CCSSO-BANA
Unified English Braille
Implementation Guidelines
May 11, 2015
Presentation Overview
 A bit of background
 National Survey results
 Implementation guide:

◦
Components & recommendations for implementation
Discussion
Before we start . . .
 Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO)

◦
◦
National, nonpartisan, non-profit organization
Public officials who head departments of elementary
and secondary education in the states
◦
CCSSO provides leadership, advocacy, and technical
assistance on major educational issues.
◦
www.ccsso.org
Braille Authority of North America (BANA)
◦
◦
International, non-profit, 501c3 organization
The Board consists of representatives from 18
organizations of braille consumers, educators, and
transcribers
◦
The mission of BANA is to assure literacy for tactile
readers through the standardization of braille and/or
tactile graphics.
◦
www.brailleauthority.org
CCSSO-BANA project
1

How this project started:
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
Change of braille code from English Braille American
Edition (EBAE) to Unified English Braille (UEB).
Implementation date is January 4, 2016.
BANA has been working with a wide network of
national constituents
 Enormous differences between states for braille
procurement, production, and procedures
Concern about instructional materials and statewide
assessments.
CCSSO sought assistance from BANA on behalf of
state departments of education & testing consortia.
CCSSO-BANA project
 National Survey
 Webinars in October and December
 http://www.ccsso.org/Resources/Programs/Suppor
ting_Students_with_Disabilities.html
 Development of Implementation Guide
National Survey
 Sent to state assessment directors nationwide
◦

Designed to be completed with feedback from team
32 states reported by December 31, 2014

Complete results in the implementation guide
Results examined both quantitatively and qualitatively
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
Demographics (how many students)
Instructional materials
Assessment
Training of personnel
2

Results used to develop the guide: issues and
recommendations
Implementation Guide
 Section 1: Background information
 Section 2: Issues related to UEB implementation
 Section 3: Creating state plans for transition:
Implications of national survey results




Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
1:
2:
3:
4:
Survey results (detailed)
Resources
Nemeth-UEB guidance document
Sample State Plans
Issues related to UEB implementation
 Code issues


◦
◦
Mathematics and science transcription
Formats Guidelines and other BANA documents
Testing issues
◦
◦
UEB compatible equipment
UEB certification from NLS
Instructional materials
◦
◦
Timing

Textbook adoption cycles
Training issues

Level of training
Financial issues
◦
Mathematics
 UEB is a complete, general purpose code; symbols for
3




math are part of the code. It is completely different from
Nemeth code.
The US voted to keep Nemeth code as an official code
along with UEB, a unique position internationally.
Some states plan to use UEB solely for “nontechnical”
materials and continue to use Nemeth code for math
and science.
Some states plan to use both UEB and Nemeth for math
and science materials.
Some states plan to gradually move to UEB for all
subjects.
Provisional Guidance
 “Provisional Guidance for Transcription Using the Nemeth
Code within UEB Contexts”
 Use of a code switching symbol for going into and out of
Nemeth.
 Symbol added to UEB Rulebook in 2013.
 Guidance document on BANA website:
◦
www.brailleauthority.org/ueb.html#nemeth
Plan for technical materials
 “How does your state plan to provide braille textbooks
for mathematics and science?”
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
Both UEB and Nemeth = 10
Nemeth only /Nemeth with UEB text = 6
Nemeth for now & revisit = 2
Have not yet determined = 10
Local decision = 3
No response = 1
Other code issues
4


Formats guidelines
◦
Planned revision of Braille Formats: Principles of
Print-to-Braille Transcription, 2011
 Foreign language textbook transcription guidelines
Guidelines and Standards for Tactile Graphics, 2010
Assessment Issues
 States moving from paper tests to computer-based
assessments
 A complex issue:
◦
◦
◦
Refreshable braille devices driven by screen reader
translation software with varying amounts of accuracy
Proprietary systems that may not work well together:
braille device, test platform, browser, etc.
Test platform should be designed according to
standards, not geared for specific devices
 Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0,
priority AA, found at this website:
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/
Paper or electronic assessments
in 2016?
 Both electronic and paper, depending on the subject
and/or test = 11
 Paper only = 9
 Electronic only = 4
 To be determined = 4
 Not Applicable = 1
In several cases, the reporting state planned to provide
assessments using a combination of methods.
5
Assessment and Instruction
 Plan for 2017 and beyond
 Students need practice materials so they are tested on
content and not accuracy with specific devices.
 Assessments should measure the instruction that has
been provided in the state standards, and should be in
the same code(s).
 It takes time and training to create well-designed braille
assessments and instructional materials.
 13 states plan to start providing textbooks in UEB by
end of 2015, with another 13 during 2016. No response
or not yet determined = 6
Training
 More than half of states reported that they require NLS
certification for braille transcribers who produce
assessments, or that it’s their general practice
 At the time of the survey, most states had not started
training transcribers in UEB, but had started training
teachers.
Creating state plans for transition
 Component 1: Create a UEB Implementation Committee
 Component 2: Create a Timeline for Implementation
 Component 3: Training of Educators and Transcribers
 Component 4: Addressing procurement and
infrastructure issues
 Component 5: Communication
Create UEB Implementation Committee
 Include wide representation from varied constituents
 Bottom-up and top-down interactions
 Frequent meetings
 Open discussion
6



Development of state plans that fit the capacities and
resources in that state.
State plans being collected on the BANA web site
Fluidity in plans to meet changing needs
Create a timeline
 Develop timeline based on state capacity and other
procurement issues
 Consider both instructional materials and assessments.
 Implement by grade level: K-2 or K-3, then work up
from there.
 A few states implementing UEB related to textbook
adoption cycles.
 Use of planning tools.
Braille Assessments
 Address on students’ IEPs.
 Assessments will need to be prepared in more than one
code during implementation phase.
 Assessments offered in more than one format.
 Share resources between districts and between states.
 Survey districts within the state to ascertain readiness
for testing requirements.
Training in UEB
 Face-to-face training opportunities
 Distance learning opportunities
 PR eService teacher training materials
 Teacher certification/licensure
 NLS certification for braille transcribers
 Reference materials and resources for other
stakeholders
Infrastructure
7

Based on feedback from the survey and from the BANA
UEB Transition Forum:
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
Request forms updated to include UEB
Update databases of braille materials to include UEB
as an option
Update internal student databases for code use
Update IEP forms to include UEB
Maintain a list of UEB compatible devices and
software
Communication
 BANA organization publications and web sites
 Parents and students
 Administrators and special education supervisors
 Classroom teachers
 IEP teams
 Paraprofessionals
Appendices
Appendix 1: Survey results
Appendix 2: Resources
Appendix 3: Nemeth-UEB guidance document
Appendix 4: Sample State plans
What does this mean for students reading braille?
 States are in various stages of readiness to make the
transition.
 Some states are starting with youngest grades first,
others are not.
 Braille transcribers will need training in UEB as well as
educators.
 Many technology devices are equipped for UEB; some
8

are not yet very accurate.
May mean multiple braille forms of same statewide
assessment.
Summary
 An exciting and busy time:
◦
◦
◦


States working together and sharing
Development of new braille training tools
More conversations about instructional strategies for
STEM academic areas
◦
Opportunity for more braille research
Moving together toward the same goal but with
customized timelines.
Renewed interest in braille literacy!
Contact Us
 Braille Authority of North America


www.brailleauthority.org

Join the BANA-Announce list on the web site
Frances Mary D’Andrea, Chair, UEB Transition Task Force,
and Immediate Past-Chair, BANA

literacy2@mindspring.com
9