Chapter I
One Hundred Years of Education of the Blind in America
Chapter 2
Sweeping Change
C. Michael Mellor
Editor Emeritus, Matilda Ziegler Magazine for the Blind
©2007 The New York Institute for Special Education
Chapter I
One Hundred Years of Education of the Blind in America
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
If 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.
(Image: Dr. Edward M. Van Cleve, Principal, 1914-1935 and Principal
Emeritas, 1935-1937)
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 institution 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 election of
a Board of Trustees. This was in 1829. Meanwhile, Samuel Wood, a member
of the Society of Friends [Quakers], 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 helping them. To him were joined in consideration of
the problem — and in arousing public interest — other generous souls,
in particular, Dr. Samuel Akerly, superintendent for ten years, and
physician and secretary, too, of The New York Institution for the Deaf
and Dumb.
In 1831 was incorporated through their activity The New York
Institution for the Blind, and by a fortunate chance there came into
association 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.
(Image: The New York Institution for the Blind held its first class for
children in the United States when it opened its doors on March 15,
1832. 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 place
in the country” is now near Ninth Avenue and 34th Street – Image
courtesy of The New York Historical Society, NYC)
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 without 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.
State Schools
It 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.
Tools and Types
Those 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 every successful teacher’s equipment. Some of the early
tools were crude and some were costly and therefore scarce. But as the
needs became apparent devoted teachers sought and found ways to satisfy
them.
(Image: Sample of Boston line type: Part of Section 10 of the
Constitution of the United States produced in Boston Line type. Various
forms of embossed letters of the print alphabet were used by blind
people to read with their fingers in the mid-19th century America.
Boston Line Type was widely used because its modified shapes were
claimed to be easier to read than other kinds of embossed type, by
nature, embossed print was never to read by touch.)
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 schools.
(Image: – Photo of William Bell Wait: 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.)
To effect an improvement on the French system, Joel W. Smith invented
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 inherently 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 certain changes, and in 1932 British and American type experts
came together on a universal code. With stylus and slate, the blind
writer may now communicate with his sightless correspondent anywhere or
write for his own use; and, better yet, with the Braille typewriter 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 concerned, 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.
(Image of The Kleidograph: 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.)
(Image of 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 – vice versa, a reader
of American Braille would not be able to read a book produced in
English Braille.)
(Image of Tactile Print Alphabets – The alphabets in black dots of New
York Point, American(revised) Braille, French (original) Braille and
English Braille.):
What and How?
Leaders 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 decades had passed. Then, a
national organization was effected which has functioned since, with
some success, we believe, in attaining the ends sought; it is the
American Association of Instructors of the Blind. Today, through the
printed Proceedings of its thirty-one 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, having aims similar to those followed in schools for
the seeing. That he or she may cope with 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 opportunities 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 musical understanding and
performance.
Some Sightless Men and Woman of Mark
Certainly 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.
(Image of Fanny Crosby: Fanny Crosby (1820-1915), still renowned as a
hymnwriter, studied at the Institute and then taught English and
History from 1847-1858)
Providing Reading Matter
No 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. Beginning 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 between 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.
(Image: Long view of a bookshelf of embossed books: The library of
embossed books at the Institution, about 1890.)
Day School Classes
While 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 transported 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.
Sight Saving Classes
While 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 sightsaving 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.
Education of the Public with Reference to the Blind
This 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 general 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 illumination 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 Association 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!
Footnotes
1 Now known s the National Insitute for Blind Youth (Institut National
des Jeunes Aveugles), whose origin dates to 1786.
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.
9 In 1915 Dr. Van Cleve had been named managing director of the NSPB,
while simultaneously serving as director of The New York Institute.
Chapter 2: Sweeping Change
By C. Michael Mellor
The 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 pocketsized device.
Long Cane
One 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 related services to blind and partially
sighted persons.1”
Another impetus to change was the fact that federal funding for nonprofit organizations such as the Institute was declining, and New York
State support for special schools was being challenged with new funding
rules.
Medical Advances
While 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 gonorrhea]
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
[retrolental 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.
Search for A New Location
One major change, made in 1924, established the present campus, when
the Institute relocated 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 management 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.
(Image of school building taken from 34th Street and Ninth Avenue with
trolly train in the foreground: The original campus at what is now 9th
Avenue and 34th Street became very congested as Manhattan developed. An
elevated railroad line even ran across the front of the building.)
At last, an undeveloped 35-acre site was acquired in north Manhattan
around a hill then called Mount Hope (now Washington Heights).
Development was delayed by the Civil War and by weaknesses in the
economy. Eventually, it became apparent that 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!
(Image of The American League Ball Park, New York: View from center
field shows the baseball diamond and the stadium seating. The Hudson
River and the New Jersey palisades.)
When part of the DeWitt family estate in Bronxville was made available
in 1909, the Institution’s problem seemed to be solved. The Managers
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.
(Image of letter: Some good citizens of Bronxville were adamantly
opposed to having blind students in the neighborhood)
(Text of letter)
PO Box 301, Bronxville NY, August 7, 1909
NY Institution for the Blind,
9 Avenue,
New York City, NY,
Gentlemen,
I read in the Review of Bronxville, that 60 acres of land
more offered to you in Lawrence Park west, in exchange of your
site in Bronxville NY.
You are misinformed, if you are told that you are welcome
there.
It may be true to the vendor of the property to you but by
other people you are considered as blight and nuisance. Different
property owners, a list of them is being made up, between
Lawrence Park West & NY Harlem R. R. & neighborhood, do not want
any Institution for the blind at any price & consideration; nor
the sight of your 500 unfortunates.
You may call them inmunes, but I know it as a fact, that
flies will transmit from the eye of a diseased person the disease
to the eye of a sound person.
A stair railing & anything they touch will transmit the
disease to the hand of the person & from there to the sound eye.
One who knows tell me that the teachers likes to be as near as
possible to their home and therefore prefer Bronxville &
vicinity.
Yours truly,
Herman Duden
Your 500 blind are not wanted here. So take notice & warning.
(End of letter)
(Image of newspaper article: Headline - FIND ANOTHER SITE FOR
BLIND INSTITUTE
Managers Abandon Idea of Building in Bronxville and Consider
Hawthorne Location
The managers of the New York Institute for the Blind are
considering the purchase of a site at Hawthorne, five miles north
of White Plains, for the erection of its $1,000,000 institution.
The tract which the managers have in mind consists of 263 acres
and is owned by the Graham syndicate. It is valued at $157,000.
Starting at Hawthorne station, the property runs north a distance
of about a mile.
The institute was about to close a deal for a site in Bronxville, but public
sentiment was so strongly opposed that the idea was given up. Bronxville
residents gave as their reason for not wanting the institution that the inmates
would out number their own people. I was said, further, that the presence of so
many blind people on the streets would be objectionable, and that it would keep
people away, and so hurt property values. New York Herald)
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 Managers. (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 delayed by
the onset of World War 1. Following receipt of an advance payment from
the estate of F. Augustus Schermerhorn, the Board of Managers 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 opportunity 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 rehabilitation
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 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 blindness], while
maintaining its program for the visually impaired.”
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 prepared for life in
what was, after all, a sighted world, if they were educated alongside
sighted children in the local public school. The enrollment trend at
the Institute was definitely sloping downward.
(Image of soldiers, waves and boy scouts saluting the raising of a flag
on the school’s flagpole: In the aftermath of the Second World War,
blinded veterans received rehabilitation training at the Institute. In
this image, 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.)
Different Ways of Doing Good
It was plain to The New York Institute Board of Trustees and the staff
of the 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 Frampton, 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
‘best 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.
(Image of Merle E. Frampton: Director of the New York Institute for the
Education of the Blind from 1935-1974. He is wearing the uniform of
Commordore of 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.)
(Image of the front of the Schermerhorn taken from Pelham Parkway. The
school’s flagpole is visible on the lawn: 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 continue 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 children 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
education 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 standards 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 haphazard.
It was carefully managed and made in such measured steps that it could
accurately be described as evolutionary rather than revolutionary. The
process was to some degree one of informed trial and error5 — but in an
institution 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 astuteness was
displayed in gathering information, seeking advice and in assessing and
applying it.
No Resistance
Institutional change does not come easily, even in the private sector,
where the need to be profitable 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 effectiveness. 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 improve 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
It 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 methodology 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., comentoring 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.
Change of Name
Gradually 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
effective 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 bya 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
handicapped, 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 children. Here, she knew, was a promising group — a
large group desperately underserved — with sources of funding 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 initiatives, university
collaboration, and development. Also on campus are health services,
staffed by Registered 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.
Cornerstone Program
A 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 teachers surveyed in the
late 1990’s stated that “building basic literacy skills” was the most
important 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 association 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 example, 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 disabilities, 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 median 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
participants. 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 create 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,Rober 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
Footnotes
1. “Innovation and Diversification Plan 1985-1990.
2. 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
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. Executive Director, The New York Institute for
Special Education
Steven Prigohzy Executive Director, Cornerstone
Thomas Burgett, Ph.D. Assistant Executive Director, The New York
Institute for Special Education
John Antonacchio Health Services Coordinator
Kim M. Benisatto Operations Manager
Lisa Blasone Personnel Manager
Michael Casper Supervisor of Security and Safety
Joseph Catavero Principal, Schermerhorn Program
Joseph Chatrnuch Director of Fiscal Affairs
Clifford Danziger Principal, Van Cleve Program
Lois Dougan Assistant Principal, Schermerhorn Program
Geraldine Dugandzic Assistant Principal, Readiness Program
Janet Fiber Assistant Principal, Schermerhorn Program
Barbara McPhillips Principal, Readiness Program
Brenda Frazier-Mizell Assistant Principal, Van Cleve Program
George Patisso Director of Facilities
Dolores Peters Assistant Principal, Readiness Program
Rhona Wexler Pupil Personnel Services Coordinator