Access Online, Vol. 7,
No. 3, Winter 2005. Copyright 2005
by DEAC Inc.
Teaching
the teacher’s braille.
A call to build equality into the literacy needs of students who are blind or severely vision impaired.
By
“A sighted child receives instruction in literacy each day. A blind
child, who uses braille, only receives effective instruction in literacy when
the visiting teacher visits once a week”.
Mother
of a severely vision impaired child.
Introduction
Literacy
for all? Ableism and the print bias in
Since the
1970s students who are blind or severely vision impaired have been integrated
from specialist schools to the mainstream Australian education system (Gale,
2001, p.15). Amongst other benefits, this move of inclusion has brought about
increased tolerance and acceptance of students who are blind or severely vision
impaired in the community. Paradoxadly however, the creation of this inclusion
has excluded students who are blind or severely vision impaired from reaching
the literacy levels of their peers.
Braille is
the most important literacy tool for early childhood students who are blind or severely
vision impaired. Those who do not have access to sound braille reading and
writing skills will have a greater chance of becoming illiterate. However,
despite its importance, the print bias in our education system is denying adequate
access to braille for students who are blind or severely vision impaired (Gale,
2001).
“Students
who are blind or have very low vision that don’t have access to braille simply
miss out. People, who rely on audio as their main means of reading, miss out on
the constant reinforcement of spelling, grammar and syntax which you only get
reading with your eyes or your hands. I know of students who have only had very
little access to braille and as a consequence they freely admit in their adult
life that they struggle with basic literacy skills”.
Print
discrimination in our schools is a by-product of the broader ableist
assumptions that are deeply rooted in our education system. Hehir (2002), writing
for the Harvard Educational Review
correctly asserts that ableism equates to the devaluation of disability in
society. Perversive by nature, discriminatory in spirit, ableism sets a
curriculum for the education system where it is better for “a child to walk
than roll, speak than sign, read print than read braille, spell independently
than use a spell check, and hang out with non-disabled kids as opposed to other
disabled kids” (Hehir, 2002, p.3).
Commenting
on the far reaching affect of ableist assumptions on braille instruction, Gale
(2001, p.13) asserts that there “exists currently in
In
situations where parents have requested braille instruction for their child who
may have some usable sight, the child is often denied braille instruction
because he or she has some vision. Medical and educational professionals,
including some staff of blindness agencies, hold the view that if the child is
not blind, then that child should learn to use his/her existing vision to the
maximum. Again, ableist discrimination pervades the notion that it is better to
be a like a sighted student.
Teaching the
teachers braille: Building equality in literacy
The
mainstream education system must do more than simply move children with
disabilities from a specialist school to a conventional one to create inclusion.
Equality and inclusion go hand in hand. To bring a student who is blind or severely
vision impaired into the mainstream system of education and then frustrate
his/her learning experience is simply unacceptable. However, as it currently
stands, this is exactly what’s happening.
Specialist
itinerant teachers of braille are in short supply and when available, have
infrequent access to children who are blind or severely vision impaired (Gale,
2001, p.15). While sighted children in
the classroom are free to immerse themselves in print, the child who is blind
or severely vision impaired must struggle with infrequent access to his/her
primary medium of literacy. Inadequately equipped with braille teaching
instruction, mainstream teachers are unable to bridge the gap.
Very few
teacher training university courses have on campus training modules in braille
instruction, while others only offer such training through distance education. There
is also a lack of post-graduate opportunities for teachers to specialise in
teaching blind children. Consequently, teachers are graduating into an
inclusive and challenging class room environment profoundly ill-equipped to
deal with the literacy needs of students who are blind or severely vision
impaired. If this trend continues, “it is difficult to
imagine that a dynamic and viable future for braille literacy in the Australian
school system will eventuate” (Gale, 2001, p.16).
To alleviate
the potential of this future outcome, student teachers, in the first instance,
need to acquire a broad understanding on the rights of children to access
literacy and how these rights are impeded for children with disabilities due to
the bias of ableism. Following from this, teaching curricula should contain
constant training modules in braille literacy. Learning braille is just one
example of how varying teaching instruction can help teachers successfully
adapt to their inclusive environment and help students with disabilities reach
the literacy standards of their peers to achieve equity.
Legal
redress: The Disability Discrimination Act (1992)
Complaints
of disability discrimination in the area of education can be made against
schools and other educational authorities under the Disability Discrimination
Act (1992) (hereafter referred to as ‘DDA’). The DDA has already been used successfully by blind and severely
vision impaired people to receive information in Braille. Examples include the
2000 Olympics Ticket Book (Maguire v SOCOG (1999) HREOC No H 99/115), bank statements and utility bills. Currently
before federal parliament, the Disability Standards for Education (2004), if
passed, will replace the existing provisions relating to education under the
DDA to clarify the responsibility education providers have to make reasonable
adjustments in the way education services are delivered. It is highly likely
the Education Standards will be passed by parliament during the spring session
of 2005.
“Complaints
of disability discrimination by students with disabilities and/or their legal
guardians have been upheld in the courts. The most recent case involved the
failure to incorporate Auslan into a student's curriculum [Hurst and Devlin v
Education Queensland (2005) FCA 405 (
Conclusion
An inclusive
education system can impede the chances of all children having an equal right
to literacy. As it stands, the dominance of ableist standards in our education system
is leaving children with disabilities with unreasonable and discriminatory
measures of adaptation to acquire skills in literacy. To build equality, it is
educators that need to adapt and with it the system. For children who are blind
or severely vision impaired, this means teaching the teacher’s braille.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Editorial (2005). The National Inquiry into Teaching of Literacy.
Access Online.
7, (2), Autumn. Retrieved
Gale,
Gillian (2001). In
Hehir,
Thomas (2002). Eliminating Ableism in Education. Harvard Educational Review.
72, (1), Spring, pp.1-32.
Hurst and Devlin v Education
Queensland (2005) FCA 405 (15 April).
Maguire v SOCOG
(1999) HREOC
No H 99/115.
Power, John (2005). Interview with
Power, John (2005). Interview with