Monday, 19 March 2007
I feel very strongly about this as I was refused the right to learn braille when I was younger. I have aniridia and glaucoma and because of the glaucoma my sight could get worse at anytime due to the build up of pressure against the optic nerve. I went to a mainstream infants school and was taught print because I was considered to have enough sight to manage with this but later when more and more writing tasks were introduced to me in class I started to struggle. I was transferred to a special school for the visually impaired at the age of 7. About a year after starting that school my class teacher started to do grade 1 braille with me, I continued to learn this until I was in year 6, when my class teacher decided to stop me from learning braille because he thought I had enough vision which I should use more to read and write in print. From that day on my parents fought to get me to learn braille again, at every annual review it was mentioned and was decided against by the teachers who always said I had enough vision to be a print user. Then when I was 14 I lost a bit of field vision and suddenly the teachers decided teaching me braille again would be a good idea! I learnt grade 1 and 2 in a year, went on to get a OCN level 2 in braille too. I am so glad I was finally allowed to learn it, when I was younger I mostly used it to write letters to my friends who were also blind and braille users, or to show off to sighted friends but now I'm older I use it for far more serious reasons, like to help me with my university studies. I love sitting down and reading a braille book, I find it a lot easier than sitting down to read a print book. When reading print books I get eye strain and arm ache, (from having to use a magnifier). I love being able to read books in bed in the dark! I go to church and I have the whole bible in braille and have hymn books in braille too which is great because I can sing along with my friends and read the bible at the same time as them. At universtity although I use the computer for most of my work, I also have a braille embosser which I love. I find printing out things in braille really helpful and some of the lecture notes are given to me in braille so I can read them in lecture time. Although I agree children should have the right to learn braille if they have some useful vision left, I also feel that they should be taught print first or as well. I love being able to have the choice, being able to read both print and braille. But I feel that print is important for learning how to spell too, I know lots of friends who are really bad at spelling and all of them learnt braille at a young age, and were never taught print. I was taught to read print at the age of 3 by large print flash cards and i feel this has really helped me to be good at spelling. Just my experience and thoughts. Jenny
Thursday, 8 March 2007
Anonymous said...
Hello
Here is a poem that I have been given permission to use to help with our campaign.I wrote this poem back in the early 1990’s, when we first starting campaigning about Braille literacy. It is a bit silly, but important to understand that when you listen to it using synthetic speech it sounds perfectly correct, and a spell checker would only pick up one spelling mistake. It is only when you READ it that you can pick up the 20+ obvious mistakes. Please feel free to use it in any way.Tim
The Hearing HerdI may be blind,
but I don't knead braille
My computer talks to me without fail
And when I’ve finished writing all my male,
The spellchecker marks for revue,
My spelling, which is pretty hail.
Now I no computers are not always write,
But they are pretty good for people with no site.
Just like this pome, I can be shore,
My writing has improved so much moor.
In just a while I'm applying four a job,
I know my resume will leave them all agog.
So, get with it kid's, don't learn braille,
Be dependant on electronic mail.
If your blind they'll understand,
Its just two hard to reed with your hand.
You'll find those dots are for the birds,
Come join us hear in the hearing heard.
03 March 2007 16:21
Hello
Here is a poem that I have been given permission to use to help with our campaign.I wrote this poem back in the early 1990’s, when we first starting campaigning about Braille literacy. It is a bit silly, but important to understand that when you listen to it using synthetic speech it sounds perfectly correct, and a spell checker would only pick up one spelling mistake. It is only when you READ it that you can pick up the 20+ obvious mistakes. Please feel free to use it in any way.Tim
The Hearing HerdI may be blind,
but I don't knead braille
My computer talks to me without fail
And when I’ve finished writing all my male,
The spellchecker marks for revue,
My spelling, which is pretty hail.
Now I no computers are not always write,
But they are pretty good for people with no site.
Just like this pome, I can be shore,
My writing has improved so much moor.
In just a while I'm applying four a job,
I know my resume will leave them all agog.
So, get with it kid's, don't learn braille,
Be dependant on electronic mail.
If your blind they'll understand,
Its just two hard to reed with your hand.
You'll find those dots are for the birds,
Come join us hear in the hearing heard.
03 March 2007 16:21
Anonymous said...
I feel so much for you and your son because, if I were starting school today, I too would be told that I have too much sight to be taught braille. However when I started school at the age of 5 (nearly 60 years ago), the idea of partially sighted people using large print hadn't been invented, so I went to a school for the blind and learnt braille. I used braille throughout school (including maths to A level), but learnt to read print with a powerful magnifier in my teens, and changed over to working in print when I went to university.So, what has braille done for me? Well, I read print very slowly (about 80 words per minute) and it is tiring, so I think I did much better at school using braille than I would have done if I'd used print. I was fortunate that I did science and maths (which is pretty concise stuff) at university and for my work; if I'd specialized in history or literature (say) then I simply wouldn't have been able to do the reading required in print. I still take a monthly magazine in braille to keep my hand in, and write the occasional letter in braille, but apart from that I use print and computers for everything.A relative with the same eye condition as me has recently lost a lot of his sight, so I'm conscious that the same thing might one day happen to my, which would make me more dependent on braille.Adrian Magill
I feel so much for you and your son because, if I were starting school today, I too would be told that I have too much sight to be taught braille. However when I started school at the age of 5 (nearly 60 years ago), the idea of partially sighted people using large print hadn't been invented, so I went to a school for the blind and learnt braille. I used braille throughout school (including maths to A level), but learnt to read print with a powerful magnifier in my teens, and changed over to working in print when I went to university.So, what has braille done for me? Well, I read print very slowly (about 80 words per minute) and it is tiring, so I think I did much better at school using braille than I would have done if I'd used print. I was fortunate that I did science and maths (which is pretty concise stuff) at university and for my work; if I'd specialized in history or literature (say) then I simply wouldn't have been able to do the reading required in print. I still take a monthly magazine in braille to keep my hand in, and write the occasional letter in braille, but apart from that I use print and computers for everything.A relative with the same eye condition as me has recently lost a lot of his sight, so I'm conscious that the same thing might one day happen to my, which would make me more dependent on braille.Adrian Magill
Wednesday, 7 March 2007
Kerrie said...
Hi GuysI am just beginning to calm down after reading Fred Reid's post. Believe me it has taken a while!I know I'm preaching to the converted here, but just thought I'd dissect some of his points.1. Braille is best used for reading short lists, labels etc. Yes - maybe if the critical period for learning it has already passed before a child is even allowed to start! the principle for learning Braille is no different to that of learning another language or to ski. The younger you start, the faster, more fluent and competent you'll be.2. It is unnecessarily time-consuming and an acceptable reading speed is difficult to acquire. If taught properly, it should not be much more time-consuming than learning print. It is true that the contractions will take longer to memorise, but it is not really any different to learning to read new words. For example, new contractions are introduced in every reading book, just as new words are introduced. There is also no rule that all contractions must be learned by the end of the first year of school. Once basic competency and speed is attained, children can continue to develop their knowledge of contractions and often find this fun. The issue of speed relates to my first point. If you try to teach a child to read either print or Braille when they are 13 or 14 instead of 5 or 6, they will be slower. The earlier they start, the faster their reading speed will be!3. Children with residual vision do not need to learn Braille. Why not? why should reading always be a difficult chore as they struggle with print? Why not have a medium in which reading is a pleasure, as well as learning print to access information in their environments. Moreover, although residual vision may be present when a child is young, they are not always guaranteed to have that level of sight. braille then has to be taught when they are older, or more commonly skipped altogether.4. braille should be taught as an 'add on', and should mostly be Grade one only. This one really got me! Learning to be literate should be an add-on?! Computer speech and audio recording just do not make up for the ability to physically read something, know how words are spelled etc. It is a basic right and any child who is deprived of it is being deprived of literacy. Grade 2 Braille is also much more practical and encouraging to read, as your fingers can cover it more quickly and books are far less bulky. As for saying that voluntary organisations should teach Braille outwith the curriculum, I ask again, why?! Would a sighted child be expected to learn something as basic as print outwith the curriculum?5. braille will never guarantee access to large amounts of information. Not if influential people continue to display this incomprehensible attitude!Ok, that feels better!Kerrie
Hi GuysI am just beginning to calm down after reading Fred Reid's post. Believe me it has taken a while!I know I'm preaching to the converted here, but just thought I'd dissect some of his points.1. Braille is best used for reading short lists, labels etc. Yes - maybe if the critical period for learning it has already passed before a child is even allowed to start! the principle for learning Braille is no different to that of learning another language or to ski. The younger you start, the faster, more fluent and competent you'll be.2. It is unnecessarily time-consuming and an acceptable reading speed is difficult to acquire. If taught properly, it should not be much more time-consuming than learning print. It is true that the contractions will take longer to memorise, but it is not really any different to learning to read new words. For example, new contractions are introduced in every reading book, just as new words are introduced. There is also no rule that all contractions must be learned by the end of the first year of school. Once basic competency and speed is attained, children can continue to develop their knowledge of contractions and often find this fun. The issue of speed relates to my first point. If you try to teach a child to read either print or Braille when they are 13 or 14 instead of 5 or 6, they will be slower. The earlier they start, the faster their reading speed will be!3. Children with residual vision do not need to learn Braille. Why not? why should reading always be a difficult chore as they struggle with print? Why not have a medium in which reading is a pleasure, as well as learning print to access information in their environments. Moreover, although residual vision may be present when a child is young, they are not always guaranteed to have that level of sight. braille then has to be taught when they are older, or more commonly skipped altogether.4. braille should be taught as an 'add on', and should mostly be Grade one only. This one really got me! Learning to be literate should be an add-on?! Computer speech and audio recording just do not make up for the ability to physically read something, know how words are spelled etc. It is a basic right and any child who is deprived of it is being deprived of literacy. Grade 2 Braille is also much more practical and encouraging to read, as your fingers can cover it more quickly and books are far less bulky. As for saying that voluntary organisations should teach Braille outwith the curriculum, I ask again, why?! Would a sighted child be expected to learn something as basic as print outwith the curriculum?5. braille will never guarantee access to large amounts of information. Not if influential people continue to display this incomprehensible attitude!Ok, that feels better!Kerrie
Anonymous said...
I'm a braille tutor and I believe every visually impaired person has a right to be able to read braille. They also have the right to curl up on a sofa and read for enjoyment.
I'm a braille tutor and I believe every visually impaired person has a right to be able to read braille. They also have the right to curl up on a sofa and read for enjoyment.
Harvey white said...
Dear EmanueleI hope you will not be discouraged by the negative letter from Fred Reid. I note that he takes care to rehearse his credentials. He writes:“I have just retired from RNIB Board of Trustees, where I was chair of the Policy and Advocacy committee and, before that, of the Education and Employment committee.” But these are the views, not so much of the retired Chair of the Education and Employment Committee, but rather of the man who did not start to learn Braille until he was at least fourteen years old. This fact undermines much of his case.What I find astonishing in his letter is that, having made this confession, and having admitted that he used Braille during his working life as a lecturer in history, he perversely declines his support for your petition. I would have expected him, in his circumstances, to be an advocate for early learning of Braille on the grounds that, first, he found it useful, and, second, he admits to being less competent in its use than he might have been had he begun to learn at the age when children normally learn to read and write.I am sorry to read his purposeful downgrading of the uses of Braille, though he does admit that access to mathematical texts and to poetry are very difficult without it. More perverseness, I fear. Are blind children to be excluded from maths and poetry?To redress the balance a little, here are some of the ways in which Braille is, and has been indispensable to me in my private and professional life.The things Fred lightly dismisses as “Et Cetera” would for me include reading and learning music and foreign languages; understanding labels on maps and diagrams; “glancing” at magazines you can pick up from the coffee table; independent access to personal papers like bank statements and utility bills; my own labels on almost everything in my home including medicines, cooking ingredients, CD's, cassette tapes and printed documents I need to be able to locate quickly such as insurance policies, mortgage agreements and savings books. When I was working, I really don’t know how I could have kept track of printed materials without labeling them in Braille. There just isn’t time to keep shoving them into the scanner to see what they are!Fred is right to say that talking computers now provide blind people with access to a much wider range of materials than in the past, and that the screen readers can deliver the text at high speed. That is extremely useful. But it does not constitute literacy. Literacy is the ability to read and to write with the minimum of equipment and without depending on complex external mechanisms. It is also about a direct link between brain and text, with no intervening voice, provided by the finger tips in the case of Braille reading. The advent of computers in the nation’s schools has not lead to cries for abolishing reading with the eye off the page and writing with a pen in the hand. Braille is our equivalent to that basic skill. The “Add On” should be the computer; not the Braille. There is a very real danger that if the views of people like Fred Reid prevail, we may lose that basic, organic link to words and letters.In his letter, he makes much of the pains of learning Braille, and the number of his school mates who did not learn it. They found it difficult, and ultimately less than fully satisfactory, because they were late beginners. I hear also that in general education, the literacy rate is no higher than 73%, having declined recently. What I do not hear is any consequent suggestion that children who do not show a ready interest in reading and writing should be excluded from learning to reade and write. Very much the contrary. His is a counsel of despair.I am baffled by his suggestion that, because he, personally, has known some (we don’t know how many) blind professionals who “got on perfectly well without it”, Braille is not “Essential”. I’m prepared to believe that Dr Reid was a perfectly good history lecturer without his eyesight, but would not suggest that, therefore, history lecturers do not need to see. To put the matter less rhetorically, blind people seeking employment and hoping for a fulfilling life need absolutely all the tools they can lay their hands on for coping with the enormous handicap under which we struggle to cope with a world which is increasingly focused on eyesight.I almost gave up on his letter when he scraped the bottom of the barrel with his remark about finger sensitivity. He knows, or should know, that, unless there is damage to the sensory nerve endings, or the children have been working as part time navvys, young finger tips are perfectly capable of reading Braille characters. He’s just trying to heap up the objections; a negative approach that should make him ashamed.Finally, Emmanuele, to return to his first paragraph, it is worrying that Fred’s opinion seems to have been recruited by somebody working for RNIB, who, we may be sure, is familiar with his views. We must try to ensure that the Royal National Institute of Blind People is indeed the voice of blind people, and not a “public Address System” being used by certain individuals to amplify their personal opinions, nor an Institution defending its orthodoxy because that’s what Institutions do.Harvey White
02 March 2007 04:54
Dear EmanueleI hope you will not be discouraged by the negative letter from Fred Reid. I note that he takes care to rehearse his credentials. He writes:“I have just retired from RNIB Board of Trustees, where I was chair of the Policy and Advocacy committee and, before that, of the Education and Employment committee.” But these are the views, not so much of the retired Chair of the Education and Employment Committee, but rather of the man who did not start to learn Braille until he was at least fourteen years old. This fact undermines much of his case.What I find astonishing in his letter is that, having made this confession, and having admitted that he used Braille during his working life as a lecturer in history, he perversely declines his support for your petition. I would have expected him, in his circumstances, to be an advocate for early learning of Braille on the grounds that, first, he found it useful, and, second, he admits to being less competent in its use than he might have been had he begun to learn at the age when children normally learn to read and write.I am sorry to read his purposeful downgrading of the uses of Braille, though he does admit that access to mathematical texts and to poetry are very difficult without it. More perverseness, I fear. Are blind children to be excluded from maths and poetry?To redress the balance a little, here are some of the ways in which Braille is, and has been indispensable to me in my private and professional life.The things Fred lightly dismisses as “Et Cetera” would for me include reading and learning music and foreign languages; understanding labels on maps and diagrams; “glancing” at magazines you can pick up from the coffee table; independent access to personal papers like bank statements and utility bills; my own labels on almost everything in my home including medicines, cooking ingredients, CD's, cassette tapes and printed documents I need to be able to locate quickly such as insurance policies, mortgage agreements and savings books. When I was working, I really don’t know how I could have kept track of printed materials without labeling them in Braille. There just isn’t time to keep shoving them into the scanner to see what they are!Fred is right to say that talking computers now provide blind people with access to a much wider range of materials than in the past, and that the screen readers can deliver the text at high speed. That is extremely useful. But it does not constitute literacy. Literacy is the ability to read and to write with the minimum of equipment and without depending on complex external mechanisms. It is also about a direct link between brain and text, with no intervening voice, provided by the finger tips in the case of Braille reading. The advent of computers in the nation’s schools has not lead to cries for abolishing reading with the eye off the page and writing with a pen in the hand. Braille is our equivalent to that basic skill. The “Add On” should be the computer; not the Braille. There is a very real danger that if the views of people like Fred Reid prevail, we may lose that basic, organic link to words and letters.In his letter, he makes much of the pains of learning Braille, and the number of his school mates who did not learn it. They found it difficult, and ultimately less than fully satisfactory, because they were late beginners. I hear also that in general education, the literacy rate is no higher than 73%, having declined recently. What I do not hear is any consequent suggestion that children who do not show a ready interest in reading and writing should be excluded from learning to reade and write. Very much the contrary. His is a counsel of despair.I am baffled by his suggestion that, because he, personally, has known some (we don’t know how many) blind professionals who “got on perfectly well without it”, Braille is not “Essential”. I’m prepared to believe that Dr Reid was a perfectly good history lecturer without his eyesight, but would not suggest that, therefore, history lecturers do not need to see. To put the matter less rhetorically, blind people seeking employment and hoping for a fulfilling life need absolutely all the tools they can lay their hands on for coping with the enormous handicap under which we struggle to cope with a world which is increasingly focused on eyesight.I almost gave up on his letter when he scraped the bottom of the barrel with his remark about finger sensitivity. He knows, or should know, that, unless there is damage to the sensory nerve endings, or the children have been working as part time navvys, young finger tips are perfectly capable of reading Braille characters. He’s just trying to heap up the objections; a negative approach that should make him ashamed.Finally, Emmanuele, to return to his first paragraph, it is worrying that Fred’s opinion seems to have been recruited by somebody working for RNIB, who, we may be sure, is familiar with his views. We must try to ensure that the Royal National Institute of Blind People is indeed the voice of blind people, and not a “public Address System” being used by certain individuals to amplify their personal opinions, nor an Institution defending its orthodoxy because that’s what Institutions do.Harvey White
02 March 2007 04:54
Anonymous said...
Hi Emmanuele and Listers,I have read all the postings on this subject and am distressed for you andyour child. I can only offer moral support and my own experience. Ilearned braille and print together and could work in either format. Now Icannot read print so use braille although I can still think in either. Myhandwriting is now dreadful I am told, because I no longer have any visualfeedback as the pen passes over the paper. Without braille I would be inreal trouble just with daily living tasks let alone reading for leisure anbdworking one day a week.Regards.Iain
01 March 2007 03:51
Hi Emmanuele and Listers,I have read all the postings on this subject and am distressed for you andyour child. I can only offer moral support and my own experience. Ilearned braille and print together and could work in either format. Now Icannot read print so use braille although I can still think in either. Myhandwriting is now dreadful I am told, because I no longer have any visualfeedback as the pen passes over the paper. Without braille I would be inreal trouble just with daily living tasks let alone reading for leisure anbdworking one day a week.Regards.Iain
01 March 2007 03:51
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
