Sweeping Change

One Hundred Years of Education

of the Blind in America

Chapter I

Sweeping Change

Chapter 2

C. MiChael Mellor

editor eMeritus, Matilda Ziegler MagaZine for the Blind

©2007 The New York Institute for Special Education

One Hundred Years of Education

of the Blind in America

Chapter I

This chapter is based on an address given in Chicago by Dr. Edward M. Van Cleve in connection with the celebration of “A Century of Progress,” July 11, 1933. Dr. Van Cleve was then principal of The New York Institute for the Education of the Blind in New York City. His paper is an excellent introduction to the history of the Institute, and also gives a glimpse of how people thought and wrote in the 1930’s. For the most part, I have left the address in its original form except for a few changes to clarify the language — this writing style is no longer fashionable — and I also added some new material and illustrations.

edward M. Van CleVe

I

dr. edward M. Van CleVe prInCIpal, 1914-1935 and prInCIpal eMerItas, 1935-1937

f our common populace of the 1820’s were aware of the blind, it was with no overwhelming sense of any obligation to consider them as a concern of the public in general. Those who could not see were looked upon as most unfortunate, indeed, but their development into useful members of society was deemed impossible. True, thought they who thought at all, some blind men can make certain articles, not of much practical service, of course, with a kind of facility, but that the blind can be schooled was out of the question. Anyone who became blind and had no family to care for him, nurse him, endure him, and finally bury him, was verily a pitiful case and the almshouse was his natural, his only place.

FIrst sChools For the BlInd In such an atmosphere of unconcern, however, a few men of unusual insight conceived of the blind as capable of something more than mere animal existence, and they began an agitation of social concern that presently resulted in definite action in New England, New York and Philadelphia, out of which grew the establishment of the three pioneer schools for the blind of America. We can not repeat here in any detail the story of those beginnings. But let us recall a few salient facts. John D. Fisher, a youthful physician of Boston, had seen in Paris the newly established institu tion for the young blind1 and began to interest influential friends in the project of organizing a similar institution at home. New Englanders have the reputation of pondering problems that are new before

taking action; after some two or three years’ consideration of this problem there came the incorporation of a society in aid of the blind and the elec tion of a Board of Trustees. This was in 1829. Meanwhile, Samuel Wood, a member of the Society of Friends [Quak ers], who was accustomed to visit the almshouse in his city of New York, was moved with compassion for the hapless state of some blind boys he found there and began to cast about for some means of help ing them. To him were joined in consideration of the prob lem — and in arousing pub lic interest — other generous souls, in particular, Dr. Samuel Akerly, superintendent for ten years, and physician and sec retary, too, of The New York Institution for the Deaf and Dumb. In 1831 was incor the new York InstItutIon For the BlInd held Its FIrst Class For BlInd porated through their activity ChIldren In the unIted states when It opened Its doors on MarCh 15, 1832. The New York Institution for It started out In a sIngle rooM In lower Manhattan and MoVed to a large estate donated BY jaMes BoorMan In 1832. what was then a the Blind, and by a fortunate “plaCe In the CountrY” Is now near nInth aVenue and 34th street. chance there came into associa [CourtesY the new York hIstorICal soCIetY, new York CItY] tion with them young Dr. John D. Russ, who had recently returned from Europe, where he had been engrossed in medical service to the Greeks warring for independence from the Ottoman Empire. Russ offered to become teacher to a group of sightless boys whom the Managers of the new institution were permitted by the city authorities to remove from the almshouse. Thus began, on March 15, 1832, the first school for the blind in America. The New England trustees had enlisted the interest of another philanthropic physician, Dr. Samuel Gridley Howe, who had returned to his home city of Boston from service to the Greeks, had employed him as superintendent, and he, after visiting the few schools in operation in Europe, opened in his own home a school with six blind children in August 1832.

Quite aside from connection with the New England and New York enterprises, and probably with out definite knowledge thereof, another Fisher, J. Francis Fisher, Esquire, of Philadelphia; another Quaker,Robert Vaux; and Dr.Caspar Morris,took the initiative in calling into existence the Pennsylvania Institution for the Instruction of the Blind2. This became an actuality when Julius R. Friedlander, a German by birth and a teacher by profession, began the instruction of blind children in Philadelphia in March 1833. How far have we gone from these beginnings in a century of effort to ameliorate the condition of the blind in America through their education? It would be interesting to follow in some sort the growth and development of each of these pioneer schools as they have progressed from their small beginnings to the present effective organizations, serving as the years have gone by their clientele with increasing acceptance as knowledge grew and skill developed on the part of teachers and executives. It has been said that the story of the careers of these three schools, The New York Institution, now The Institute for the Education of the Blind3; the New England Asylum, later called the Perkins Institution and Massachusetts School for the Blind4; and the Pennsylvania Institution for the Instruction of the Blind, furnishes an epitome of the history of education of the sightless in America from the beginning to today. But let us leave the particular to consider the general and by topic rather than by organization.

I

state sChools

t is in America the accepted dictum that education is the function of the State. After the first movements for training the blind, which were made through private philanthropy, there came to be a realization that blind children have as much right to schooling as others, and in 1837 Ohio provided the first wholly state organized and supported school for the blind. Virginia followed in 1839; and in the next decade Kentucky, Tennessee, Indiana, Illinois and Mississippi established schools in the order named. And today [1933] all states of the Union except six have provided, within their borders, for the free schooling of their blind children, and the six arrange with the neighboring states to accept their sightless youth as pupils. Programs of school activities follow closely the courses laid down in the public schools, with some omissions because of the handicap of lack of vision in the pupils, and with some additions to the usual program for sighted children.

T

tools and tYpes

hose earliest instructors of blind children found few guide-posts along the way. They had to invent methods and manufacture means. From Europe came some advice and a few mechanical devices. Inventive genius was a part of part oF seCtIon 10 oF the ConstItutIon oF the unIted states every successful teacher’s equipment. produCed In Boston lIne tYpe. VarIous ForMs oF eMBossed letters oF the prInt alphaBet were used BY BlInd people Some of the early tools were crude and to read wIth theIr FIngers In the MId-19th CenturY aMerICa. some were costly and therefore scarce. Boston lIne tYpe was wIdelY used BeCause Its ModIFIed shapes But as the needs became apparent were ClaIMed to Be easIer to read than other kInds oF eMBossed tYpe. BY nature, eMBossed prInt was neVer to devoted teachers sought and found ways read BY touCh. to satisfy them. Raised letters of the alphabet were used in early days for making books and both Howe and Friedlander preferred them to the punctographic [raised dot] scheme of Braille. The French teacher, William Bell Wait, one of the chief figures in the field of education of the blind in the latter part of the 19th century, promulgated a modification of Braille’s method which he called the New York Point System, and this was used in a large number of schools5. To effect an improvement on the French system, Joel W. Smith invent ed Scientific Braille, so-called, which represented the most-frequently occurring letters in the English language with the least number of braille dots; this was adopted in many schools. There ensued a battle of the types, chiefly between New York Point and American Braille, as the Smith system came to be called. The raised letter systems, known as Line Type, were inher ently difficult to read by touch and went out of fashion as the raised dot methods of writing came to the fore. Then, by agreement reached in 1916, uniformity with English speaking peoples was approached by adoption of the British adaptation of the French system, with cer tain changes, and in 1932 British and American type experts came together on a universal code. With stylus and slate, the blind writer

wIllIaM Bell waIt, prInCIpal oF

the new York InstItute FroM

1863 untIl hIs death In 1916. he

was a leadIng eduCator oF

BlInd people and InVented

new York poInt, a raIsed dot

readIng and wrItIng sYsteM

that For ManY deCades In the

unIted states was More

wIdelY used than BraIlle.

waIt’s sYsteM oF raIsed dots reseMBled BraIlle on Its sIde; It was two dots, rather than three hIgh and there Could Be More than three dots on the Base.

may now communicate with his sightless correspon dent anywhere or write for his own use; and, better yet, with the Braille typewriter6 he may emulate in speed the operator of a Royal or an Underwood typewriter. To write in legible fashion so far as the seeing are con cerned, has always occupied the mind of the ambitious blind person. Pencil writing was followed and still holds a place with some, but the invention of the typewriter was a great boon to the blind, who would communicate their thoughts to their seeing friends and fellows. And for the reception of the spoken word, the phonograph and next the radio have been invaluable to serve the sightless in a fashion incalculably acceptable; now Aladdin rubs his lamp again and “talking books” are added to his means of intellectual advancement.

the kleIdograph was InVented BY wIllIaM Bell waIt, prInCIpal oF the InstItute, to enaBle hIs sYsteM oF new York poInt to Be wrItten easIlY BY BlInd people. the operator need onlY use one hand, leaVIng the other Free to read MaterIals eMBossed wIth prInt.

gIrls usIng the kleIdograph

the laCk oF one standard eMBossed Code Meant that a BlInd reader who onlY knew

new York poInt would not Be aBle to read a doCuMent In BraIlle — and VICe Versa.

a reader oF aMerICan BraIlle would not Be aBle to read a Book produCed In englIsh BraIlle.

L

what and how?

eaders in the education of the sightless have not been negligent in seeking to discover what courses are wisest to follow and what methods are the best to pursue. It was a virgin field into which Russ entered, equipped with only his own scholarship and a great deal of insight, and Howe had little more equipment, though he had the advantage of a long course of observation of European pioneering and the assistance of two blind teachers whom he brought from Europe7. How much these men and Friedlander helped each other, we do not know; but each was earnestly engaged to find what was best for these sightless youth to undertake of scholastic, artistic, and manual effort. After many years of trial by these men, their successors and all the devoted instructors of the sightless, the set of education of the blind was as nearly approaching that of the sighted student as may be reached. The more scholarly and intelligent among the blind themselves have approved this as the true goal of all efforts to equip those who do not see to meet the problems of life and to take their place as citizens and as members of society. A body of educational theory and a record of successful practice in this special field were not available to the mid-century instructors; so, in 1853 some leaders called a convention in the hope of forming a professional code. But no meeting of the association then formed was held after the initial one until nearly two de cades had passed. Then, a national organi zation was effected which has functioned since, with some success, we believe, in at taining the ends sought; it is the American Association of Instructors of the Blind. Today, through the printed Proceedings of its thirtyone biennial conventions it has accumulated pronouncements of policy and expositions of theory, together with reports of practices that have proved effective in serving the great end of providing the best practicable means for the blind to secure an education adapted to their needs. Intellectual, manual, and esthetic training proceed in the effort to equip the blind, hav ing aims similar to those followed in schools for the seeing. That he or she may cope with

usIng Maps wIth raIsed lInes In the geographY Class

a BlInd Man tunes a pIano, loCated near the InstItutIon’s organ. pIano tunIng was a good waY to earn a lIVIng at a tIMe when FaMIlIes owned a pIano.

his world, the sightless man or woman must have a mind well stored and well sharpened, not less but more than others; it is by the use of such mental development that the most capable seize opportuni ties for successful accomplishment. In the intellectual field the blind have the best chance. Some people, however, whatever their condition, are best fitted by nature and inclination to do work that is manual in its nature. Therefore good schooling of the blind contemplates exceptional training in this field. And for the sightless the chief arena in which the esthetic nature and attainments may be exercised is that of musi cal understanding and performance.

soMe sIghtless Men and woMen oF Mark

C

ertainly the results of a century’s effort to serve the cause of education of the blind must be reckoned through examples of men and women who have been prepared to go out of the special schools into life’s hard school. Here only a few names may be presented with but a characterizing word or two: Helen Keller, marvelous mistress of the world of spiritual and intellectual insight, conqueror of two handicaps, loss of sight and loss of hearing; David Duffle Wood, musician, composer, associate of the world famous Rev. Russell H. Conwell in the service of the Baptist Temple in Philadelphia; Fanny J. Crosby, writer of hymns of Christian faith through which countless thousands were inspired to seek and find her God and Saviour; Samuel Bacon, scholar in language, and founder of three schools for the blind — those of Illinois, Iowa and Nebraska; Ambrose J. Shotwell, exemplar of the lofty virtues in personal relations and leader in promoting the intellectual development of the blind in a whole state, Michigan; Sir Frederick Fraser, philosopher, inspirer of an entire nation, Canada, to provide for its sightless children’s schooling; Lewis Carll, mathematician, scholar, author — not widely known since his field was that of the higher mathematics in which few are exercised; Dr. Robert H. Babcock, distinguished physician and author, recognized leading heart specialist of Chicago; and with these might be enumerated ministers of the gospel, men of business, writers, and lawyers, whose achievements in filling places of usefulness in the world have adorned the record of a hundred years of education of the blind in America. And by their fruits shall the schools of America be known.

FannY CrosBY (1820-1915), stIll renowned as a hYMn wrIter, studIed at the InstItute and then taught englIsh and hIstorY FroM 1847-1858

N

proVIdIng readIng Matter

o account of these hundred years should fail to call attention, though it must now be through a very brief reference, to the growth of book production for the blind. Begin ning with nothing and through the first decades being provided with a pitiably small equipment of literature in embossed form, the schools experienced a great advance through the generous assumption on the part of the United States Government of the task to provide text-books for the sightless children of the country. This interest of the Federal Government began in 1879, when arrangement was made for an annual expenditure of $10,000 to supply books and tangible apparatus through the American Printing House for the Blind in Louisville, Kentucky. The Printing House had been established in 1858 and had done a limited yet yeoman service in this field, having practically no capital and little financial support. The federal subsidy was at first divided equally be tween books embossed in Line Type and those in New York Point. After 1892 no more new books were produced in Line Type, though some titles were re-issued. Not until 1894 were funds used to produce texts in braille. The subsidy of $10,000 continued the main source of school books for many years and only recently was the amount increased, first, to $40,000 in 1914 and lately (1927) to $75,000 a year. This for the means of education of the young blind. Only within the last three years there has been made available for producing books for the adult blind, through the Library of Congress, the sum of $100,000 annually. the lIBrarY oF eMBossed Books at the InstItutIon, aBout 1890

W

daY sChool Classes

W

sIght-saVIng Classes

hile most of the sightless have been trained in residential schools, there began in 1900 a movement in the city of Chicago for special classes for the blind in the public schools. Members of such classes reside with their parents and are usually trans ported to centers in the several cities in which these classes have been established for special guidance in their studies by teachers set apart for that service. It is held that as much commingling with sighted pupils in the regular classrooms as is found practicable results in a sense of comradeship and of equal accomplishment in class work. In fourteen communities in the United States such classes are now provided.

hile essentially of a wholly separate character from those for instruction of the blind, day classes for the conservation of vision have come to be a notable contribution to the education of the visually handicapped and deserve mention in a survey of this century of progress in a special field. Dr. Edward E. Allen of Perkins Institution brought from England the idea of providing special small groupings for the training of children who are myopic or for other reasons can not continue in the classes for children with good sight; he assisted in the formation of a class in Boston. Almost immediately, Robert B. Irwin8 organized classes for such children in Cleveland. Because the supervisor of day classes for blind children has been the discoverer of the children who need the conservation of vision class, it came to be the custom to put him in charge of both groups. Sometimes for economy of operation or other reasons children who are blind and those who belong in the sight-saving group have been put together under one teacher. This is manifestly quite improper and a hindrance to both the blind and those for whom the effort is to save vision. The one who is blind must be a finger reader; the one who has some vision must not fail to make use of such as he has, and be trained for life as a seeing person. Furthermore, the teacher of the blind is not trained for the very special service of leading the children who belong in the sight-saving class, and vice versa. Intelligent handling of this problem will bring absolute divorce of these two groups of the visually handicapped. The sight-saving class movement has had a steady growth and there has developed, under the leadership of the National Society for Prevention of Blindness9, a technique both of class management and instruction and of teacher preparation that augurs well for future large extension of this much-needed service.

T

eduCatIon oF the puBlIC

wIth reFerenCe to the BlInd

his brief conspectus of the progress of a century in education of the blind began with a comment on the attitude of the general public toward the proposal to try out a scheme for giving the sightless the benefit of schooling. That attitude was quite manifestly one of incredulity as to the possibility of their being able to learn. We have seen that the belief of the philanthropists and educators of the 1820’s in the practicability and usefulness of the project to establish schools for the sightless has been quite justified, that means and methods and materials of educating those so handicapped have been provided, and that the results have justified all the effort put forth. It has been proved in a century that the blind are capable of being prepared for a useful place in our body social. How far have we gone in changing the public from its attitude of incredulity into a gen eral acceptance of the blind as completely useful and capable members of society? It must be confessed that the schooling of the blind has been more successful than the schooling of the public, who look upon the blind with little appreciation of what capable trained sightless people can accomplish. This teaching of the public is now a task to be pursued with more and more assiduity by those who have the illumi nation of an intelligent interest in the possibilities of those who cannot see with eyes of flesh; and by patient persistence of the blind themselves in making patent to the world in general the fact that they, too, have a contribution to make to the world’s ongoing. For promoting this end of educating the general public the day is one of hope as we contemplate the useful service of the American Foundation for the Blind, created in 1921 by the American Associa tion of Instructors of the Blind and the American Association of Workers for the Blind to serve this very purpose, as well as to render acceptable leadership in all matters for improving the condition of the sightless; and joined to the work of this organization the social service of the American Red Cross, that of state commissions and civic organizations in all parts of the country. To these one and all a cordial Godspeed!

1

Now known as the National Insitute for Blind Youth (Institut National des Jeunes Aveugles), whose origin dates to1786.

2

Now the Overbrook School for the Blind.

3

Since July 1986, The New York Institute for Special Education.

4

Now the Perkins School for the Blind.

5

Until the early 20th century New York Point was more-widely read in the United States than was braille. The Matilda

Ziegler Magazine for the Blind, a free monthly founded in 1907, stopped producing a Point edition only in December 1963.

6

Braillewriter.

7

Emil Trencheri, who came from Paris and knew Louis Braille, taught academics and music at the New England Asylum (now Perkins). John Pringle, from Edinburgh, Scotland, taught mechanical trades.

8

Later Executive Director of American Foundation for the Blind from 1929 to 1949.

In 1915 Dr. Van Cleve had been named managing director of the NSPB, while simultaneously serving as director of The New York Institute.

9

Sweeping Change Chapter 2

BY C. MIChael Mellor

T

he only constant is change, as the saying goes. Still, when Dr. Edward Van Cleve presented his paper in Chicago, he could not have envisioned the radical changes that were to come to educational and other services to blind people, as well as to the very Institute he headed. A preview of the changes in technology was already available in the 1930’s, for the talking book had just been born. Recognizing the significance of the invention, Van Cleve himself made sure that senior students at the Institute were among the first to try it out. Some people feared that “learning by listening” would discourage the blind students from mastering braille. In fact, the Institute teacher responsible for this trial concluded that the talking book “was an ally [of ], rather than a rival to braille.” This first means of giving blind people ready access to the printed word (braille had accomplished this, but books had first to be transcribed and embossed — time-consuming and expensive),“talking books” were the precursors of once ubiquitous 33 rpm long-playing record — and blind people were the first to have access to this new technology. Early in the 21st century, relatively inexpensive electronic devices make it possible to store and access large quantities of text — in braille, speech or print format — in a pocket-sized device.

O

long Cane

ne low tech device that revolutionized the mobility of blind people was the light-weight “long cane,” originally designed for blinded veterans from the Second World War. Not meant to support weight, this cane is waved from side to side near the ground in a precise fashion to let the walker know if the space ahead, where he will next place his foot, is clear of any obstacle. This simple device, invented to help blinded veterans of World War II, has contributed enormously to the ease of independent mobility by blind people. Use of such new technologies had to be taught to blind children so that they could benefit from new skills and freedoms that were now possible. Revolutionary as technological changes were, the Institute was more deeply affected by changes in the composition of and attitudes within the blind population. These changes came in response to the growing belief that blind youngsters should be educated in the same schools as sighted children rather than be separated in residential schools such as The New York Institute for the Education of the Blind. As early as 1906, in Chicago, there had been an experiment in educating blind children in local schools with sighted children: The next year, Chicago had 24 blind pupils in grade schools and five in high

schools. Parents favored this change, for it allowed their children to stay at home, rather than leave for the state residential school. This unstoppable “mainstreaming” trend received legal backing with the passage of P.L. 94-142 in 1975 (The Education of Handicapped Children Act), which mandated that handicapped children receive an education in the “least restrictive environment” — which usually meant the local public school. The effect of this law on residential schools was dramatic: In 1910, only 200 blind pupils attended the public schools, while the population of residential schools was some 4,600. In 1978, only 24 percent of legally blind students were in the residential schools. It was not possible to avoid the conclusion that The New York Institute (NYI) would no longer be able to enroll the numbers of blind children that it had in the past — and of those it could enroll, many would have additional disabilities. A major policy change would be needed if the physical plant and the institutional knowledge acquired over more than century of service, would continue to support the aims for which the Institute was founded,“…providing education, care, training, rehabilitation and other re lated services to blind and partially sighted persons.1” Another impetus to change was the fact that federal funding for non-profit organizations such as the Institute was declining, and New York State support for special schools was being challenged with new funding rules.

W

MedICal adVanCes

hile these political and social developments would inevitably influence the policies of the Institute, changes in the characteristics of young blind children would also have an impact. Thanks to advances in medicine, leading causes of blindness among children, such as smallpox, syphilis and ophthalmia neonatorum, [congenital gon orrhea] had been greatly reduced. Still, there were occasional up ticks in the downward trend in the incidence of blindness: Beginning about 1941, many more blind babies were appearing each year, adding 10,000 to 12,000 to the numbers of blind people in the United States. At first no one could explain this increase, but careful research showed that the use of oxygen to keep premature babies alive could cause a fibrous membrane to grow behind the lens of the eye resulting in blindness [retrolen tal fibroplasia (RLF)] — now known as retinopathy of prematurity (ROP). In 1963-1965, another epidemic of maternal rubella2 led to an increase in the population of blind babies, but in this case they usually had other impairments, including deafness, poor motor skills, heart problems and mental deficiency. In the past, such babies would probably not have survived infancy; now, advances in the treatment of the newborns could save their lives. Most of these children worked their way through the residential schools, where they changed the nature of the student body. According to a survey carried out by the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind over the course of just 12 years, from 1970 through 1982, the residential schools went from having no students with handicapping conditions other than blindness, to being 50 percent multiply handicapped.

O

searCh For a new loCatIon

ne major change, made in 1924, established the present campus, when the Institute relo cated from congested Manhattan to a 17.5-acre bucolic location in the Bronx.

Such a move had been under consideration for 60 years. As early as 1859 the man agement had recognized that the present site was inadequate, but no new location was found. As a result of this delay, “civilization” threatened to swallow the Institute. By the late nineteenth century, the once tranquil site had trolley lines on three sides, while an elevated railroad crossed in front of the building. The noise made it extremely difficult to teach, for most instruction was given orally. At last, an undeveloped 35-acre site was acquired in north Manhattan around a hill then called Mount Hope (now Washington Heights). Devel opment was delayed by the Civil War orIgInal CaMpus at what Is now 9th aVenue and 34th street and by weaknesses in the economy. the BeCaMe VerY Congested as Manhatten deVeloped. an eleVated Eventually, it became apparent that raIlroad lIne eVen ran aCross the Front oF the BuIldIng. the growth of New York City (NYC) had made the land too valuable to be used as a school. While searching for another site, some of the land was leased out. The most unusual tenant, from 1903-1912, was a baseball team, the New York Highlanders, which later became none other than the New York Yankees!

When part of the DeWitt family estate in Bronxville was made available in 1909, the Insti tution’s problem seemed to be solved. The Man agers had not,however,allowed for the opposition of the good citizens of Bronxville, many of whom were aghast at the thought of having the Institute as a neighbor. Some even compared it to Sing Sing, the notorious prison. This location had to be abandoned, and the next proposed site, in Yonkers, also failed. Success was at last achieved in February 1917, when part of a farm on Pelham Parkway in the Bronx was sold to the Board of Manag ers. (The property had been inherited by the young Vincent Astor when his father died in the sinking of the Titanic.) Work on the site was de layed by the onset of World War 1. Following receipt of an advance payment from the estate of F. Augustus Schermerhorn, the Board of Manag ers was at last able to authorize the beginning of construction. Ground was officially broken on April 15, 1923, and on June 12th that year, the cornerstone of the largest building, now called the Schermerhorn Building, was laid by Paul Tuckerman, president of the Board of Trustees. Today this site, with its 200,000 square feet of space and 14 buildings, brings to mind an ivy-league campus. There, the children have the oppor tunity to be independent within a safe and secure environment.Among its many special facilities are an indoor swimming pool, a therapeutic pool, bowling alley, gymnasium, large library, health service and playground. Facilities designed especially for blind children include a well-equipped resource center for library work and computer training. The Institute had also weathered the Depression and the Second World War. In the immediate aftermath of the War, the student body sometimes included grown men, for the Institute cooperated in the re habilitation of blinded veterans, who spent two weeks on the campus as part of their training. Later, the Institute had seen its student population change in the aftermath of RLF and of the maternal rubella epidemic of the mid-60s. As these multiply handicapped children became older and passed through the Institute, no replacements were on the horizon. The

soMe good CItIzens oF BronxVIlle were adaMantlY opposed to haVIng BlInd students In the neIghBorhood

school population was changing again — and declining in numbers. As spelled out in the Innovation and Diversification Plan (1985 1990), “With the aging out of the deaf-blind population (a result of the rubella epidemic) the Institute will have the physical capability and the professional expertise to become a viable educational program for children with other handicapping conditions [than blind ness], while maintaining its program for the visually impaired.”

the Cornerstone was laId on june 12, 1923 and sCherMerhorn hall was opened 17 Months later.

One sweeping, and unavoidable, change was particularly evident: The trend noted in Chicago at the beginning of the 20th century was gaining speed. Parents were now less and less willing to send their blind child away to a residential school. Moreover, the belief was becoming widespread among educators that blind and visually impaired children would receive a better education, and be better pre pared for life in what was, after all, a sighted world, if they were educated alongside sight ed children in the local public school. The en rollment trend at the Institute was definitely sloping downward.

In the aFterMath oF the seCond world war, BlInded Veterans reCeIVed rehaBIlItatIon traInIng at the InstItute. In 1945, george durand dedICates the InstItute’s new asseMBlY Flag at Flag daY CereMonIes. a 19-Year-old MarIne FroM san FranCIsCo, pFC durand, was an eYewItness to the hIstorIC raIsIng oF the aMerICan Flag at Iwo jIMa shortlY BeFore hIs InjurIes BlInded hIM.

I

dIFFerent waYs oF doIng good

t was plain to The NewYork Institute Board ofTrustees and the staffofthe Institute that it would have to find additional ways of doing good.In the 1960’s,the dominant professional opinion was that the residential Schools for the Blind should close their doors to blind children who did not have other handicaps, and such blind children must receive their education in the public schools; they were not to be separated from children who were not blind. One center of resistance to these ideas was The New York Institute for the Education of the Blind. Its then director, Dr. Merle Framp ton, who succeeded Edward Van Cleve in 1933, persisted in his belief that the residential schools were vital to ensuring that blind children received the best possible education. In the mid-sixties he published a pamphlet whose title clearly showed what he thought, “The Tragedy of Modern Day Education for the Blind as Practiced in the Integrated Public School Classes.” Frampton asserted, logically enough, “There cannot be two ‘bests’ in a method.” One powerful argument against the mainstreaming of blind children was that when the child went home, the lessons and techniques he or she had learned in school could be undone by the indifference or ignorance of parents. Frampton was not even convinced that the integration of blind and sighted people was of great value.3 Throughout his career (he retired in 1971) Frampton showed no reluctance to express his opinions, despite the fact that most professionals disagreed with him.

dr. Merle e. FraMpton (1903-1998), dIreCtor oF the new York InstItute For the eduCatIon oF the BlInd FroM 1935-1974. he Is wearIng the unIForM oF CoMMordore In the us naVal reserVe. he was In Charge oF speCIal serVICes For the naVY’s departMent oF rehaBIlItatIon, InCludIng the traInIng prograM For waVes to Be teaChers For the prograM For rehaBIlItatIon oF BlInded naVY personnel.

desIgned BY the prestIgIous FIrM oF arChIteCts, MckIM, Mead and whIte, sCherMerhorn hall, the MaIn BuIldIng oF the Bronx CaMpus, was opened In 1924

If the Institute, with its more than a century of success in educating blind children, were to con tinue to be socially responsive by doing good, it would need to change its business model. It was an eerie replay of events in 1910. Then, George F. Oliphant, head of the Georgia Residential School, plainly told educators at a convention in Little Rock: “It so no longer a question of whether the experiment of educating blind chil dren in the public school shall be made. It is already in progress. The only question for the institution to determine is our attitude toward the movement. Shall we help it, shall we fight it, or shall we sit still and see if it will run over us?”4 Sixty years later, the Board and staff at The New York Institute decided that they would definitely NOT sit still. If it continued to specialize in ed ucation of blind and visually impaired children only, those children would be highly likely to have other handicaps, and many of those would not be able to take advantage of the high stan dards that had always prevailed at the Institute. Their numbers available for enrollment would be reduced, perhaps even making parts of the Bronx campus superfluous. Changes would indeed have to be sweeping, but the Board of Trustees and the staff worked hard to make sure that the process was not hap hazard. It was carefully managed and made in such measured steps that it could accurately be described as evolutionary rather than revo lutionary. The process was to some degree one of informed trial and error5 — but in an in stitution as old, respected and experienced as The New York Institute, and with such a long record of achievement and an enviable stock of institutional knowledge, a large degree of astute ness was displayed in gathering information, seeking advice and in assessing and applying it.

I

no resIstanCe

nstitutional change does not come easily, even in the private sector, where the need to be profit able imposes stern control over the management. As a not-for-profit corporation, The New York Institute did not have quite that kind of pressure, though it understood very well the need for financial discipline. Above all, it had a realistic Board of Trustees who knew that if the Institute were to be able to carry out its mission, indeed if the very organization were to be preserved, carefully managed change in its business model and policies was essential. Members of staff, too, were well aware that change had to come. Resistance to change in any organization has two sources: the need to protect the individual ego, and the need to protect “turf.” The Institute staff knew perfectly well that if there were no change, each individual would have no turf or ego to protect. 6 And so began a long process of planning the future of the organization. “The Institute [could] diversify and still keep its mission, attain its objectives, and continue to be viable and prosperous” one report pointed out.7 There were frequent (monthly) meetings of a Long Range Planning Committee, which gave periodic reports to a very active Board of Trustees. Among the basic questions asked was, which population of children is most in need of services, and could the services they need be effectively provided by the Institute? Under a Long Range Plan considered in March 1993, Committee members were required, among other things, to conduct “a rigorous and creative appraisal of the Institute and its current effective ness. They had to ask the most searching of questions: “Does the Institute still ‘make a difference?’ To its students? To New York’s education system as a whole? As an eminent researcher? How?” “Given the increased budgetary pressure, how well does the Institute measure and justify the effectiveness of its spending: Public monies? Private monies? Comparisons with alternative facilities and programs?” “How effective is the Institute in working with the bureaucracies proactively and constructively to im prove the quality of its programs and student body? Comparisons?” “How close and productive is the Institute’s relationship to the parents of present and prospective students? Is this important? What factors influence the relationship?” “Policy options: Shift program priorities? Drop programs? Add programs? Redirect use of private funds? Emphasize/de-emphasize outreach programs? Divert substantial portions of the private funds to programs dedicated to education of the handicapped, but separate from and independent of the current campus?” If an Institute has a soul, this was soul-searching of the most excruciating kind. Trustees also insisted that all changes have a research component to ensure feedback about how change worked in the real world: Was it achieving what it set out to achieve? Were there unprecedented or unanticipated consequences? Could the program be made more effective, more cost effective? How soon could it become self-supporting?

BaselIne

I

t was also important to have some measure of how well the Institute was functioning now, in order to have some kind of baseline when evaluating future developments. To assess current performance, the Institute hired two New York University professors, Dr. Jay Gottlieb and Dr. Mark Alter, whose report gave a ringing endorsement of the achievements of the Institute.8 The professors concluded: • The intake process involving evaluation and planning was the best they have ever seen. • Students get more related services than NYC Public School students. • Class size is small. • Students spend more time engaged in school tasks. • Achievement outcomes are superior [to] those realized by less severely disabled students in NYC Public Schools. • Institute students maintain their level of cognitive performance, while special class students in public school experience a significant decrease. This assessment raised the question, “If the Institute was doing such a good job for a small number of students in the Bronx, how could it provide these benefits to more children?” That there were many, many children who could benefit was evident from Professor Gottlieb’s estimate that there were some 130,000 children nationally with needs similar to those of NYI students. Some idea of the thorough and detailed nature of the ongoing study and debate about the Institute’s future can be gained from a two-day “Innovation Search” meeting held in June 1996. The method ology of such structured meetings was for 20 or so people to generate new ideas to meet specific objectives. The outcome of this meeting was an “Innovation Search Idea List” containing no less than 344 ideas! The following ideas from this list suggest their variety: #110: Sharing information can be the key to change; #116: NYI could help establish a ‘school culture’ which is open to continued learning, e.g., co-mentor ing between NYI and public schools. #207: Define long-term benefit; convince people to put money up front; #311: Build capacity in NYI to document what is going on in the three programs to form basis of informing others; #329: Think of teachers and kids as researchers, not just higher education folks. Really use them as researchers; #603: Find ways (develop software?) to help kids with learning disabilities to speed up input; #902: Not all teachers are equally ready to accept innovation. NYI could help prepare and support them for change.

G

Change oF naMe

radually a vision of the future emerged from these many and lengthy discussions and serious debates. In 1986 a vision for the future of the Institute was formalized by one more change of name: Founded in 1831 as “The New York Institution for the Blind,” in 1912 the name was changed to “The New York Institute for the Education of the Blind.” From July 22, 1986, the new corporate name was “The New York Institute for Special Education (NYISE).” Pictured here is the new seal of the Institute showing its new name effecive from 1986. The Latin motto for many years appeared in the Year-Book of the Institute along with a quotation from the prophecy of Isaiah: lux oritur: And I will bring the blind by a way that they knew not; I will lead them in paths they have not known; I will make darkness light before them. As defined by the restated charter, the purpose of the newly-named corporation is: To educate and provide special education programs and related services to students with disabilities, primarily the visually impaired, and additionally the severely emotionally disturbed, the multiply handi capped, and preschool students with disabilities… How was this goal to be implemented? The Institute was in fact to diversify, so that three schools would be based on its spacious and delightful campus, each with its own distinct program, and sharing common facilities as needed: 1. A large degree of continuity would be incorporated in the Schermerhorn9 Program,

which educates academically capable, visually impaired children, ages five through 21.

2. Students with emotional and learning disabilities, age 4 years 9 months, through 11

are enrolled in the Van Cleve Program (named for the former Director).

3. The Readiness Program addresses the needs of developmentally delayed pre-schoolers

from three to five years.

Fortunately, among the Trustees was a pediatrician, Donna O’Hare Brayton, M.D. She had had experience with emotionally disturbed and learning disabled chil dren. Here, she knew, was a promising group — a large group desperately underserved — with sources of fund ing for the provision of services. The first 22 students were enrolled in the Van Cleve Program in 1987; in 1988 the Readiness Program enrolled its first 32 students. For those students who can benefit from residence at the Institute, there are dormitories where students stay on campus for five days, and go home on weekends. While

there are three formal programs, Executive Director Dr. Eugene McMahon explains that in fact there are as many programs as there are students, since each student is regarded as a unique individual whose particular concerns, interests, skills and weaknesses must be addressed. The beauty of having the three schools within an overarching Institute, is that staff have access to and can call upon other services on campus or through the Institute’s external relationships with other organizations: grants, community outreach, research, publication, effective teaching, international ini tiatives, university collaboration, and development. Also on campus are health services, staffed by Reg istered Professional Nurses. There is access to programs at Saint Barnabas Hospital, along with support staff in such areas as pediatrics, social work, psychiatry, ophthalmology and optometry. Students can also take advantage of art, theater arts, library, music and technology. Vocational education and career services are available on campus. The campus also has dormitories, a gym, computer labs, a new library, a 200 seat auditorium, sports and recreational activities, and a vocational coffee shop, in which students learn how to prepare and serve food and handle money. Each summer, the campus becomes the site of Camp Wanaqua, the only summer day camp program in New York City for children who are blind or visually impaired. Camp Wanaqua gives the students opportunities for both learning and leisure activities.

A

Cornerstone prograM

serious unmet need revealed during the years of debate, discussion and research, was that of literacy — reading, writing and communicating. A majority of elementary school teach ers surveyed in the late 1990’s stated that “building basic literacy skills” was the most im portant goal for education. Yet elementary school students performed poorly in this area. This meant that there was a large population of children in the United States who were not acquiring literacy — the basic skill for functioning well in contemporary society. Many of these children were placed in special education classes, not as victims of any disability, but as victims of ineffective teaching. In the late 1990’s the Board of Trustees, largely following the recommendations of a report from the SRI International10 agreed that this was an area in which the NYISE could make a contribution, extending its long tradition of “doing good” into a new area. In fact, the Institute had had more than a century of experience in imparting literacy to blind children, and it made sense to use this skill and knowledge to help other children. It was also clear, as expressed by Board Vice President, John B. Rhodes11 that by entering this area, despite its being a “high risk” endeavor, the Institute would again achieve eminence well beyond New York as a key player in the education of handicapped children. The upshot of the decision to enter the area of illiteracy among children with no known handicaps was the establishment of the “Cornerstone Program.12” Unlike the other three programs, this is not physically located in the Bronx campus. Its pioneering efforts are based in Philadelphia, in associa tion with the University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education. Given the high correlation of illiteracy with poverty, the program began its work with schools in small and midsized school districts

where more than 75 % of the children come from backgrounds of poverty, as defined by the proportion of students enrolled in the free lunch programs. It then seeks to use its expertise to bring about change in these schools so that they become better capable of imparting literacy. In recent years it has expanded its programs to larger school districts. Today, The New York Institute for Special Education continues the commitment to the educational advancement of all its students, and that commitment is evidenced in student achievement. For exam ple, between 2005 and 2006, the Schermerhorn Program graduated 22 students, of which 9% obtained a Regents Diploma, 68% received a High School Diploma and 23% received an IEP Diploma. Nearly 60% of these graduates continued their studies through some form of higher education. Participants of the Van Cleve Program, many of whom have severe learning and emotional disabili ties, have demonstrated comparable gains as a result of efforts by NYISE. The median growth in academic knowledge for Van Cleve graduates in 2005 was reported as 4.8 grade equivalents. Given that the me dian number of years a child spends in the Van Cleve program is 4.75, this indicates that the child’s overall academic growth is consistent with that of non-disabled peers. By the same token, the Readiness Program, which offers preschoolers an opportunity to participate in the “Breakthrough to Literacy” curriculum, significantly affects the academic route of most partici pants. In 2005, over 50% of the students who attended Readiness for two years were placed in general education kindergarten when they entered public schools. Parents of Readiness Program students are fully aware of the impact that the Program has had on their children. In a recent survey, one mother expressed her satisfaction by stating,“I am very pleased with the amount of love and planning Readiness Staff shows for our children to help them to meet their potential.” It is this heartfelt praise that reaffirms NYISE’s efforts to cre ate a collaborative network of students, staff, and parents. In fact, 94.7% of parents surveyed in 2005 indicated that they agreed with the statement, “They are regularly informed of their child’s progress and have the chance to discuss any concerns with the school staff.” In addition, more than 94% felt “satisfied with the special education programs and services provided to their child” at the NYISE. As one parent put it,“We are deeply indebted to the residential and all other staff at the Institute.”

suggested readIng Artman, W. and L. V. Hall. Beauties and Achievements of the Blind. Rochester, NY 1874 Irwin, Robert B. The War of the Dots. New York, AFB 1955. Koestler, Frances. The Unseen Minority: A Social History of Blindness in America. New York: David McKay 1975. Paperback, American Foundation for the Blind 2004. Lowenfeld, Berthold. Berthold Lowenfeld on Blindness and Blind People. New York: American Foundation for the Blind, 1981. Mellor, C. Michael. Louis Braille: A Touch of Genius. Boston: National Braille Press, 2006. Mellor, C. Michael. Making a Point: The Crusade for a Universal Embossed Code in the United States. Paris: Association Valentin Haüy 1998 Silverman, William A. Retrolental Fibroplasia: A Modern Parable. New York: Grune and Stratton, 1980. Wait, William B. New York Point, 1868 Wilson, James. Biography of the Blind. Library of Congress, 1996 [from original editions, 1821-38.]

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the following for their insights, advice and comments: MeMBers oF the Board oF trustees:

John B. Rhodes, Donna O’Hare Brayton, Edward Ridley Finch and

Frances F. Dennison

staFF:

Eugene McMahon, Ed.D., Executive Director

Robert L. Guarino, Ph.D., Former Executive Director

Kim Benisatto, Joseph Catavero, Cliff Danziger,

John Hernandez, Barbara McPhillips & Steven Prigohzy

“Innovation and Diversification Plan 1985-1990. These epidemics seemed to occur in about seven-year intervals. In the late 1960’s and 1970’s widespread immunization proved effective and broke this cycle. 3 It is perhaps still too soon to know for sure whether he was right or wrong. Many older blind people today wax nostalgic about and brim with gratitude for the residential school they attended. 4 Quoted in Koestler, F.A.K. The Unseen Minority, p. 413. 5 To cite a phrase used in a report from the SRI International, which was a consultant to the Institute in 1996. 6 I am grateful to John B. Rhodes, President of the Board of Trustees, for this insight. 7 Innovation and Diversification Plan 1985-1990 8 The researchers elaborated on their written report at the November 10, 1994 meeting of the Long Range Planning and Program Committee. 9 Named for F. Augustus Schermerhorn, payments from whose estate made possible the construction of a group of buildings on the Bronx site in 1922. 10 Leading Special Education into the 21st Century, December 19, 1996. 11 In a letter to Board Member Gordon Dewey, December 31, 1996. 12 Cornerstone website: http://cornerstoneliteracy.org 1 2

Board oF trustees John B. Rhodes, President

Donna O’Hare Brayton, M.D., Vice President

Edward Ridley Finch, Vice President

Phillip G. Foote, Vice President

Rosanne K. Silberman, Secretary

William L. Musser, Jr., Treasurer

Edward F. Cox

Frances F. Dennison

John H.D. Dewey

Thomas A.D. Ettinghausen

Richard C. Gay

exeCutIVe staFF Eugene McMahon, Ed.D.

Steven Prigohzy Thomas Burgett, Ph.D. John Antonacchio Kim M. Benisatto Lisa Blasone Michael Casper Joseph Catavero Joseph Chatrnuch Clifford Danziger Lois Dougan Geraldine Dugandzic Janet Fiber Barbara McPhillips Brenda Frazier-Mizell George Patisso Dolores Peters Rhona Wexler

Executive Director,

The New York Institute for Special Education Executive Director, Cornerstone Assistant Executive Director, The New York Institute for Special Education Health Services Coordinator Operations Manager Personnel Manager Supervisor of Security and Safety Principal, Schermerhorn Program Director of Fiscal Affairs Principal, Van Cleve Program Assistant Principal, Schermerhorn Program Assistant Principal, Readiness Program Assistant Principal, Schermerhorn Program Principal, Readiness Program Assistant Principal, Van Cleve Program Director of Facilities Assistant Principal, Readiness Program Pupil Personnel Services Coordinator