Quality education and rehabilitation programs for blind and visually impaired individuals may be threatened by the philosophy of service to disabled people currently prevailing at the federal level. This philosophy would treat blind and visually impaired persons as though their needs were the same as those of other handicapped persons. In fact, sometimes the needs coincide; sometimes they do not. Proper service delivery can be ensured only by understanding this philosophy, becoming aware of its subtle and overt impact on programs for people with visual impairments, and acting in concert with others who have similar concerns.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BrownL., BranstonM.B., Hamre-NietupskiS., PumpianI., CertoN., and GruenewaldL. (1979). A strategy for developing chronological age appropriate and functional curricular content for severely handicapped adolescents and young adults.Journal of Special Education, 13(1), 81–90.
2.
California State Department of Education. (1986). Policy statement on least restrictive environment.Sacramento, CA: Author.
3.
California State Department of Education. (1985). Proposed statement on “Least Restrictive Environment.”Sacramento, CA: Author.
4.
FalveyM.A. (1986). Community-based curriculum: Instructional strategies for students with severe handicaps.Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
5.
FredericksB. (1987, June). Back to the future: Integration revisited.TASH Newsletter, 13(6), 1.
6.
NirgeB. (1986). The normalization principle and its management implications. In KugelR., & WolfensbergerW. (Eds.), Changing patterns in residential services for the mentally retarded (pp. 51–57). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
7.
Resolution on the Redefinition of the Continuum of Services (1987, Feburary). TASH Newsletter, 13(2), 3.
8.
ReynoldsM.C., WangM.C., and WalbergH.J. (1987). The necessary restructuring of special and regular education.Exceptional Children, 53, 391–398.
9.
SavageS.L. (1983). Instructional programming for the severely handicapped: The individualized critical skills model (ICSM).Sacramento, CA: California State Department of Education, Office of Special Education.
10.
SchindeleR. (1974). The social adjustment of visually handicapped children in different educational settings.American Foundation for the Blind Research Bulletin, 28, 125–144.
11.
StainbackW., and StainbackS. (1987, April). Educating all students in regular education.TASH Newsletter, 13(4), 1.
12.
Teaching Research Division, Oregon State System of Higher Education. (1984). Executive Summary: Oregon State School for the Blind Study.Salem, OR: Teaching Research Division, Oregon State System of Higher Education.
13.
ThompsonW.S. (1984, October). Blind priority—Its real significance. Address before the annual meeting of the National Industries for the Blind and the General Council of Workshops for the Blind, Nashville, TN.
14.
U.S. Department of Education. (1985, August). Comprehensive compliance review of state education agency operations, manual 10: Least restrictive environment (Draft).Washington, DC: Author.
15.
U.S. Department of Education. (1987, January). Standards and guidelines for compliance with federal requirements for the education of the handicapped.Washington, DC: Author.
16.
WarrenD.H. (1984). Blindness and early childhood development (2nd ed., rev.). New York: American Foundation for the Blind.
17.
WillM. (1986). Educating students with learning problems—A shared responsibility: A report to the Secretary.Washington, DC: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, U.S. Department of Education.
18.
WolfensbergerW. (1972). The Principle of Normalization in Human Services.Downsview, Canada: National Institute of Mental Retardation.
