately affect is fairly novel and frequently helpful. But despite Ms. Heumann's firsthand knowledge all is not harmonious sweetness and light in the field of education of children with special needs. The present difficulty is yet one more manifestation of the same old problem: in a field in which there are many different disabilities and in which even students with the same deficit have very different needs, no one educational solution will ever fit everybody. Clearly a continuum of learning environments from full inclusion in the regular classroom to the specialized residential school must be available and acceptable educational alternatives if disabled children are not to be the losers. Yet even when a range of options is available, we human beings have a near genius for doing the wrong things for the right reasons as well as the occasional possibility of doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. All this complicates even the best-intentioned effort to find the right educational setting for each disabled child. Add to all this the instinct on the part of many public school officials to cloak their fears and misconceptions about disabilities in fashionable educational jargon and excuses about limited financial resources, and you have a situation in which what is best for the individual disabled child is often completely disregarded. Knowing that many children with special needs could thrive in the regular classroom if there were only some architectural modifications or some special instruction (Braille, sign language, speech therapy, etc.), some advocates maintain that disabled students will never be truly accepted in the regular classroom until schools are required to include them in regular classes as a matter of course. On the other hand both mainstream teachers who recognize that these children almost never get all the support services and specialized instruction they need and those who believe that disabled students can never fit in and always cause complications and disruption in their classrooms are frantic to keep all such children out. Sometimes with good reason and sometimes not, they say that they can't give disabled students the time and attention they require. There is no easy solution to this mess. But in an article printed elsewhere in this issue, Fred Schroeder discusses the first step to finding the answer. All teachers of disabled children must begin with a fundamental belief in the abilities of the children they work with. Teachers, parents, and ultimately the students themselves must come to have real confidence in the youngsters' ability to compete academically and socially with their nondisabled peers of comparable ability. Sufficient funds must be found to insure that the necessary skill instruction and services are available for disabled students. If these conditions were met and schools were fully accessible to students using crutches or wheelchairs, most youngsters with sensory or mobility impairments could certainly fit into the regular classroom with little problem and special services that decrease as they mature. Whether or when children with severe mental, emotional, or behavioral disabilities belong in the regular classroom is to my mind a different question and one which we in the National Federation of the Blind are not equipped to discuss knowledgeably. In 1994, however, we are very far from being at this ideal level of educational enlightenment. It is fair to say that not a single element of the educational continuum is currently providing consistently excellent service, which is to say that improvement is necessary in every regular classroom and in every alternative setting. Enter Assistant Secretary Heumann and her predisposition in favor of full inclusion. As a youngster whose only problem was the necessity to use a wheelchair, she undoubtedly belonged in the regular classroom, an option which for part of her education, at least, she was denied. It is understandable that today she feels keenly the importance of seeing that prejudice, ignorance, and sloppy design will never again prevent disabled students from benefitting from the educational opportunities she was denied. And certainly the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) includes language that strongly encourages the mainstreaming of special education students. In fact, the Department of Education is preparing to send appropriate officials in every state copies of a brief it recently submitted in a court case together with an important court decision, the Oberti case, handed down last September. The Oberti lawsuit ended when the Clementon, New Jersey, school district chose not to appeal a court order that it must try to educate a student with Down's Syndrome in a regular classroom by providing support services. According to statements made by Judy Heumann, the rightness or wrongness of inclusion is not a legal question. The legal issue is what the IDEA requires, and the Department of Education concurs with the Oberti decision on this point. The decision reads in part: "We construe IDEA's mainstreaming requirement to prohibit a school from placing a child with disabilities outside of a regular classroom if educating the child in the regular classroom with supplementary aids and supportive services can be achieved satisfactorily. In addition, if placement outside of a regular classroom is necessary for the child to receive educational benefit, the school may still be violating IDEA if it has not made sufficient efforts to include the child in school programs with nondisabled children whenever possible. We also hold that the school bears the burden of proving compliance with the mainstreaming requirement of IDEA, regardless of which party (the child and parents or the school) brought the claim under IDEA before the district court." Such language can all too easily be (and, in fact, has already been) interpreted by school districts as justification for eliminating resource rooms, itinerant teachers, and special programs of all kinds. Then, as if this possibility were not dangerous enough, Ms. Heumann made a statement in a speech in California early last fall to the effect that she considered segregated special education immoral. Her statement and a subsequent exchange with a member of the audience were reported in the November 2, 1993, issue of the publication, The Special Educator. In an article entitled "Oberti Decision is Core of the ED's Inclusion Position," the exchange was reported as follows: At one point Heumann compared the IDEA's mandate [for full inclusion] with the landmark Supreme Court case on racially segregated education, Brown v. Board of Education, stating "separate but equal is not acceptable." She also called segregated special education "immoral." During a question and answer period following Heumann's address, one special education administrator challenged that term. "I don't support full inclusion and I'm not immoral," an administrator said, drawing the applause of many in the audience. "I think special education students will lose in the regular classroom. These kids don't really learn anything there. Their needs are lost." In her reply Heumann said, "If special education segregated classes were working, these kids wouldn't be dropping out of school in record numbers." That's what Heumann said, and the outcry in the special education community was immediate. Sherry Kolbe, Executive Director of the National Association of Private Schools for Exceptional Children, wrote first to Ms. Heumann and then to Senator Edward Kennedy, Chairman of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, to express the Association's dismay and deep concern. Here are the two letters: Washington, D.C. November 17, 1993 Judith Heumann Assistant Secretary Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services U.S. Department of Education Washington, DC Dear Assistant Secretary Heumann: On behalf of the National Association of Private Schools for Exceptional Children (NAPSEC), I want to express our disappointment in learning of your recent classification of separate settings for children with disabilities as "immoral." Obviously, your using the term "immoral" to describe separate settings for children with special needs is disturbing to all who are involved in providing specialized services to children outside the regular classroom. NAPSEC schools and the services that they provide are both necessary and critical to the special education system. I find it most disturbing that, upon having met with me, you acknowledged the need for our schools in the special education system, yet would subsequently make such an inflammatory statement. At no time during our meeting at the Department did you even insinuate that you felt our schools were "immoral." These are obviously conflicting statements. I am also disappointed that you cannot see any of the good things that have happened and continue to happen in separate special education settings. Maybe it would be beneficial for you to visit some of our schools so you can see first hand that your comment is unfounded. Also, in your statement regarding segregated special education, you mentioned that, if these settings were working, then children with disabilities would not be dropping out of schools in record numbers. The Department of Education's Fourteenth Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act states that students who attend larger schools and those who spend relatively more time in regular education classes are more likely to fail courses, and those who failed a course in their most recent school year were almost three times more likely to drop out than students who had not failed a course. Also how do you explain the drop-out rate for regular education students being educated in the regular classroom? In 1991 the drop-out rate in New York City was 17.2%, in Chicago it was 51.1%, and in Los Angeles it was 38.1%. If the regular classroom worked for everyone, wouldn't it also work for these students? NAPSEC is not anti-inclusion, but pro-child. It is our concern that, by taking the "individual" out of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, children with disabilities will not receive the timely services necessary to address their unique needs. With the passage of P.L.94-142, we won the fight against one system of education for all children, and now the education system is able to provide a continuum of services to ensure that each child's individual needs are appropriately met. All NAPSEC schools operate on this fundamental belief: to guarantee that each child's unique needs are met on an individual basis in order to achieve his/her maximum potential. The goal of each NAPSEC school is to provide a learning environment in which the child can establish and develop the skills necessary to allow him/her to function successfully in society. Further, our belief is that there is nothing "immoral" about providing options for children and families with special needs. Sincerely, Sherry L. Kolbe Executive Director cc: Michelle Doyle, Office of Private Education ____________________ Washington, D.C. November 17, 1993 Dear Chairman Kennedy: On behalf of the National Association of Private Schools for Exceptional Children (NAPSEC), I want to call your attention to the recent comments made by the Assistant Secretary of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Ms. Judith Heumann, regarding educating children with disabilities in separate settings. Ms. Heumann made her feelings clear when she stated at a meeting in California that segregated special education is "immoral." Obviously this is very offensive to all of those dedicated special education teachers who have devoted their lives to working with children who have special needs. It is unacceptable for someone who is supposedly representing all children with disabilities, regardless of placement, to call those who provide educational services in separate classrooms and facilities, both public and private, "immoral." It is also very unsettling to know that these views are coming from someone who represents the Department of Education. It has been our belief that the Department both recognizes and respects the necessity of choices and options for individuals who cannot better themselves without special services to address their individual needs. NAPSEC represents over 200 private special education schools that provide special education services for both publicly and privately placed students. The majority of our schools serve publicly placed children who are referred to our schools because they need individualized services that are not available in the public school setting. These students are funded through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the Chapter 1 Handicapped Program. As you can see, if separate settings for children with disabilities are indeed immoral as stated by Ms. Heumann, the funding for these "immoral" services is being provided by law. IDEA requires that each child have an individual education program (IEP) designed to meet his/her unique needs. The determination of educational placement is based upon the student's IEP. The law also requires that students have access to a full continuum of special education services, provided in both public and private settings. Placing every child with disabilities in the regular classroom regardless of his/her needs is not only inconsistent with the law but may be detrimental to the child's ability to learn. There is a group of individuals that believe that all children with disabilities should be educated in the regular classroom and that all other options and choices should be eliminated from the law. These individuals use the term "segregation" when they speak of children with disabilities that are placed outside the regular classroom. This word immediately conjures up ugly visions of discrimination and racial prejudice. The term is inappropriately borrowed from the civil rights movement and is not applicable to children with disabilities. Children being served in separate classrooms and schools are receiving the type of additional assistance necessary to help them succeed--not keep them from succeeding. At this point we are unsure of what to believe. The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services states that separate settings for children with disabilities is "immoral," while the Director of the Office of Special Education Programs, Dr. Thomas Hehir, has stated publicly that the inclusion of all children with disabilities in the regular classroom will not work for all special needs children. These are conflicting statements, yet both are coming from the Department of Education. Ms. Heumann's statement is very disturbing to those of us who see educators of children with disabilities, in any setting, as persons who should be applauded for their efforts and devotion, not be called "immoral" by the person who is in charge of the programs that make their function possible. It is our sincere hope that the Congress will work to maintain a continuum of services for children with disabilities, as stated in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, to ensure that children with special needs will continue to receive services that appropriately address their individual needs. Sincerely, Sherry L. Kolbe Executive Director It did not take Assistant Secretary Heumann long to respond to Ms. Kolbe's letter, and Senator Kennedy was not far behind. In his letter the Senator commended all those who work with exceptional children and explained that there had been confusion over Ms. Heumann's California remarks. He then enclosed a copy of Ms. Heumann's letter written to Sherry Kolbe. Here is that letter: Washington, D.C. December 2, 1993 Ms. Sherry Kolbe Executive Director NAPSEC Washington, D.C. Dear Sherry: I received your letter regarding my comments about educational placements in separate settings for students with disabilities, and I am pleased to have this chance to clarify my position. During the five months since I was confirmed as Assistant Secretary for the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), I have had the opportunity to meet or talk with the leadership of numerous organizations involved in advocacy for disabled children and adults. I have also met with hundreds of parents of disabled children across the nation. I firmly believe that within the last twenty years there have been major accomplishments in the education of disabled students in this country. However, I know more needs to be done. The primary concern I have heard expressed during these conversations is that for many disabled children the full range of placement options is not available. The continuum of alternative placement is an integral part of the IDEA regulations which Office of Special Education Programs Director Tom Hehir and I are bound, both by our positions and by our own beliefs, to enforce. Tom and I both believe, consistent with IDEA, that the regular classroom in the neighborhood school should be the first placement option considered for students with disabilities. We also believe our education system must provide administrators and teachers with the training and support they need to make the regular classroom in the neighborhood school the appropriate placement, and we aim to provide strong leadership to help make that happen. Being disabled myself and having received part of my education in segregated settings for no other reason than that I happened to use a wheelchair, I do not shrink from describing such placements as wrong--when the placement is made for reasons other than the educational needs of the child. With fifty percent of physically disabled students still receiving their education in some type of separate setting, I will continue to make strong statements in support of regular classroom placements. At the same time we fully appreciate and support the important role of other options on the continuum for some students. I also know of the critical need for parents of all disabled children to receive more and better information about the available options and the supports that may be needed for their children. I believe that the more information parents have, the more effective they will be in the decision-making process affecting their children's education. There is a role for all of us in this empowerment process. I regret that my schedule does not accommodate my participation in the annual meeting of NAPSEC next month. Still I would welcome the opportunity to visit a NAPSEC member school that you consider especially effective in providing educational services to disabled students. It may be easier to schedule a visit to a site in the Washington, D.C., area, but I could also consider such a visit in another part of the country. I hope you will identify some potential sites for my review. I am convinced that we hold in common the most basic interest: better outcomes for all disabled students through appropriate and high quality education services. It is unfortunate that a few statements from my presentation in a public forum have been interpreted as a lack of support for ensuring that a full range of placement options is available for each disabled child and his or her family. My record, both past and future, will show that I fully support the availability of a continuum of placement options for students with disabilities. I look forward to working with you to achieve our mutual goals. Sincerely, Judith E. Heumann United States Department of Education Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services ____________________ That is what Ms. Heumann wrote, and it was reassuring to have her commit to paper her belief in the importance of a continuum of special education settings. One cannot help pointing out, however, that it would be helpful if she were to make this commitment more publicly and more often. Here is the letter that Sherry Kolbe wrote Ms. Heumann in response: Washington, D.C. December 6, 1993 Judith E. Heumann Assistant Secretary Special Education and Rehabilitative Services Washington, D.C. Dear Judy: Thank you for your recent letter. I appreciate your taking the time to clarify your position on the continuum of options for children with disabilities. I agree with you wholeheartedly when you say that the full range of placement options is not currently available to children with disabilities. I too have talked with hundreds of parents regarding the lack of appropriate services for their children. Some of the conversations are very sad and unsettling. I have talked with teachers who have told me that they are not allowed to tell parents that there are any other options available for their children besides those that are offered in the public schools, regardless of whether they are appropriate or not. I have talked with children in NAPSEC schools who have told me that they did not have any friends before they came to the school. All of these conversations are equally disheartening. Yes, I agree, there is still much to be done. NAPSEC has always strongly supported placements based solely on a child's Individual Education Program (IEP) and like you, does not excuse those placements based on other unrelated judgments. However, it is imperative that, when you make strong statements against "such placements as wrong" as described in your letter, it is done on an individual-by-individual placement basis to avoid promoting the concept that all placements in separate settings are wrong for children with disabilities. As you well know, using an all-or-nothing approach that disregards individual educational needs often leaves us with nothing. You also stated in your letter that "the continuum of alternative placements is an integral part of the IDEA regulations which Office of Special Education Programs Director Tom Hehir and I are bound, both by our own positions and by our own beliefs, to enforce." This is a message that has not yet been clearly expressed. The majority of articles in which you are quoted deal with your support for full inclusion. The importance of maintaining a full continuum of options for children with disabilities is not discussed. This could be an area where you can help to provide parents with "more and better information about the available options and the supports that may be needed for their children" by publicly discussing the options available through the continuum, of which inclusion in the regular classroom is just one of many options available to address the individual educational needs of children with disabilities. Enclosed for your review are copies of NAPSEC Directory pages that provide program descriptions of nine member schools in the metropolitan area that you may wish to visit. I will be happy to work with your office to schedule school visits and any other arrangements that you may need. You may be particularly interested to know that the Ivymount School in Rockville, Maryland, and the School for Contemporary Education in Annandale, Virginia, have recently been recognized as Schools of Excellence by the Department of Education. Again, I appreciate your taking the time to state your support for a continuum of options. I will share your views with the NAPSEC membership. I look forward to working with you to ensure that options and choices for children with disabilities and their families remain available and accessible in the future. Best wishes for a happy and healthy holiday season. Sincerely, Sherry L. Kolbe Executive Director ____________________ The most recent group to weigh in with its views on full inclusion is the American Federation of Teachers (AFT). In the December 17, 1993, edition of the publication, Disability Funding News, the AFT called for a moratorium on full inclusion. One is forced to question whether this call is based on a disinterested concern for all children or panic at the prospect of facing new challenges. The answer is undoubtedly some of both. Here is the article: AFT Urges Moratorium On Full Inclusion Programs The American Federation of Teachers urges a moratorium on school inclusion policies that integrate all special needs students in regular classrooms. AFT proposes a strategy for making inclusion work more effectively where appropriate, beginning with a reappraisal of federal, state, and local policies. "A moratorium means that the abuse must stop and give common sense and sound educational policy a chance to prevail," says AFT President Albert Shanker. "We must put the brakes on a helter- skelter, even tumultuous, rush toward full inclusion so that everyone involved--parents, school boards, legislators, Congress, and the Clinton administration--can develop a policy based on what is best for all children in our public schools." But Advocates of Inclusive School Policies Disagree "Inclusion benefits all students in schools where careful planning has taken place and training and support are provided for teachers," responds Brenda Welburn, executive director of the National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE). "Schools with successful inclusion environments are characterized by active teacher involvement in decisions about scheduling, staffing patterns, and staff development. These schools should be used as models for other schools to proceed in implementing inclusion, rather than putting the whole reform effort on hold." The move toward inclusion is most aggressive in California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Utah, and Vermont. And inclusion was gathering momentum in Ohio and West Virginia until teachers began campaigning against it, Shanker says. New inclusion initiatives currently in the works could potentially place up to 4.7 million special education students in regular classrooms. Some 34 percent of those 4.7 million children were taught in regular classrooms in 1990-91, according to the Department of Education. AFT maintains that placing disabled students who yell, scream, and are prone to violent outbursts in regular classrooms threatens the academic achievement of the other students. "More and more teachers are catheterizing children, fixing feeding tubes, giving medications, and performing other procedures on medically fragile children, while across the room a violently disruptive student is on the verge of getting away with mayhem because he can't be disciplined without a court order," Shanker says. He notes that a recent AFT survey of the one hundred largest school districts finds only five percent of schools train their general classroom teachers to deal with special needs children. While NASBE agrees that providing little or no support to teachers to handle children with special needs or implementing inclusion without adequate support is inappropriate, Welburn says "To stop the entire effort to include students with special needs in general education classrooms is an overreaction." Andrew Stamp, spokesman for NASBE, says the concern that teachers spend too much time disciplining special needs students is unfounded. In fact, the majority of students causing the problems in the classroom are not special needs students. "We cannot lay the ills of society or the problems in the classroom on the backs of students with disabilities," he says, adding that one Louisiana school district, in its third year of a five-year move toward full inclusion, reported a 50 percent decrease in K-6 discipline referrals to the principal. The motivation for inclusion is often based on budgetary and ideological motivations, Shanker says, not educational reasons. "Schools claim to do it [inclusion] for idealistic reasons," Shanker says. "It's simply a budget savings device using the fig leaf of altruism." Due to budget shortfalls in the federal government, school systems are under financial pressure to cut back expensive programs for students with special needs, and inclusion is one such budget-cutting measure. As a result, services are bound to be reduced or eliminated once students are scattered throughout the school system, Shanker explains. But inclusion advocates say many states actually reward school districts financially if they keep disabled students in separate classes. They contend that special services can continue for these students if they attend regular classes. The AFT strategy calls for:  A reappraisal of federal laws and policies that encourage inappropriate inclusion.  Congress to fulfill its pledge to fund 40 percent of costs for special needs children, as provided in the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (now the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act). Congress currently provides only seven percent of this funding.  Giving teachers the authority to help determine which special needs students should be placed in regular classes.  Limits on the number of special needs children in regular classes.  Removing limitations on disciplining special needs students who are disruptive or dangerous to others. While the moratorium is in existence at the state and local level, Shanker says, policy makers at all levels must work to balance the needs of special education and regular students for the future. There it is--a complicated and varied situation in which there is no clear way of protecting the disabled child's right to a free and appropriate education. Clearly there is no one solution for all children or even for a single youngster throughout his or her educational life, and that means there is no one course of action for knowledgeable parents and advocates to take. We must continue to fight for improvements at every point on the special education continuum, and we must resist efforts to drop blind youngsters into regular classrooms without giving them instruction in the skills of blindness or support services to provide the educational materials they need in accessible form. There is still much for informed, thoughtful, and caring members of the National Federation of the Blind to do to protect the rights of today's blind children. [PHOTO: Gary Wunder stands with microphone in hand. CAPTION: Gary Wunder.] STAYING THE COURSE, SHIFTING THE EMPHASIS: THE BLIND IN THE 1990'S by Gary Wunder From the Editor: Gary Wunder is the President of the Missouri affiliate and a leader at every level of the National Federation of the Blind. In November of 1993 he was the national representative at the NFB of Ohio convention, and the banquet address he delivered still has those who heard it thinking and talking about it. Here is what he said: This past weekend I had the good fortune to work with ninety high school and college students who attended one of our seminars to learn about the skills which would benefit them in their education. The name of the event was Student Network, and it was jointly hosted by Missouri's state agency, Rehabilitation Services for the Blind, and the National Federation of the Blind of Missouri. In general terms, they pay; we present--a nice arrangement, and one which they encourage. The reactions we get from students are almost uniformly positive. They are quick to say they appreciate our time; think our speaking is at least passible, if not entertaining; are encouraged by our accomplishments; and say they would attend the next Network should we decide to have one. Interspersed with this praise, however, are statements like the following: We would like to hear more from students; we spend too much time listening to old people. Sometimes I think the presenters are too rigid; it is as though they think they know all the answers. I wish you'd talk more about problems and how you solved them and less about philosophy and life. Then there is the all-important request: "Tell us more about how we can get our own Braille 'n Speaks and computers." Since we ask for the evaluations in an attempt to improve our program, we have to wrestle with ways to keep the good while incorporating the criticisms in something positive. The difficulty we face is one which buffets us everyday as Federationists, workers, parents, and members of American society. How can we convey the meaningful values which have made us what we are, while at the same time recognizing the changes that have taken place between the past we describe and the present we occupy as we speak? In more concrete terms, how do we stress the importance of old-fashioned educational values without telling that worn-out story about walking seven miles to school each day in snow up to our hips? All of this preamble leads me to what I want to talk about tonight--the changes which have occurred in recent decades for blind people, the ways in which we have brought about these changes, and our current role in this new reality. Even though our history reveals a change in emphasis from decade to decade, never have we lost the vision which brings continuity to it all: our vision of a world in which the blind are treated as normal, capable people who simply do not see, a vision of a world in which every blind person can have a job, a family, and a valued place in his or her community. When we began our movement over fifty years ago, our first task was to establish a means of subsistence-level support for the blind. Most blind people in 1940 lived with family members and had no means of self-support. As long as their care and support were the responsibility of relatives, they would continue to be treated like children and would likely regard themselves as inferiors, lesser beings whose thoughts and opinions were of little significance. Our work then was to provide a monthly state payment for the blind, and this we were successful in securing. After a minimal income was provided by law, our next job was to see that blind people got training. Not only was it necessary to learn the skills of blindness that would allow for independent travel and self-care, but additional academic and job skill training would be required if the blind were to secure employment. At first the training we received was minimal and rarely adequate, but each year saw new victories, and hope grew as the blind of that generation witnessed the changes. Once we had won the right to an education and some training, our emphasis shifted once again, and we turned our attention toward changing the attitudes of a skeptical public who simply did not believe the blind could work and make a contribution to society. In the fifties you will remember our struggles with the Civil Service, our demand that we be given the right to take tests, our demand that our test scores be posted, our demand that we be interviewed when our test scores were competitive, and finally our demand that we be hired when we were the most qualified candidates available. Through this lengthy and at times frustrating process, we continued to do what we had always done for one another--reminding ourselves that we truly were competent human beings. At times we had our doubts, for few were those who believed as we did. Each day we hoped and dreamed, sharing with our blind cohorts our little triumphs and defeats, clinging to the progress of each of our brothers and sisters as proof of the rightness of our belief in ourselves. Throughout the sixties and seventies we did much in the legislatures of the land to provide basic civil rights protection for the blind. White Cane laws soon declared that blind people could travel where we wished with our canes and our dog guides. Landlords could not deny us a place to live or charge us more to live in their establishments. Public transportation systems were not only obliged to permit us to ride but were compelled to make reasonable accommodations for us such as announcing stops and giving us the name of the route the bus was traveling. Restaurants were ordered to seat and serve us without regard to our use of a dog guide, and even insurance companies were compelled to review their policies regarding the sale of insurance to the blind, being required to justify any higher rate by statistically demonstrating that we were a greater risk than others. This, of course, they could not do. Having made substantial gains in securing basic civil rights protection, our emphasis gradually shifted, and the seventies and eighties witnessed landmark legislation designed to assure that we would be considered for jobs in the public sector without regard to our blindness. Many of us found work as a result of amendments to the Federal Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and some state laws which were similar in intent. We found, of course, that legislation was not enough. A major portion of our energy and funding was given to enforcing the laws we had introduced and passed, and reports of successful court challenges were a major staple in our annual presidential reports, our banquet speeches, and our governmental affairs activities. In the nineties there is little I have mentioned that cannot still be found in the work we do. We continue to press for a guaranteed and adequate income for the blind, for quality affordable housing, and for the special programs which teach the skills and attitudes required to function independently as blind people. We still take problems which the blind of the nation bring, and these often result in administrative challenges, arbitration hearings, and court battles. You will have noticed, however, that, as our message becomes ever more widely accepted and our legal protection more firmly secured by precedent, these issues appear with some less frequency than they did in the past. What then is our major task to fulfill in the 1990's? I believe it is to strengthen the confidence our brothers and sisters have in themselves so that they are able and willing to risk the possibility of failure on the chance of success. We must deepen the faith we have come to feel in one another so that it extends beyond faith in our power as a body and fills those areas of our lives where doubt or contentment with the status quo now resides. Let me turn for a moment from this abstract discussion of the challenges which face us to share with you a few specific examples which concern me, because of what they illustrate in the way of changes we must address. I have been a member of the Federation for twenty years, and in that time have listened to and worked on behalf of many people who have had grievances against the education and rehabilitation establishments. Often in my early years the conflicts came about because the rehabilitation counselor simply didn't believe that a blind person could do what the client insisted he had the right to try. Often there were elements of custodial treatment which also aggravated the situation, and in most instances the blind people pressing their cases were supremely qualified to do what they wanted to do. This didn't mean that winning was easy or that the victories were always everything we wanted, but it did mean that every advance brought us that much closer to enjoying true equality with the sighted. In the last few years I have seen a change in the kinds of issues brought to us for resolution. Let me give you two examples I find disturbing. Jim is a man who would like to get his Ph.D. in educational administration and work as a high school principal or superintendent. He came to us when it appeared he would be denied admission to graduate school. He was interested in discussing with me the problems blind people have when taking tests administered by the Educational Testing Service. When tests are administered under nonstandard conditions such as with the use of readers or Braille or the provision of additional time, the ETS sends with a blind person's test score a letter noting that it cannot say with certainty just what the score means. Our concern about this disclaimer is that it may be used to diminish the learning indicated by our scores. Jim asked that I note our long- standing objections to this attachment in a letter he might use before the graduate admissions board, and this I did. When Jim came to me several weeks later to ask that we hire an attorney to help him sue the university for its denial of his request to enter the graduate program, I did a little research so that I would have a better understanding of his case and could decide how we should be involved. In denying Jim admission to its degree program, the school gave four reasons: (1) his high school and undergraduate grades were too poor for admission, (2) his grades while in graduate school on a trial basis were mediocre, (3) he did not have teaching experience, and (4) his Graduate Record Exam scores were far too low. The school argued that it had tried to be flexible in evaluating Jim as a candidate for a degree and that it had tried to take into account the special problems which might be faced by people who are blind. It argued that it had admitted Jim provisionally, without first requiring him to take the GRE; that it had overlooked his lack of work experience in the field; and that it had been willing to put aside Jim's poor performance in high school and college and was prepared to judge him on his work in graduate school. The school further argued that it had attempted to accommodate Jim in taking the GRE, that initially accommodation had been refused, and that later it had been accepted and provided. In short, the school argued that it could have overlooked any one of Jim's shortcomings and admitted him, but that the cumulative record simply went beyond reasonable accommodation. Jim argued that his high school and college grades were poor because at the time he was sighted and did not take school as seriously as he would have had he been blind. He said his lack of job experience should be obvious, for blind people just could not find employment in the public schools. With regard to his GRE scores, Jim argued that he was disadvantaged the first time he took the test by the failure of those who administered it to provide him with accommodation--a reader. His second score, he said, was not a reflection of his true ability specifically because of his accommodation--a reader. Jim said that he was not accustomed to taking tests with readers and that this should invalidate his score. In short, the school should understand that he was a blind man and abandon trying to give him the test altogether since there was obviously no good way to measure what he knew. After talking with Jim and members of the department which rejected him, I suggested that his lack of the skills of blindness played a real role in his lack of success and that we could help. He had argued that discrimination caused by blindness kept him from getting teaching experience. I gave him the name of Tom Ley, a math teacher in Louisiana, and Fred Schroeder, a former teacher and the current Director of the New Mexico Commission for the Blind. I discussed with him the possibility of getting training at a center; learning to use readers, magnifiers, and Braille; requesting mobility training; and brushing up on academic skills to improve his test scores and overall performance in school. In the end, Jim had no interest in anything I said and made it clear that he was angered by what he viewed as interference. Jim hotly told me that he was interested in information pertaining to discriminatory treatment by the Educational Testing Service and nothing more. Blindness meant all requirements and standards should be waived. The law was on his side, and he'd use that law with or without us. Never mind the test scores, the grades, the experience, or the skill deficits. He wasn't interested in any of it. The test scores were indicative of nothing. The value of having experience as a teacher before becoming a school administrator was not important either. He wanted what he wanted, and if blindness provided an avenue to further his complaint, then that's the road he would travel. Forget the training that would make him truly competitive and equal. That would take too long. What he wanted was admission to school, and he wanted it now and without unsolicited interference. He had defined our role, and now we should function within the boundaries he had set. We refused to take part, but he persists. About this same time I was contacted by a woman I will call Ardith. Ardith said that she was a writer of plays and movies and that she had been working on her productions since 1987. She wanted our help because she needed a loan for word-processing equipment. She said she had requested the equipment from Missouri's Rehabilitation Services for the Blind without results. She complained about being thwarted by the bureaucracy, about the rehab establishment's lack of faith in the blind, and about the way in which these poor excuses for public servants were robbing the world of good entertainment and robbing her of a lucrative livelihood. Now I've been a Federationist long enough to know when it's my turn to come on stage, so recognizing my cue, I began encouraging her and planning how I would present her case to the Director of Rehab Services. Just as a precaution--being a middle- aged rather than a very young and inexperienced Federationist--I asked if I might see something she had written. I said that, while I was no authority on what was or was not a good play, I knew one person who would be glad to review her work for me and share with both of us her opinion of its worth. Ardith's response was slow in coming, but eventually she said, "Well, maybe I could show you something, but I wouldn't want you or anyone else to steal it, so I'll have to get it copyrighted first. Okay?" Then she said that I'd have to overlook any misspellings, problems with grammar, and mistakes in typing. That, of course, was because she didn't have a word processor. Then I asked the really tough question: has anyone expressed an interest in your work, offered you any money, or performed one of your plays? I asked it with a bit more tact than I've shown here, but the answer was an insulted "no," as though that really didn't matter. Again I did some research, still prepared to get my exercise by beating on Rehab if I needed to, but thinking at this point that a little caution might be in order. I learned that Ardith's relationship with Rehab was a long-standing one and that her case had been closed following her pronouncement that her counselor should go straight to hell. Okay, Ardith might lack something in tact, but how could a Federation leader be upset by someone spirited enough to tell off Rehab? Then I discovered that Ardith's request for a word processor had been greeted with enthusiasm, the counselor having feared that there was nothing Ardith was interested in pursuing. Knowing that Ardith had no word processing skills, and feeling that something besides Ardith's declared intention to be a writer should appear in the file as justification, the counselor presented Ardith with two options, either of which Rehab would fund. One option was to go for a one-month evaluation at a rehab center where Ardith could use many different kinds of adaptive equipment and choose which device best suited her. The evaluation could also be used to determine her aptitude as a writer, and the recommendations of the rehab staff and Ardith's own preferences would result in the purchase of a talking word processor. The second option for Ardith was to enroll for a semester as a student at the university near her home. She could take an English class and use the equipment in the Student Services labs; and at the end of the semester, provided she passed, the equipment she wanted would be delivered. When I called Ardith to talk with her about what I'd been told, I fully expected to hear that the counselor had exaggerated the offer she had actually made or that in presenting it she had been rude or short or negative. Ardith, however, made no such accusations. She confirmed, in fact, that these were the options she had been given but said she found both totally unacceptable. I asked her why, and she said she had no obligation to prove herself to anybody. She further said she didn't have time to waste going for a month to a center and thought she'd get very little out of spending a semester in a university class. "You have to understand," she said, "that I'm very busy here trying to get out my made-for-television movie. I just don't have time to screw with them. Now let's talk about a loan from the Federation." All of you who are here tonight know how strongly we feel about the need to serve the blind and to be advocates for those in need. Our role in standing up for blind people and fighting against the agencies is well known. For a long time, if someone had asked me what the primary work of the Federation was, with great enthusiasm I would have said it was to defend the blind individual against the custodial, stingy, and patronizing professionals who work with them. While from time to time we certainly do find ourselves in these situations, today they are the exception rather than the rule, and with ever-increasing frequency we find the agencies and the organized blind working together to create opportunities and change lives. What I want for myself and others who are blind is a chance to compete. I want people to listen and discuss with us the accommodations we need, but I don't expect them to throw away the standards they use in determining what it takes to do the job competitively. If their job descriptions say "must be able to read," rather than "must be able to understand written material," then we ought to be ready for a fight. If a training program denies a blind person access because they say he cannot draw flow charts, even though he can write an efficient computer program, then we ought to champion his case. Our task in the 90's is to get blind people to look not only at the forces allied against us in the pursuit of a home, a job, and a family, but to look at the opposite side of the coin and recognize with equal attention those forces we have rallied in support of our ambitions. When Dr. Jernigan presented his paper, "Blindness: Handicap or Characteristic," he challenged us to look upon blindness as only one of many characteristics that make us what we are. He demonstrated that some characteristics are positive, some negative, and others neutral, depending on what it is we wish to do. If most of us had been given the choice, we would not have elected to be blind; but given that we are, what problems and possibilities does this characteristic present? What group's members today in American society can receive a monthly maintenance check while attending college with books and tuition paid by the Government? What group can request and receive special equipment simply by expressing the intention to use it in pursuing employment? Having won through the law so much of what we have sought, we must now shift our emphasis from what society must do for us to what we as blind people can do for ourselves. It is critical that we understand what the organization we have created can and cannot do for us. Organizations are well equipped to spotlight a problem, to bring injustice to the attention of the public, and to work collectively to remove the barriers that block whole classes of people from full participation. We can march together, united in our demand that the colleges and universities of America let us in. We can mobilize the anger of the public in fighting the injustice that exists when a qualified blind woman is denied a place in the classroom. What we cannot do is accompany her into her freshman composition class and ensure through our collective action that she will do the work competitively. We can articulate the injustice which exists when a blind man is denied participation in his chosen field of study because some administrator mistakenly believes the sciences to be off-limits for the blind. What we cannot do is ensure that the blind man seeking entrance to an electrical engineering program will have developed the Braille skills that will enable him efficiently to take notes, manipulate equations, and communicate his answers to an anxious professor. Our challenge in this decade is to use the incomes we have been provided to advance, and not merely to exist. We must take advantage of the educational resources placed at our disposal, not simply as a method of planning the way we will spend the next four or five years, but as a means to provide our own support. When we elect to attend a technical school or an institution of higher learning, we must do so with the clear intention of pursuing a career once the training is complete. The agreement we make with our fellow Americans is not a God-given right which we accept without obligation. By our acceptance of training, we are agreeing to make the task of finding a job our first priority, meaning that we will not place so many artificial restrictions and conditions on our prospective employment that we never find a job we think we want to do. How many unemployed sighted people can argue that they turned down a $15,000-a-year job because it would require a move? How many out- of-work sighted people could turn down a $25,000 job because they felt it just wasn't worth the trouble? How many sighted people without a job could turn down work because commuting took an hour each way and just didn't seem worth the bother? I have personally helped blind people find entry-level jobs, only to have them tell me they rejected the job offer because they didn't have time to start at the bottom. Where do they believe most people make their entry into the work force? But, of course, this question really misses the point because the real issue is not inconvenience or even economics, but confidence. As an organization we can do much when those who oppose us tell us no; but when we reach the point where society says yes, it must be the individual who goes forth to take advantage of the rights we have secured. Can he proceed in the knowledge that others have gone before? Can she work to win a degree, confident that we will stand by her should she encounter discrimination when she looks for her first job? Can the blind graduate move to another town, knowing that he is one of many who have dared to live independently, the protection of family and friends being hundreds of miles distant? The answer to these questions is yes, but the choice to risk must be made by the individual, and only through the positive choices of individuals can we remain strong. Having said all of this, am I making the case that the world is now an easy place in which to be blind and that the only barriers standing between us and first-class citizenship are issues of individual choice? No. As long as there are more sighted people than blind ones in the world, we will have special problems with which we must cope, and we will always have need of our organization to solve problems requiring collective action. Am I saying that everyone here is capable, if he or she decides to do so, of going out of this room and getting an education and a job? No, I am not, for nothing I can say will undo the scarring some of us have endured, and no matter how hard it is to admit, for some of us it is too late. Our job as Federationists is to do many things for many different people, and no one prescription will serve us all in this task. Some Federationists desperately need our honest assessment of their strengths and weaknesses. Some Federationists need our encouragement as they undertake this painful assessment themselves. Some Federationists deserve our understanding of where they have been and of the life experiences which have placed them where they are. All Federationists, ladies and gentlemen, can benefit from two things we can give in abundance: love and hope. These two ingredients have bound us together for more than fifty years, and they will continue to unify and strengthen us through the 90's and through the many decades to come. As we celebrate our past and embrace our future, let us rededicate ourselves this evening to the work which has brought us to this place. When we do, there is no force on earth which can stand against us. I would like to leave you with a thought from Ralph Waldo Emerson which I find both inspirational and instructive: "There is a time in every man's education when he arrives at the conviction that envy is ignorance; that imitation is suicide; that he must take himself for better or worse as his portion; that though the wise universe is full of good, no kernel of nourishing corn can come to him but through his toil bestowed on that plot of ground which is given him to till. The power which resides in him is new in nature, and none but he knows what that is which he can do, nor does he know until he has tried." [PHOTO: Scott LaBarre stands at podium microphone. CAPTION: Scott LaBarre.] GEORGIA EDUCATOR TEACHES SCHOOL SYSTEM NOT TO DISCRIMINATE by Scott LaBarre From the Editor: Scott LaBarre is the Assistant Director of governmental Affairs for the National Federation of the Blind. He often works with people who are facing discrimination of various kinds. In recent months he has spent a good bit of time working with Carol Ducote, a high school administrator from Georgia who recently lost her sight. Here is the story: As I write this article, the National Federation of the Blind is celebrating its fifty-fourth year as an organization. Our history is filled with victories, both large and small, that have changed what it means to be blind. But despite our many successes, we still have a long road to travel before blind people can say that we are truly equal and first-class citizens, but the fact that the Federation is strong and healthy means that one day our dream of first-class citizenship will without doubt be realized. Ignorance and misconception about blindness are certainly two of the most significant barriers we face because they often lead directly to discrimination and injustice. In the coastal town of Brunswick, Georgia, last year a blind woman found herself facing a major case of discrimination of the sort with which we have become all too familiar. Carol Ducote is an assistant principal at Brunswick High School. She is now serving her eighth year in that position, but she would not be doing so if it were not for the National Federation of the Blind. Several years ago Ms. Ducote contracted Stevens-Johnson syndrome as a result of an adverse reaction to medication. Over time her vision grew worse, and she lost almost all of her sight in 1992. She received a little training in the alternative skills of blindness and returned to her job at the Brunswick High School in the fall of 1992. Before proceeding with Ms. Ducote's story, it might be helpful to review briefly the protections which the law guarantees blind people. Both the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 apply in Carol Ducote's case. These laws clearly state that it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against a disabled individual on the basis of that person's disability. Additionally, both laws make it clear that refusing to provide reasonable accommodations is a form of discrimination. What is a reasonable accommodation? The answer is not always clear, but for a blind person it often means that he or she may be entitled to a reader or some assistive technology. From the start in Carol Ducote's case there was virtually no doubt that the Glynn County School System had a duty to provide her with reasonable accommodations. When she returned to school in the fall of 1992 after having lost virtually all her sight, the school system made no effort to accommodate her in any way. There was never any talk about providing her with a reader or assistive technology. Despite this fact Carol Ducote did what it took to get her job done. Her friends and others volunteered to read to her in their free time. She spent many extra hours making sure that she fulfilled her duties. In other words she was determined to do her job and to do it well. She simply would not allow her blindness to hold her back. As the year progressed, Ms. Ducote received no indication that her work was in any way inferior or not up to her previous standard. In fact all evidence indicated exactly the opposite. In the Glynn County School System all administrators and teachers are signed to one-year contracts. In April of 1993 the School System and Carol Ducote entered into a contract for the '93-'94 school year. If the School System had felt that Ms. Ducote had not been doing her job, there is no reason why it should have entered into yet another contract with her. At the end of the school year Ms. Ducote received her annual review. In it the Principal, Derrick Hulsey, indicated that every aspect of her job had been carried out satisfactorily or better. The only unusual item in the review was the statement that Ms. Ducote had done her job with some assistance. In other words Mr. Hulsey had included the fact that Ms. Ducote's friends and colleagues had offered her assistance on a completely voluntary basis during their unscheduled and free time. Ms. Ducote would never have needed such assistance if the school system had met its obligation under the law to provide reasonable accommodation. Over the summer Ms. Ducote discovered that the school system had developed reservations about her employment. Dr. Weaver, the Superintendent of Schools at that time, met with Carol to discuss the perceived difficulties she had on the job. He said that Carol could not fulfill her disciplinary roles at school functions like dances and football games. According to the School System it was unsafe for a blind person to maintain discipline among high school students. Furthermore, school officials alleged that Carol could not properly evaluate teachers because she could not see them. They further concluded that Ms. Ducote was no longer qualified for her job because other people had helped her do her reading. At this meeting Dr. Weaver informed Ms. Ducote that she had two choices. Either she could retire and take her disability pension, or she would be terminated. At that point Ms. Ducote contacted the National Federation of the Blind to learn about her rights. After speaking to us, she informed the school system that she had no intention of taking her disability pension and that she had every intention of returning to school and doing the job for which she was under contract. On August 24, 1993, Dr. Weaver wrote the following letter to Ms. Ducote: Dear Ms. Ducote: Based on Mr. Hulsey's recommendation relative to your responsibilities as Assistant Principal/Registrar of Brunswick High School, it has been determined that you cannot effectively and efficiently fulfill those responsibilities. You are hereby notified that you are immediately placed on administrative leave with full pay and benefits. The administrative leave will not be subtracted from any other form of authorized leave. The administrative leave will continue until such time as the Board of Education can formally act on a recommendation that you be terminated. In the near future you will receive a formal letter of recommendation that your contract be terminated. The letter will detail your rights under the Fair Dismissal Act. Sincerely, Jeffrey W. Weaver, Ph.D. Superintendent of Schools ____________________ After Ms. Ducote received that letter, she again called upon the NFB, and we became deeply involved in her case. Both Pat Munson, President of the National Association of Blind Educators, and Sharon Gold, President of the NFB of California and a member of the Board of Directors of the National Federation of the Blind, spoke to Ms. Ducote about her case. As a result James Gashel, NFB Director of Governmental Affairs, and I became active in the case. We immediately contacted the school system to determine whether or not the matter could be amicably resolved. As soon as we spoke to the school's lawyers, Foster Lindberg and Jim Bishop, school officials immediately suspended their plans to terminate Ms. Ducote. It is no coincidence that they suddenly wanted to begin talking as soon as the National Federation of the Blind became involved in the case. One afternoon in early September I had a long conversation with Foster Lindberg. I explained to him that both the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act made it unlawful to discriminate against a blind person based on disability. Furthermore, I reminded Mr. Lindberg that the school system had a duty to provide reasonable accommodations to Ms. Ducote. After this conversation Mr. Lindberg went back to talk seriously with the school board. When he called again, he said that the school system was leery of hiring someone to read for Carol. They apparently believed that she would need a full-time reader. We explained that she would require only a part-time reader and some assistive technology. Despite this the school system apparently concluded that reasonably accommodating Ms. Ducote would be far too expensive. Furthermore, it became obvious that they believed that no blind person could ever do the job of an assistant principal. Consequently Mr. Lindberg wrote to us in September saying that the school system thought that Ms. Ducote needed a psychological evaluation and training at a rehabilitation center and that after she completed such training the school system might be able to place her in a comparable job elsewhere in the district. We informed the School System in no uncertain terms that Ms. Ducote had already received some training and that she therefore already possessed the skills necessary to fulfill her job responsibilities. Furthermore, we told Mr. Lindberg that blindness in and of itself was not such a tragedy that it required Ms. Ducote to undergo psychological counseling. At this point Mr. Lindberg and the school board realized that their proposal was not going to be successful. Consequently they came forward with yet another one. This time they did not suggest that Ms. Ducote go through psychological counseling, but the school system still did not offer to return her to the position of assistant principal. Instead, they proposed that she become the head of vocational counseling. This is what their letter said: Brunswick, Georgia October 25, 1993 Dear Mr. LaBarre: Pursuant to your recent telephone conversations with Jim Bishop and myself, I wanted to confirm in writing that we are authorized to discuss with you the possibility of Carol Ducote becoming the head of vocational counseling for all high schools in the Glynn County Public School System (Brunswick High School, Glynn Academy, and the Night High School). Ms. Ducote would have a salary comparable to her salary as Assistant Principal/Registrar of Brunswick High School. Additionally, she would be provided with a secretarial assistant. Of course this written communication is offered in the context of settlement negotiations and does not constitute an admission of liability on behalf of the Glynn County Board of Education or admissible evidence in any administrative or court proceeding in the event this matter cannot be resolved among our clients. Very truly, C. Foster Lindberg ____________________ That is what it said, and although the letter makes it sound as if Ms. Ducote would be assuming many responsibilities, we knew they had no intention of giving her any significant authority. The school system already had a guidance counseling program in place, which included a vocational component. Furthermore the position of head of vocational counseling actually represented a demotion from her original position in that it carried with it fewer overall responsibilities. We also feared that the position would be created for one year only and then Ms. Ducote would be released on the grounds that the position was no longer needed. Most important, we rejected the school system's offer because Mr. Lindberg had informed me that school officials felt that as a blind person Ms. Ducote simply was not up to the challenge of being an assistant principal. Based on the school system's position, we sent them the following letter: Baltimore, Maryland October 26, 1993 Mr. C. Foster Lindberg Bishop and Lindberg Brunswick, Georgia Dear Mr. Lindberg: I have received your letter of October 25, 1993, and I have shared its contents with Ms. Ducote. After considering the matter, Ms. Ducote has decided that the position of head of vocational counseling is unacceptable primarily for the reason that a counseling position is not in line with the career track which she has established with the Glynn County School System. As you may know, in addition to her experience, Ms. Ducote has acquired additional educational qualifications in the area of school administration. Currently she is under contract with the Glynn County School System to serve as an assistant principal. She desires to continue in such a position and to take advantage of the promotional opportunities which come with it. As both a sighted and a blind person, Ms. Ducote has fulfilled the responsibilities assigned to her. By moving her to a position with fewer overall responsibilities or by refusing to offer her reasonable accommodations to her current position, the Glynn County School System is discriminating against Ms. Ducote on the basis of blindness. Unless the Glynn County School System honors its contract with Ms. Ducote or offers to place her in a position which is truly equivalent, she will have no recourse but to secure her employment rights under the law. Sincerely, Scott C. LaBarre Assistant Director of Governmental Affairs National Federation of the Blind ____________________ As our letter stated, we began exploring legal options. If we filed under the ADA, we would be restricted to filing a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission, a process which would take months before even a preliminary investigation would begin. If, however, we brought a lawsuit in federal court under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, we could seek immediate relief in the case and request that the judge order the school system to place Ms. Ducote back on her job. We hired the Baltimore law firm of Brown, Goldstein, and Levy to handle the case. Andrew Levy flew down to Brunswick, Georgia, to meet with Ms. Ducote and the school system's lawyers. They began by telling Mr. Levy that we did not have a case and that the school system would clearly win any legal battle. Mr. Levy pointed out to Mr. Lindberg that the school system had never consulted Ms. Ducote about her accommodation needs and that officials had never lifted a finger to provide reasonable accommodations. After seeing that we simply were not impressed by the attorney's attempts at intimidation, Mr. Lindberg acknowledged that the school system may have fallen short of its responsibilities under the law. He further suggested that it might be helpful for a representative from our organization to address the school board directly to explain the situation. On Monday, November 8, 1993, Mr. Gashel and I flew down to Brunswick to meet with the school board. That afternoon we met with Carol Ducote; our local counsel, John Bumgartner; Foster Lindberg; and school officials. Again Mr. Lindberg began by telling us that the school system had an airtight case, but we dispelled that myth rather quickly. We made it clear to everybody present that Carol Ducote had been discriminated against and that, when one blind person faces discrimination, all of us face it together. We further told the school officials that the NFB could not and would not tolerate such discriminatory actions against this blind woman. We were prepared to do whatever it took to secure a victory for Carol Ducote or for any other blind person facing such flagrant discrimination. At the conclusion of that meeting, the school officials suggested that we make the same sort of presentation to the district's board of education. Because the school board had to conduct all of its public business before discussing a personnel matter, we had to wait until midnight to make our case. Mr. Bumgartner began by introducing Mr. Gashel and me. He then pointed out to the board that the school system had clearly violated the law by discriminating against Carol Ducote. Then Mr. Gashel delivered an impassioned presentation. He explained what the National Federation of the Blind is and why we are dedicated to protecting the rights of blind persons all across this country. He made it clear that we were prepared to stand beside Carol Ducote and to fight for her rights until she was back at work. He went on to say that the biggest problem blind people face is the perception that we are incapable of participating in the mainstream of life. He pointed out that the school system had never once described a specific problem Carol Ducote had experienced in fulfilling her job duties; rather all of the problems raised were merely perceived difficulties based on the school officials' misconceptions and stereotypes about blindness. But Mr. Gashel also expressed our willingness to work with the school system to ensure that Ms. Ducote could receive and use all the tools she needed to be competitive on her job, but we had no intention of doing so until the school system had agreed to return her to her former position. Then he said very clearly that the school system had about one week to make up its mind; otherwise, we would see them at the federal courthouse. After we left the meeting, the board took a few moments to discuss the issue. Then they voted to place Ms. Ducote back on the job by Monday, November 15, 1993. The board further instructed the school system to work with both her and the National Federation of the Blind to ensure that she would receive proper accommodations. Needless to say, we were all very happy that the school officials had changed their minds and decided to give Ms. Ducote a true opportunity to succeed, but we knew that our work was far from finished. Shortly after Ms. Ducote returned to her position, Mr. Hulsey informed her that she could not enlist the support or help of any other school personnel to complete her job duties. In other words it appeared that Mr. Hulsey was determined to make Ms. Ducote's job so difficult that she was bound to fail. After Thanksgiving Allen Harris, Treasurer of the National Federation of the Blind and an experienced high school teacher in Michigan, flew down to Georgia to work with Ms. Ducote and the school system. Mr. Harris met with all the appropriate school officials, including Mr. Hulsey, to explain the way in which particular accommodations would allow Ms. Ducote to fulfill her job duties. He explained that these accommodations would not be particularly expensive. All she needed was someone to read for her on a part-time basis and a few pieces of assistive technology. Apparently school officials finally got the message. In mid- December they sent Carol Ducote and the district's technology expert to our National Center to spend two days in the International Braille and Technology Center for the Blind evaluating which pieces of technology would be most helpful for her to use on her job. Based on their visit to Baltimore, they recommended that certain devices be purchased, and the school system has pledged to do so. Even though it took several months for the school system to recognize its responsibilities under the law, school officials now seem willing to work with Carol Ducote and the National Federation of the Blind to give her a full and fair opportunity to fulfill her responsibilities as an assistant principal at the Brunswick High School. The Glynn County School System has learned that it cannot make personnel decisions based on old and unfounded stereotypes about the abilities of the blind. Furthermore, they have learned that, if they give Ms. Ducote the opportunity to succeed, she is likely to do her job as well as she did it when she was sighted. Carol Ducote has learned firsthand about the power and effectiveness of collective action. Before the NFB became involved, the School System stood ready to terminate Ms. Ducote, but when we entered the case, school officials learned that they simply could not terminate a blind person based on discriminatory and unfounded reasons. Carol Ducote has learned that when you face discrimination alone, it is frightening and very hard (if not impossible) to win, but with the support and experience of the organized blind movement behind you there is virtually no discrimination that cannot be defeated. Carol Ducote is now ready to help other blind people in Georgia learn about their rights so that they will not have to face the same problems which she has already confronted. As an educator Carol Ducote wants to teach everyone one lesson she has already mastered: when it comes to knowing about and securing the rights of blind people, there is no greater force for justice than the National Federation of the Blind. Through collective action we as blind people will take our place as first-class citizens in our society. The Carol Ducote case clearly demonstrates that a great deal of discrimination is still aimed at the blind and that we still have a long way to go before we can rest, but the fact that we have won her case also shows that we will ultimately be victorious. For the past fifty-four years members of the National Federation of the Blind have worked tirelessly to spread the message that, once we are given the chance, we can be just as successful as any other members of society. We must continue our work; otherwise, employers like the Glynn County School System will be able to discriminate and destroy the dreams of the blind without having to account for their actions. As long as we remain vigilant and true to our cause, we will continue to secure the rights of blind people in all areas of life. As Carol Ducote will tell you, the key to first-class citizenship for the blind is the National Federation of the Blind. [PHOTO: Portrait. CAPTION: Carla McQuillan.] THE OREGON BRAILLE BILL: AN EXERCISE IN COOPERATION by Carla Mcquillan From the Editor: Carla Mcquillan is the President of the National Federation of the Blind of Oregon. Like the presidents of many other Federation affiliates, she has led a statewide effort to pass legislation that would protect the right of blind children to receive appropriate and timely instruction in Braille from teachers competent to teach it and to have Braille text materials at the same time that their sighted peers receive print ones. That passage of such common-sense legislation should be a battle is astonishing to any objective observer, but many of us know firsthand just how bitter, almost hysterical, the resistance to this concept can be. Yet occasionally an affiliate has an experience that renews one's faith in the education, rehabilitation, and legislative establishments. Passage of the Oregon Braille bill is such a story. It is not lengthy or particularly dramatic, but it provides hope to us all. This article first appeared in the December issue of the Oregon Outlook, the publication of the National Federation of the Blind of Oregon. Here it is: In the spring of 1992 a task force determined that the Oregon State School for the Blind (OSSB) and the Oregon State School for the Deaf (OSSD) were serving far too few children for the total dollars spent. The recommendation from the task force was that both schools be closed and all the students in those facilities be mainstreamed. In an effort to preserve the programs, Superintendent of Education Norma Paulis developed a plan wherein the two facilities would co-exist on a single property, without compromising the integrity of either of the programs. For more than ten years the School for the Blind has been a target in budget wars, and this year's proposed cuts were the deepest yet. Closure of the school had been prevented in the past because of the protests of the blind community. For the battle this time, however, we believed that some creative negotiating would be needed to preserve the program. At our Members' Seminar in the fall of 1992 we took a careful look at the quality of education for blind children in Oregon. We agreed that there was room for improvement, particularly with regard to the programs and curriculum through OSSB. We considered the ramifications of relocating the blind school and concluded that the greatest loss would be the physical building itself. We concurred that a major restructuring might well be the best way to make sweeping improvements in the program. Our primary concern was to insure that the two programs (OSSB and OSSD) remain totally separate and intact. We approached Norma Paulis, offering support for her proposal to relocate the School for the Blind, if the Department of Education would involve us in the restructuring and planning of the new facility and if they would help improve the quality of education of all blind children in Oregon by working with us on a Braille Literacy Bill. We worked closely with Maurine Otis from the department on the language of the bill, using the Texas bill as our model. In February, 1993, Senator Bill Dwyer of Springfield sponsored the bill. In early March eighteen members of the NFB of Oregon visited the offices of all ninety Oregon legislators. We were prepared with folders containing a copy of the Braille bill; a Braille alphabet card; a few pieces of NFB literature on Braille literacy; an NFB of Oregon brochure; letters of support from the Commission for the Blind, the director of OSSB, the director of the Oregon Textbook and Materials Center for the Visually Impaired, and the President of the Alliance for Blind Children; and a fact sheet describing the Braille bill and the proposed relocation of the OSSB. Representatives from the Text Book and Materials Center, the Department of Education, and the National Federation of the Blind of Oregon testified at each of the hearings on the Braille bill. The Confederation of School Administrators (COSA), was present at one of the hearings in the Senate and testified in support of the bill, focusing on the untimely fashion in which Braille textbooks are made available to blind students. The President of COSA testified that the textbook section of this bill would expedite the process of textbook production and improve teacher effectiveness tremendously. The proposal to use the money from the sale of the School for the Blind to fund the building of the new school on the fifty-two-acre School for the Deaf campus was brought before the legislature. The legislators felt that they had insufficient data to determine the feasibility of the relocation, so they deferred the decision to close or relocate the Schools for now. But following all the debate and discussion, the Oregon Braille Bill passed unanimously through the Senate and with only four dissenting votes in the House. On July 14, 1993, Senate Bill 934 was signed by Governor Roberts, eloquent testimony to the power of cooperation. It will take effect September 1, 1994. [PHOTO: Norm Peters stands in office at New Mexico Commission for the Blind. CAPTION: Norm Peters displays the t-shirt and medallion he was presented as a participant in the White Sands Alamogordo Marathon Walk.] WALKING ALONE AND MARCHING TOGETHER IN ALAMOGORDO From the Editor: The philosophy of the National Federation of the Blind inspires thousands of blind men and women to stretch themselves and grow in new ways every day. Our struggles against fear and uncertainty are often unique. But although the expression of this struggle may be highly individual, the actual process each person faces is usually similar to the experiences of others. We learn about things that other blind people do every day that we would dearly love to do. We come to realize that these people believe blindness need not stop them from going about their daily lives or even dreaming great dreams or accomplishing ambitious goals. Then, with attention firmly fixed on the example before us, we step out in some new way and dare to do something that we have never tried before. And, as we discover that we actually can succeed in new ways, we begin to find ourselves serving as role models for other blind people. For some time Norm Peters has been the President of the San Diego County Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind of California. In the June, 1993, issue of the Braille Monitor he described how he lost 130 pounds by eating healthily and walking significant distances every day around his neighborhood. His most recent project was walking the distance to Baltimore, home of the National Center for the Blind. Because the Federation had come to mean so much to Norm, he enjoyed imagining himself actually traveling to see its headquarters. In the meantime he was providing his neighbors with an excellent example of the way in which blind people walk safely through the streets of their communities. He has worn out many cane tips in the process of walking those thousands of miles, and he has also demonstrated to everyone just how good a cane traveler he has become. When the time came for the NFB of California to begin planning for the opening of the Lawrence Marcelino Orientation Center for the Blind, it was not surprising that Sharon Gold, President of the California affiliate, asked Norm if he would be interested in training to become the Center's cane-travel instructor. Norm said yes and departed several months ago for intensive training at the Adult Orientation Center at the New Mexico Commission for the Blind. Whether one is a new student, mastering the skills of blindness for the first time and learning about NFB philosophy, or a veteran Federationist preparing for some challenging assignment, spending time as a student at one of the NFB training facilities is an exhilarating and stimulating experience. The challenges are very real and often difficult, but one comes to understand that in the Federation one is never alone, that there is always a cheering section to help one over the hard places, and that every victory one wins strengthens us all. Those are the lessons that Norm Peters learned in early December. Here is the story he told President Maurer in a letter he wrote two days after the experience: Alamogordo, New Mexico December 6, 1993 Dear President Maurer: I have thoroughly enjoyed my staff training at the Orientation Center here in Alamogordo, New Mexico, in preparation for becoming the cane-travel instructor at the Muzzie Marcelino Orientation Center in Sacramento, California. I want to add my voice to those of the many others who have had the opportunity to attend NFB centers. Being here has changed my life in many ways, not just because of having the chance to do things I have never done before and now know I can, but because everything I have learned in and out of class has helped to raise my self-esteem and my recognition that it is respectable to be blind. Because of the way I feel about myself and the training I have been getting here, I want to tell you of an experience I participated in this last Saturday, December 4. I do not believe I would ever have considered taking part in it before my training here at the Orientation Center. Perhaps you remember from reading the article about my weight loss in the June, 1993, issue of the Braille Monitor that I have done a fair amount of walking daily for the past few years. About a week before the Thanksgiving break here in Alamogordo, I heard an ad on the radio that said on Saturday, December 4, 1993, Alamogordo would sponsor various walks and runs--everything from a one-mile competition to a marathon walk or run. When I heard this ad, I began to think long and hard. I had done a lot of walking for exercise before, mostly 5.75 miles a day, sometimes twelve. I wondered, should I, could I attempt the marathon walk? I talked to the physical education instructor here to get his advice on whether I should try such a distance, never having done it before. He told me that, if I had walked as much as twelve miles at a time in the past, I should be able to do a marathon walk. So with his advice and my determination to go for it, I paid my $5.00 and entered the White Sands Alamogordo Marathon Walk. Once I had put down the money, not only did I begin to prepare myself mentally and physically for the event, but I began to think about all the blind people in this country and around the world who are better off because of the National Federation of the Blind. I also began thinking about the many blind individuals who are still struggling, not understanding or believing that it really is respectable to be blind. I thought maybe it would be good for them to have a blind person do something to show them that blind people can achieve any goal we really set our minds to. With these thoughts in mind, I determined that I would finish this race, knowing full well that I would not be first. I also made up my mind that I would dedicate this race to all the blind people in the world to let them know that it is respectable to be blind and that we really can do what we want to. The marathon walk began in the White Sands Monument Park at 7:00 a.m. The temperature was a crisp 16.5 degrees. The first ten miles were in the White Sands Monument Park. The next thirteen miles lay along Highway 70, a major highway in this part of New Mexico. The last 3.2 miles brought us back to the city, and the finish line was right inside the Alamogordo Zoo. I began at 7:00 a.m. and finished at 6:07 p.m. Yes, I was one of the last participants to cross the finish line, but the fact that I did it was the important thing. The thing that kept me going mile after mile was the Federation. I knew that, if they had been here, thousands of Federationists around the country would have been cheering me on to the end. With those thoughts in mind, I finished the White Sands Alamogordo Marathon Walk. I do not know whether I will ever do a marathon again. But I do know that in this instance it was a privilege for me to be walking alone and marching together, marching with Federationists all over the country to further the independence of blind people. Seasons greetings to you and Mrs. Maurer, David Patrick, Diana Marie, and the entire Center staff. Sincerely, Norm Peters ****************************** If you or a friend would like to remember the National Federation of the Blind in your will, you can do so by employing the following language: "I give, devise, and bequeath unto National Federation of the Blind, 1800 Johnson Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21230, a District of Columbia nonprofit corporation, the sum of $_____ (or "_____ percent of my net estate" or "The following stocks and bonds: _____") to be used for its worthy purposes on behalf of blind persons." ****************************** [PHOTO: Kevan Worley standing at microphone. CAPTION: Kevan Worley.] THE NFB IN ACTION by Kevan Worley From the Editor: Kevan Worley is a member of the Board of Directors of the National Federation of the Blind Merchants Division. At the 1993 convention of the National Federation of the Blind of Colorado Kevan was elected Vice President of the Colorado NFB Merchants Division and was also elected to the Board of Directors of the National Federation of the Blind of Colorado. He made the following remarks to that convention in September, 1993. Here they are: I am very happy to have been asked by our state president Homer Page to participate in our affiliate's traditional Sunday morning presentation, "The NFB in action," for to me the NFB means action. The first time I really paid attention to the National Federation of the Blind was in the late 1970's while working at a small radio station in west Texas. Stories began to come over our wire services about these blind people led by a charismatic Dr. Kenneth Jernigan. These blind folks were picketing the Federal Aviation Administration. They were taking action to demand the right to carry long white canes on airplanes. At that time I was twenty-two years old, insecure with myself and my blindness, and that was a little too much action for me. As the Nobel-Prize-winning poet Mellosch has observed, "We have a command to participate actively in our history." So by 1982 I realized that it was in my best interest to learn about, join, and become active in this dynamic organization. My reasons for choosing to become involved in our social action movement were probably as complex, varied, and personal as yours. I joined, began to learn, and have been more or less active over the years. I wonder now, without the National Federation of the Blind, what I would have done this past spring when the job I had relocated to take was apparently snatched away from me by an insensitive and unknowing governmental bureaucracy. Let me briefly tell you the story and by doing so provide another example of why it was necessary to form an organization in 1940, as Dr. tenBroek put it then, "...for creating the machinery which will unify the action and concentrate the energies of the blind, for an instrument through which the blind of the nation can speak to Congress and the public in a voice that will be heard and command attention." In May of 1993 Paul Pichardo, a licensed blind vendor in Colorado Springs, Colorado, was granted a promotion to manage a business at Falcon Air Force Base, a high-security installation just outside of Colorado Springs. I was then awarded the vending facility at Kaman Sciences/Instruments, vacated by Mr. Pichardo. My fianc‚e, Karen Cox, and I relocated to Colorado Springs and settled in to begin our new business venture. But one week prior to our taking over, I received a call from the state licensing agency informing me that the Air Force had just told Paul that he would not be able to start at his new location. It would take nine to fifteen months for the Defense Investigative Service to grant him a security clearance, which is necessary for him to operate his new facility on the base. Paul's initial response was, "Well, I guess there's nothing we can do about it." While the agency did make a phone call or two to the Air Force, their posture was much the same: sympathetic yet powerless. I told you earlier that I joined the NFB in 1982. I had joined, I had learned, and I had been more or less active over the years. My first reaction was, "Nine to fifteen months for a security clearance to operate a convenience store to sell soda pop, chips, and Gummy Life Savers--come on! There must be something we can do." The state agency assured me that I could temporarily manage a cafeteria which was then being operated by a colleague of ours who is with us this weekend, Mark Meusborn. "Now," I thought, "let me see if I have this straight. For the next year or so I am to take a job for much less money; I am to take some of Mr. Meusborn's livelihood away from him; Karen Cox will not have her job, or will get very few hours of work at most; and the promotion earned by Paul Pichardo will be significantly delayed." The ripple affect would have impact on four people--only four blind people. No sighted people were affected at all. After discussing the matter with the state licensing agency and officials at the U.S. Air Force in Colorado Springs; San Antonio, Texas; and Washington, D.C., I determined that working alone I could not move the great weight of bureaucratic apathy. It was time for the NFB in action. I called my state president, Homer Page. I consulted with our Director of Governmental Affairs, James Gashel, and his assistant, Scott LaBarre. We decided that the best action we could take at this point was to contact our Congressional delegation to enlist their assistance. President Page suggested this course of action and agreed to write letters to our Senators and House members detailing the situation and urging their assistance. With the support of the organized blind behind us, Karen and I each wrote letters to our Congressional delegation. Then I told Paul Pichardo that he could have some impact if he, too, would write letters. This he did with our assistance. Paul wrote to Congressmen Hefley from Colorado Springs and McGinnis from Pueblo. I then made personal phone calls to both Congressmen whom, incidentally, I had met at our February Washington Seminar--all part of the NFB in action. The legislative aides from Congressman Hefley's office and Congressman McGinnis's office assured us that others had had their delays caused by the Defense Investigative Service. They said there was cause for optimism because they were often successful in expediting security clearances. Paul and I received phone calls several times over the next few weeks to assure us that both offices were still working on the problem. By the way, when we wrote our letters to the Congressional delegation, we copied our colleagues in the movement: President Maurer, President Emeritus Dr. Jernigan, Jim Gashel, and state President Homer Page. We also copied Stan Boxer and Ron Landware from our state licensing agency, just so they would know someone could take action. The letters we received from our legislators were reassuring and supportive. They told us that they understood our plight, were sympathetic to our situation, and had great respect for the National Federation of the Blind. As Dr. tenBroek had put it fifty-three years ago, "...an instrument through which the blind of the nation speak to Congress and the public in a voice that will be heard and command attention." Six weeks from the day I had received the news from the state licensing agency that Paul's security clearance would be delayed from nine to fifteen months, Paul was granted his security clearance--not nine to fifteen months, but six weeks! Two weeks later he took over his new job at Falcon Air Force Base, and Karen and I took on our present jobs, running a small cafeteria at Kaman Science/Instruments. Mark Meusborn took back his temporary satellite, and the lady from the Congressman's office in Pueblo called to make sure I would still get my promotion. Stan Boxer, the director of the Business Enterprise Program in Colorado, commented on the depth and "reasoned tone" of our letters. I, of course, expressed my feeling that the state licensing agency should have done more to lend their voices to our attempt to speed up the process, rather than taking a business-as-usual attitude. Perhaps it was that the lives of four blind people were affected and not their own which caused their failure to act. It was the National Federation of the Blind which took action. Thank you, Homer. Thank you for writing the letters. Thanks for your advice and support. Thanks to Jim Gashel and Scott LaBarre for taking time to talk to me and for researching the issue. Thanks to all of you. Whether you knew it or not, you were with us as part of our great collective, the NFB in action. [PHOTO: Portrait. CAPTION: Faots Floyd.] BASIC RIGHTS AND HIGHER PRINCIPLES by Fatos Floyd From the Editor: Fatos Floyd is one of the leaders of the National Federation of the Blind of Missouri and a dynamic and energetic Federationist who works to assist blind people wherever she goes. She was born and received her early education in Turkey, and she maintains close links with friends and family in Istanbul. The following is a report she made shortly after returning from a visit to Turkey last year. Here it is: For my vacation this year I went to Turkey for six weeks to visit friends and family. I also spent a lot of time with the blind community. As you may remember from President Maurer's 1993 Presidential Report, in September of 1992 the Federation provided some training to several of the leaders in Turkey's blind movement. After my visit I can assure you that our assistance to those leaders is paying off. As a result of my observations in Turkey, I begin to realize the size and number of the obstacles Federation leaders and members had to overcome in the past to create a better future for all blind people in the United States. Today we are no longer fighting for simple survival but for higher principles because for the most part our basic rights have been established by law. On the other hand, in Turkey the fight for fundamental rights is just beginning. There it is hard to talk about important issues like information access when by law a blind person's signature is not acceptable. As you can imagine, this law causes lots of problems for blind people, who are denied the privilege of writing checks, getting a bank card, receiving credit cards, and even getting phone service. But do not worry. The seeds of Federationism that we planted through the training of the Turkish blind leaders are flourishing. An organization with the same philosophy as the NFB is working to make changes in Turkey that will affect the future. I was proud to be with this group and work with them for a short time while I was in the country. When I was there, I attended the opening of their computer training center. They are in the process of establishing English, Braille, and telephone operating training for the blind. They believe that the way to change the system is to train blind individuals to get competitive jobs and be taxpayers. At the same time they are working to change the demeaning laws that control the lives of blind people. As I have said, it was great to be part of this movement, even for a short time. I conducted workshops for blind women dealing with the issues of marriage, cane use, and the future of women in the blindness movement. Although Turkey has its first woman prime minister, in the blindness movement women are still in the background. I talked with the parents of blind children about integration, Braille materials for the students, cane use in the school and outside it, and the effect on blind kids of parental sheltering. After the workshop we went out with our canes and had an independent travel experience. These women and children had never had a cane in their hands. For the first time in their lives they were walking freely in Istanbul traffic. Of course, this was just a start. With time, training, and equipment they are going to be as independent as many of us here because they have the same spirit. You may wonder whether any exciting things happened to me while I was in Turkey. The answer is yes. Of course, no one hesitated to accept the Visa card of a blind individual, even though I had been the one to sign it. I guess that the prospect of payment in dollars overrode the signature law. Since blind people in Istanbul can ride buses free, I had to argue constantly with the bus drivers about taking my ticket. But the big challenge came just before I left the country. I went to a notary public to give my power of attorney to my brother. Of course, knowing the law, I took two witnesses with me. But even so, the head clerk almost threw me out of the office, saying that as a blind person I could not give power of attorney to anybody. I explained to her that I had done it three times before and that, according to the law, I can give it to anybody, as long as I have two witnesses. She was loud and ugly about the whole matter, so I took her name and left. In the same block I went to a second notary and got the power of attorney with no difficulty. After this incident I filed a formal complaint against the first notary for her violation of my rights. Overall, the trip was exciting, motivating, and thought- provoking. It is wonderful to see the effect of the Federation's love, friendship, and philosophy growing in my own country. I would like to thank you all for the changes that you have brought about in me and for the help you are giving people thousands of miles away. [PHOTO: Family portrait. CAPTION: Fred and Cathy Schroeder with their children Matthew and Carrie.] EXPECTATIONS: THE CRITICAL FACTOR IN THE EDUCATION OF BLIND CHILDREN by Fredric K. Schroeder From the Editor: The following is a banquet address delivered at the eighth International Conference on Blind and Visually Impaired Children which took place in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, on October 1, 1993. Fred Schroeder, who is the Executive Director of the New Mexico Commission for the Blind and a member of the Board of Directors of the National Federation of the Blind, also serves as President of the International Council on English Braille and is a noted expert in the education of blind children. Readers of the Braille Monitor will be familiar with some of his ideas from previous articles in these pages, but, given the current debate over full inclusion, this speech seems particularly relevant. Here it is: Perhaps no issue has been more hotly debated than the question of which educational placement or array of services represents the best alternative for blind children. We tend to view this debate as a contemporary issue--full inclusion versus residential placement. Yet this debate is not new in character or substance. In 1865 at the laying of the cornerstone of the New York State Institution for the Blind at Batavia, Samuel Gridley Howe stated: I am constantly applied to by teachers to know how to proceed with a blind child; and I always encourage them to keep it at home, and let it go to the common school as long as possible. (1866, in Blindness 1865, p. 185) While Howe suggests that public school education is preferable to residential placement, his lifetime devotion to establishing schools for the blind reflects his understanding that neither system is wholly adequate to meet the educational needs of blind children. Perhaps the real difficulty in the debate stems from the complexity of its issues. Residential schools have certain natural advantages in designing and implementing programs for blind children. With the students concentrated in one place, curricula can be adapted and special media prepared, allowing for instruction comparable to that available to sighted children. Residential schools offer Braille libraries and are generally noted for their athletics programs. Additionally, by being in an environment with other blind children, the blind child has better prospects for social interaction than is often the case in public schools. Alternatively, inclusionists put forward the compelling argument that segregation from society fosters separation and isolation. They believe that blind and other disabled children are part of a diverse society and should not be separated from it. They assert that our educational system can and must be available to all and must adapt itself to varying needs rather than excluding those with differences. There is a tendency to view the individual placement as responsible for the blind child's positive or negative experience. Yet the quality of the individual child's experience is not fully explained by the placement model itself. Children going through the very same program frequently have dramatically different feelings about the education they received. Individual children bring with them individual human characteristics. Some adjust readily to change, while others have great difficulty. In other words, the particular placement is only part of the equation. I believe that the debate over residential versus integrated placement asks the wrong question. There is no one structure or particular type of program placement that is best for blind children. All models and all systems will inevitably succeed with some children and fail with others. What is needed, therefore, is not the refinement or fine tuning of this system or that. Instead, all systems must be premised on a fundamental belief in the ability of blind children to compete--each system must begin with this belief and translate it into expectations. Without a clear vision of what can be achieved by blind children, no reasonable planning can take place. Without certain fundamental values, no overarching philosophy can emerge. Since its founding the National Federation of the Blind has embodied a clear philosophy of blindness rooted in the basic belief that the blind can compete on terms of equality with the sighted. Marc Maurer, President of the Federation, has stated: In 1940 we organized to speak for ourselves through the National Federation of the Blind.... We have replaced the ancient terms of negativism with a new language of hope, and society has increasingly come to accept us for what we are--normal people with normal aspirations and normal abilities. (1990, in Walking Alone and Marching Together, p. 718) I administered a public school program for five years. What distinguished our program was our fundamental belief in blind children. When I speak of a fundamental belief in blind children, I mean just that--a shared personal conviction that our children are inherently normal and capable of assuming an active role in society, a belief that they can grow up and marry and have jobs and raise families and live a normal life, a belief that they will have strengths and weaknesses and, if encouraged to build on those strengths, can excel, establishing for themselves a place of real equality. It is important to distinguish what I call a fundamental belief in the ability of blind children from the less-defined, generalized belief which exists throughout our educational system. Certainly teachers as a whole seek to train and encourage their students to learn and achieve. What separates a fundamental belief in the ability of blind children from a generalized belief is the matter of clear expectations. In the program I administered we strove to put into practice our fundamental belief in blind children. We believed that, given the right training, our students could compete in all subject areas on terms of real equality. We were not satisfied with the methods we used to teach the students unless they met this criterion. For this reason we concentrated intensively on the basic skills needed by blind children. We instructed them in Braille reading and writing, cane travel, typing, handwriting, and use of the abacus. These core skills represented the natural expression of our philosophy of blindness. We believed that our children could compete and therefore gave them the tools necessary to put that belief into action. By giving them skills and holding high expectations for them, we enabled our students to develop the self-confidence to participate fully, both socially and academically. We held a fundamental belief in the ability of our students and translated that belief into action. We believed that our children could compete and gave them the skills necessary to make this belief a reality. When they were given the skills to meet our expectations, they developed confidence and learned to achieve. By succeeding and believing in themselves, they began the process of internalizing our belief in them. In time our expectations of them became their expectations of themselves; our fundamental belief in their inherent normalcy became their own. What blind children lack is not access to services, but access to high expectations. Society holds only minimal expectations for blind people. Consequently the blind child is rewarded for virtually any level of performance. Even the most forward-looking people rarely hold more than tenuous and uncertain expectations for the blind. It is not surprising, therefore, that blind children lack a clear image of their own potential. To develop a real sense of their own ability, blind children must be in an environment with clearly defined expectations. When I began administering a public school program, I found a lack of clear expectations for blind children. The staff certainly had good intentions for their students and were doing their best to train and motivate them. Yet they had a generalized rather than fundamental belief in their students. None of the children used canes, and therefore they were at a real disadvantage in getting around the school. They had been taught to trail walls and use their feet to find steps. Blind children were allowed to start out five minutes early for recess so that they could get to the playground before the other children. By and large, partially sighted children were responsible for leading the totally blind ones. At lunch time they went early to the cafeteria and sat together while the cafeteria workers brought them their trays. They were integrated primarily into non-academic subjects, except for those students who had enough vision to use print. This program was not, and is not, uncommon. Personnel in these programs did not have bad motives, were not poorly trained, and were not lazy. In fact, they had the very best of intentions. In other words, they had a generalized rather than fundamental belief in their students. In restructuring our program, we began by integrating a new philosophy about blindness. Our fundamental belief in blind people expressed itself through high expectations. We believed that, if blind children were to compete, we must first demonstrate (through our actions) our belief in their ability. We stopped the practice of having partially-sighted children lead the totally blind. Rather we taught children to use white canes and encouraged them to walk quickly and confidently. Wall- trailing went by the wayside. We stopped releasing our children early for recess, believing that, if we treated them as though they were vulnerable, they would learn to act as though they were vulnerable and would begin to believe it. School personnel had some initial difficulty adjusting to these changes. I remember the principal's telling me that we needed to build a sidewalk leading from the main building to the swings. She said that our students liked to swing during recess; but, since we no longer let them go early, the swings were all taken by the time they arrived. She thought a sidewalk would help them find the swings more quickly. When I asked how the children were currently getting to the swings, she told me that they had been taught to trail the fence around the perimeter of the playground. At the point closest to the swings, a rag had been tied into the chain-link fence. When they found the rag, the children were to stand with their backs to the fence and walk straight out to find the swings. No wonder our children were always the last to arrive at the swings. I told her that what the children needed was, not a sidewalk across the playground, but more practice orienting themselves in large open spaces. When leaving the building, the children should head out across the playground in the general direction of the swings. Over time they would learn to recognize certain natural landmarks such as other playground equipment and slopes in the ground. With practice they would get better at judging the distance and direction to travel. Additionally, since swings are a high-interest activity stimulating much competition, our students would have to be quick if they were to nab a swing. The principal was apprehensive at the prospect of a half dozen blind children running at top speed with their canes in a crowd of three hundred youngsters. What she had not considered was that, when the recess bell rang, there were three hundred children running at top speed, but they were all running in the same direction--from the building onto the playground. Expecting that the blind children in our program could compete on terms of real equality and giving them the tools to make it possible, we found that they met and surpassed our expectations. When the blind children in our program first learned to use canes, we did not teach them to run. They taught themselves to run because they felt a compelling need to get to the swings first. When they were released early from class, they walked slowly and carefully-- those with some sight helping those with none. They had no need to run and no belief that they could. When they learned to use canes and went to recess with everyone else, they found a need to run and hence learned to do so. But this was only the beginning. Sometimes they weren't fast enough. Sometimes the swings were all taken when they got there. Consequently, they looked for other things to do. They found and used other pieces of playground equipment. They met other children and made new friends. They began to believe that they were normal children; acted accordingly; and, as a result, were viewed by others as normal. We also stopped the practice of letting the children go early to lunch. We taught them how to get in line with the other children and use their canes (gently) to keep track of the person in front of them. We taught them how to carry a tray while using a cane and how to find an empty seat. Finally, we taught them to bus their own trays on their way out of the lunchroom. By being part of the crowd, they naturally ended by sitting with a variety of students, which contributed to expanded circles of friends. In academic areas we applied the same fundamental belief in the basic equality of our students. When I was in graduate school, the concept of social integration was very popular. The basic concept was that placing blind children in an age- appropriate setting, we were assured, would facilitate social integration. Yet this concept was incompatible with our overall philosophy. If we believed that blind children were normal and that, given proper training, they could compete on terms of equality, then social integration would send a contradictory message. If blind children are in classrooms and unable to perform the same work as the other students, how can they learn to believe that they are equal? We determined, therefore, to concentrate first on the skills of blindness and mainstream children only in those areas in which their skills allowed them to function competitively. This meant that our children received intensive training in Braille reading and writing, as well as training in typing, handwriting, use of the abacus, and of course cane travel. As children were able to read at grade level, they were integrated into language arts and social studies. As they became skilled in the use of the abacus, they were integrated into math. Consequently, they were able to perform competitively and thereby internalize a vision of themselves as inherently normal. Let me reiterate that the key was not the educational placement; the critical element was our belief in their essential normalcy and the tangible demonstration of our belief through our actions. By believing in blind children and having high expectations for them, we enabled them consistently to reach and surpass our expectations. One day one of our students came to his teacher to complain that his friends had begun playing tag during recess. When playing tag, one child is "it," and his or her objective is to tag or touch another child, thereby making the other child "it." Since none of the children wishes to be "it," the game moves at a fast pace. The problem for a blind child is that it is difficult to know who "it" is at any given moment and, more important, where "it" is. This blind child complained that, since he didn't know where "it" was, he didn't know which way to run and thus spent much of the game being "it." We had spent considerable time and energy convincing our children that they were normal and could compete on terms of equality. We had taught them through our words and deeds that, given the right training, they could function competitively with their sighted peers. We now had a seven-year-old putting our philosophy to the test. In the game of tag he didn't feel very equal, yet he had an expectation that he was capable of full participation, so he came to us in the absolute certainty that a technique must exist which would allow him to compete. After considerable soul-searching, we determined to talk to the youngster and explain to him that the world had been constructed largely by the sighted with sight in mind, and after all there are some things that the blind cannot do (such as driving) because the activity itself is premised on the ability of the driver to see. We hoped we could explain to him that tag was like driving--constructed by the sighted for the sighted and that it did not mean that he was inferior. We hoped that we could explain, in a way that a seven-year-old would understand, that the blind were not less capable merely because there were some activities in which sight was an overwhelming advantage. In the meantime this young fellow had grown tired of waiting for us to come up with a solution. He believed he was as capable as anyone else and believ