A Look Behind and A Glance Forward

1. A Look Behindand A Glance Forward Dixie Mercer 2013- TAER

2. Pre-1949 • Residential. • Single disability. • No students with multiple disabilities.

3. 1949 WatershedGeneration One • Retrolental Fibroplasia (RLF) ROP today • A wealthier and more vocal parent group.

4. California School for the Blind 1949-1964 Dr. Berthold Lowenfeld Superintendent

5. Georgie Lee Abel Emerson Foulke

6. The California Young Guns • Pete Wurtzberger • Sally Mangold • Phil Hatlen

7. Meanwhile at the University of Texas In 1963, Dr. Natalie Barraga starts a TVI training program

8. The Faculty at UT Grew to Include • Dr. Anne Corn from 1980-1992 And • Dr. Jane Erin from 1984-1994

9. As Well As… • Dr. Virginia Bishop

10. Meanwhile at Texas Tech • Dr. Virginia Sowell – 1977 • Sets up an outreach training program with San Francisco State University.

11. During the mid to late 70s • Generation One began to train TVIs to make up the gaps in service.

12. So Here’s How it Was in Texas Before 1975

13. 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.

14. Severity of Visual Loss … • Standards varied from place to place. • Very low vision or blind.

15. Curriculum • What TVIs did: • Taught braille (whether the student needed it or not) • Tutored • No curricula

16. Caseload Size • Lubbock ISD – 1979 • 44 students • 8 campuses per day • Single TVI with no para, computer systems or transcriber.

17. Caseload Size • ESC 15 • 105 total students • One TVI serving one gifted braille student 4 hours per day. • One certified diagnostician for ARDs, etc.

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. Decisions Made at the State Level • Who qualifies for VI service? • Importance of role of Education Service Centers • Emphasis on assessment.

21. Dedication to maintaining personnel at TEA who were identified as vision specialists. • Emphasis on program evaluation and accountability for LISDs.

22. People Who Made the Greatest Difference at TEA • Chuck Mayo • Janie Fox Jones • Marty Murrell • Nick Neicase • Mary Ann Siller • KC Dignan

23. Realization of How Important the ESCs Could Be • Provide technical assistance • Funnel information on changes • Provide inservice training • Provide direct services to students • ESC became a link to TEA

24. Importance of the ESCs • Local people who became familiar and accessible. • An integrated system for gathering and distribution of information, resources, etc. in place.

25. Most Critical Variable Was Training New Personnel • The University of Texas • Texas Tech University • Stephen F. Austin State University

26. Training Generation 2Texas Tech • Texas 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

27. Training Generation 2University of Texas • In 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.

28. Training Generation 2SFASU • Bill 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.

29. Training Generation 2SFASU – TVI • Dr. Emily Keiff taught at SFASU to provide training for TVIs for the duration of a five year (?) federal grant.

30. 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.

31. 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.

32. 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.

33. 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/or • Prioritization requires that we emphasize other students.

34. Service for MIVI Students • It wasn’t until the profession began to • Understand their role with these students; and • Actually document TVI time needed on ARD and FVA/LMA documents That MIVI students actually began to receive the services they needed.

35. This commitment involved: • On-site technical assistance. • In service training. • Parent Intervention • Support for Small Children • Support for Technology

36. TSBVI Along with • the legal requirements based on 94-142; • support provided by TEA to VI programs; • VI support at the ESCs; and

37. Phil Hatlen Comes to Texas

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

39. Previously… • Deafblindness Outreach • Robbie Blaha • Craig Axelrod • Jim Durkel • Ray Condon • Dale Condon • And lots of others

40. Support for students with multiple disabilities. • Support for students with deafblindness. • Eventually, curricula!!!!

41. 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.

42. 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).

43. 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.

44. Training Generation 3Alternative Certification Programs • Alternative 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.

45. 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.

46. ESC 2 • Alternative Certification Programs in 1991 and 1992. • Joyce West and Joyce Rodriguez.

47. 1993-1994 • State grant funds a major ACP in Regions – • 15 • 16 • 18 • 9 • 14

48. Generation 4 • In 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.

49. How has it impacted the provision of services for students with visual impairments by professionals certified in TVI or O&M?

50. These programs continue (1996-2013) to support professionals who are pursuing TVI or COMS certifications.