A Look Behind and A Glance Forward Dixie Mercer 2013- TAER

A Look Behindand

A Glance ForwardDixie Mercer 2013- TAER

Pre-1949

Residential.

Single disability.

No students with multiple disabilities.

1949 WatershedGeneration One

Retrolental Fibroplasia (RLF) ROP today

A wealthier and more vocal parent group.

California School for the Blind 1949-1964

Dr. Berthold LowenfeldSuperintendent

Georgie Lee Abel

Emerson Foulke

The California Young Guns

• Pete Wurtzberger

• Sally Mangold

• Phil Hatlen

Meanwhile at the University of

Texas

In 1963, Dr. Natalie Barraga starts a TVI training program

The Faculty at UT Grew to Include

Dr. Anne Corn from 1980-1992

And

Dr. Jane Erin from 1984-1994

As Well As…

Dr. Virginia Bishop

Meanwhile at Texas Tech

Dr. Virginia Sowell – 1977

Sets up an outreach training program with San Francisco State University.

During the mid to late 70s

Generation One began to train TVIs to make up the gaps in service.

So Here’s How it Was in Texas Before 1975

Pre 1975 in Texas

Residential Schools for the Blind (“ain’t there a blind school down in Austin?”).In large districts disability specific resource rooms.

Severity of Visual Loss …

Standards varied from place to place.

Very low vision or blind.

Curriculum

What TVIs did:

Taught braille (whether the student needed it or not)Tutored

No curricula

Caseload Size

Lubbock ISD – 1979 44 students8 campuses per daySingle TVI with no para, computer systems or transcriber.

Caseload Size

ESC 15105 total studentsOne TVI serving one gifted braille student 4 hours per day.One certified diagnostician for ARDs, etc.

After PL 94-142

Local school districts were responsible for providing instruction in the “least restrictive environment.”

Because they were residential and “single disability,” Schools for the Blind weren’t the LRE.

How PL 94-142 affected services

….Training new teachers was the most important consideration.

Beginning to institute the itinerant teacher model.

Establishing vision cooperatives

Emphasis on Education Service Centers.

Decisions Made at the State Level

Who qualifies for VI service?

Importance of role of Education Service Centers

Emphasis on assessment.

Dedication to maintaining personnel at TEA who were identified as vision specialists.

Emphasis on program evaluation and accountability for LISDs.

People Who Made the Greatest

Difference at TEA

Chuck Mayo

Janie Fox Jones

Marty Murrell

Nick Neicase

Mary Ann Siller

KC Dignan

Realization of How Important the ESCs

Could BeProvide technical assistance

Funnel information on changes

Provide inservice training

Provide direct services to students

ESC became a link to TEA

Importance of the ESCs

Local people who became familiar and accessible.

An integrated system for gathering and distribution of information, resources, etc. in place.

Most Critical Variable Was Training New

PersonnelThe University of Texas

Texas Tech University

Stephen F. Austin State University

Training Generation 2

Texas TechTexas Tech

Federal training grant to bring San Francisco State University personnel to Lubbock for direct on site training.Georgie Lee Able, Phil Hatlen, Pete Wurtzburger, Sally Mangold

Training Generation 2

University of TexasIn addition to its on campus program, Dr. Natalie Barraga started an outreach plan that served a number of ESCs.

Courses were taught every other Saturday at the local ESC.

People involved: Dr. Barraga, Dr. Jane Erin, Dr. Anne Corn, Dr. Virginia Bishop.

Training Generation 2

SFASUBill Bryan and Bob Bryant continued to produce a number of Orientation and Mobility specialists, most of whom were directed toward rehabilitation.

A few of these students went to work for large ISDs or ESCs.

Training Generation 2

SFASU – TVI

Dr. Emily Keiff taught at SFASU to provide training for TVIs for the duration of a five year (?) federal grant.

Results

These 3 training programs produced the second generation of TVIs in the State.

This meant that there were trained professionals in VI were available for hire in ESC positions.

These people saw themselves a TVIs first and foremost.

At the same time…

1990…Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired made a huge commitment to Outreach.

This commitment involved:On-site technical assistance.In service training.

By the early 80s…

Almost every ESC had a stable VI Specialist.

Some larger districts were beginning to hire more TVIs.

A few VI Cooperatives were being formed.

Most ESCs were providing at least some direct services (usually to the student who was the most rural).

MIVI students weren’t being served based on a philosophy that said either

Vision services couldn’t benefit these students; and/orPrioritization requires that we emphasize other students.

Service for MIVI Students

It wasn’t until the profession began to 1)Understand their role with these

students; and2)Actually document TVI time needed

on ARD and FVA/LMA documents

That MIVI students actually began to receive the services they needed.

This commitment

involved:On-site technical assistance.In service training.Parent InterventionSupport for Small ChildrenSupport for Technology

TSBVIAlong with

(1)the legal requirements based on 94-142;

(2)support provided by TEA to VI programs;

(3)VI support at the ESCs; and

Phil Hatlen Comes to Texas

The next BIG step for Texas was the development of the TSBVI Outreach team in the late 80’s

TSBVI Outreach

Previously…

Deafblindness OutreachRobbie BlahaCraig AxelrodJim DurkelRay CondonDale CondonAnd lots of others

Support for students with multiple disabilities.

Support for students with deafblindness.

Eventually, curricula!!!!

The Magic of Outreach

Encouraged to be creative AND pragmatic.

Spread important information around the state about effective service models for individual students, LISDs, and ESCs.

Uncompromising standards.

Provided information through inservice AND gave people a chance to see it in practice in THEIR district.

Supported ESCs or LISDs through the “100 mile” rule.

Quickly began to develop a statewide perspective.

Was extremely responsive to needs of all kinds (from one child to training in calendar boxes).

Because of Outreach and the

ESCs. . .

We saw the needs of the state and were able to document them more clearly and discovered that we needed more TVIs.

Training Generation 3

Alternative Certification ProgramsAlternative Certification Programs

(ACP) piloted in Region 2

Two important considerations drove the development of these programs:

Assuring services from LISDs rather than the ESC.Providing training that was geographically close enough to realistic access.

Philosophical Basis

Special emphasis on fields that had critical service issues.

Had to be individually approved by the State Board Of Education (SBOE).

Classes taught by qualified instructors at the ESCs.

Mentorship (OJT) was a major part of the training process.

ESC 2

Alternative Certification Programs in 1991 and 1992.

Joyce West and Joyce Rodriguez.

1993-1994

State grant funds a major ACP in Regions –

151618914

Generation 4In 1996, training programs at Texas Tech and SFA began to coordinate more fully.

These were funded initially by a FIPSE grant that involved teaching at TSBVI and our first TETN training.

How has it impacted the provision of

services for students with visual

impairments by professionals

certified in TVI or O&M?

These programs continue (1996-2013) to support

professionals who are pursuing

TVI or COMS certifications.

Comparisons between 1996

and 2012YEAR STUDEN

TSTVI/

O&MS1996 5,500 507

2012 9,132 94

Projected 2015

9,605 ?

o 66% increase in number of students

o 85% increase in VI professionals.

From 2009-2012

2009 2012 Increase

TVIs 691 699 .011%

O&Ms 212 253 19%

Changes in the Field Retirement

2010 2012 Projected

201516 57 98