<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.7600.16588"></HEAD>
<BODY style="PADDING-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-TOP: 15px"
id=MailContainerBody leftMargin=0 topMargin=0 CanvasTabStop="true"
name="Compose message area">
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Hi Carlton and friends... I would love to respond
beneath each of Carlton's comments. I'll preface my comments with my name.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt Tahoma">
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=carltonwalker@gmail.com
href="mailto:carltonwalker@gmail.com">Carlton Anne Cook Walker</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, June 15, 2010 5:04 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=pibe-division@nfbnet.org
href="mailto:pibe-division@nfbnet.org">pibe-division@nfbnet.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> [Pibe-division] A Modest Proposal</DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>I believe that Sheila has hit the nail on the head. If one does not
teach a subject, one will likely lose proficiency in that subject. <BR><BR>But
this leads to the next question -- are there ANY other teachers who can spend 10
years NOT teaching a vital part of their subject matter? Though I am no
expert in the various specialties in K-12 education, I cannot think of another
field in which this could take place.</DIV>
<DIV>Sheila: We have teachers who teach students from birth to 3... they do not
teach braille as a rule. They teach pre-reading and pre-braille skills.</DIV>
<DIV>We have teachers who teach students who are severely multiply and/or
cognitively impaired, but because there is a vision impairment, services of a
TVI are often part of the IEP. I tell my graduate students to think about it
like this. Would the student with cognitive impairments be a reader if he/she
could see? If yes, then teach them braille. If no, then don't - but do maintain
a braille-rich and a print-rich environment as appropriate for visual and/or
tactual stimulation. <BR><BR>Perhaps looking a another low incidence disability
would be useful. Like TVIs, Teachers of Students who are Deaf/Hard of
Hearing have to learn a totally new communication mode with which they were
likely unfamiliar growing up. However, unlike TVIs, these teachers must be
competent in Sign Language upon graduation. Moreover, I am guessing
(though I do not know for certain) that there are very few Teachers of Students
who are Deaf/Hard of Hearing who go more than 1 or 2 years without any students
who use Sign Language. Why is this?</DIV>
<DIV>Sheila: I was a teacher of the Deaf for the first 27 years of my teaching
career. I taught in two schools for the Deaf, and then I was an itinerant in a
district and provided hearing and vision services. For the first 8 years of my
career I taught in an oral Deaf school. I would have been immediately fired if I
had used sign language. We also have a proliferation of kids getting cochlear
implants now, who are essentially hearing children. Some parents refuse to allow
their Deaf child to learn sign language, afraid that the child will not develop
speech because they will depend on sign language. If you think we have
braille/no braille fights, there is a parallel in the Deaf world as to sign/no
sign. And just as there are varying degrees of visual impairment, there are
varying degrees of hearing loss. Sign language is not appropriate for every
single child with a hearing loss. Yes, it is possible for a teacher of the Deaf
to go 10 years without using sign language. <BR><BR>In fact, it seems to me that
braille instruction is far more supportive of independence than is sign language
instruction. Braille PDAs (such as the Braille Sense, the PAC Mate, and
the BrailleNote) allow students to independently create and read digital
information from regular educators In contrast, Sign Language
communication in the regular classroom typically requires a translator.
<BR><BR>Sheila's point about the rustiness of braille skills should also be
highlighted. How many TVIs with rusty braille skills will find that a
student with low vision (or who is totally blind) needs braille
instruction? A few, perhaps, but those who allow their braille skills to
get rusty are not likely to thrill at the prospect of having to teach
braille. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that so very many
Learning Media Assessments find that, "braille instruction is not appropriate
for the student at this time."</DIV>
<DIV>Sheila: Unfortunately this is true too many times. Sigh. I often tell
the story that I heard from a parent about an 8 year old blind student
correcting the braille of her TVI. <smile><BR><BR>Now, for my modest
proposal: a new certification. Though I know there are good reasons not to
do so, I believe that the dearth of quality braille instruction mandates that
students may only receive braille instruction from an individual competent in
braille. This is really not so revolutionary -- every other subject matter
(including non-native language instruction) requires competence from certified
teachers. I am envisioning a TNVS -- Teacher of Non-Visual Skills.
Also, in conjunction with this change and to reduce the current issues of
teachers determining what they will teach, I would mandate that only a TNVS
could determine that braille instruction is NOT appropriate for an individual
student.</DIV>
<DIV>Sheila: What a great idea... can I share mine? I would love to see a
two-tiered TVI certification. Level 1 could consist of uncontracted braille (and
of course all the other necessary components to a certification process). These
individuals would be able to teach in the birth - 3 population and/or with
students with cognitive or multiple impairments for whom uncontracted braille
would be the most appropriate medium. They could also teach the students with
low vision who appropriately use large print. Level 2 would consist of
contracted braille, Nemeth Code, music braille, foreign language braille, etc.
Those teachers would teach the academic kids for whom braille is the
recommendation (after a FVA and a LMA and upon a team decision that includes the
parents). An idea like this would free up the TVIs who are proficient in braille
to have a caseload where braille is used, and it would allow the teachers who
really want to teach early intervention - and see no reason why they have to
learn Nemeth Code - to work with the little ones. I have lost too many graduate
students who truly wanted to work in early intervention and/or with MH students
because they could not get through the more advanced braille requirements.
And of course, we need to hit upon the states that have absolutely NO TVI
certification requirements and get them to develop some standards for competence
for their teachers. </DIV>
<DIV><BR><BR>O.K., now rip me apart! :)<BR><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Sheila:
Not me... but move over and let me join you. There's strength in numbers.
</FONT><BR><BR><BR>Carlton<BR><BR clear=all><BR>-- <BR>Carlton Anne Cook Walker,
cTVI, NCLB<BR>105 Creamery Road<BR>Boiling Springs, PA, 17007<BR>Voice:
717-658-9894<BR>Twitter: braillemom<BR><BR></DIV>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>Pibe-division mailing
list<BR>Pibe-division@nfbnet.org<BR>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/pibe-division_nfbnet.org<BR>To
unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
Pibe-division:<BR>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/pibe-division_nfbnet.org/brltrans%40verizon.net<BR></BODY></HTML>