1960s Part 2: O&M Goes to School
- Grace Ambrose-Zaken
- Apr 6
- 18 min read
Updated: Oct 22
The entire field of orientation and mobility (O&M) exists because of the dog guide and, later, the long cane. These tools were originally developed for WWI and WWII veterans, respectively. The curriculum for teaching independent travel to blind individuals was designed around newly blind, fully functioning adults—people who had previously relied on vision.
This blog explores the literature on bringing long cane training from the military to universities and, eventually, to school-age children in the 1960s.
Early Attempts to Teach O&M to Congenitally Blind High School Students
In the early 1950s, a pilot project brought three O&M pioneers—Stanley Suterko, John Malamazian, and Larry Blaha—to teach long cane travel skills to a group of high school students with moderate to severe visual impairment or blindness (MVI/B). They reportedly struggled to understand why some students could master the long cane while others could not.
Students who succeeded were described as cooperative and motivated, while those who struggled were faulted for lacking effort or desire. As the researchers wrote,
"In spite of those who encountered problems, other youngsters showed both the ability and desire for extending their skills and quickly learned to travel independently from their home to a variety of locations" (Miyagawa, 1999, p. 193).
Children who failed the prerequisite tests were effectively excluded from safe mobility and condemned to navigate the world without protection. Only a fortunate few received specialized services. For example, O’Meara, describing her experimental life skills program at the Illinois Braille and Sight Saving School for Developmentally-Delayed Visually-Impaired Children, noted:
"Each year a greater number of these children have come to the school seeking admission. Unfortunately, the deprivation which they have suffered in the area of experiential and sensory stimulation during infancy and early childhood has made it very difficult, even at times impossible, for them to benefit from regular educational programs provided for blind and/or partially seeing children" (O'Meara, 1966, p. 18).
This narrative perpetuated a myth: residential schools were filled with highly capable congenitally blind children. In reality, only those who appeared ready to benefit from formal instruction were admitted; others were sent to institutions for the uneducable.
Imagine the Strain of Unsafe Mobility
By the 1960s, a few O&M teachers asked, “At what age should mobility training start?” Miller’s emphatic answer was, “In the cradle!” (1964, p. 307). She recognized that children with an MVI/B needed protection—but how could infants, toddlers, and preschoolers safely navigate?
Infants could not use a long cane. Toddlers lacked the language to understand instructions. Preschoolers rejected the cane, and many school-age children were quiet, stationary, or withdrawn after years of unprotected mobility, relying heavily on hand-holding.
That same year, Royster (1964) outlined a roadmap for preparing children with congenital MVI/B for long cane training:
"In the infant stage the primary emphasis must be concentrated in more than usual amounts of emotional warmth in physical care. As the child becomes a toddler, he … needs to be taught free and independent exploration techniques to orient himself, … and acquire motor skills of balance and coordination. During the preschool years, … teach imagery stimulation and spatial orientation of objects in the environment. At school age, … activities of running, jumping, swinging, ballet dancing, climbing, and pounding should be a regularly scheduled part of the school curriculum. Provided a continuous sequence of orientation opportunities and activities, the adolescent is ready to learn mobility and travel from a peripatologist" (p. 42).
Royster reflected the prevailing practices of O&M instruction, drawing heavily from the publications of the day.
O&M in the schools
A 1961 survey of 41 residential schools and 17 day schools found that 28 residential and 4 day schools offered organized O&M programs (Walker, p. 56). Instruction was largely reserved for older students, "the greatest paucity of organized programs is at the primary level in the residential schools". Walker suggested this gap might be partially offset by informal teaching at lower grades but also noted the shortage of qualified O&M specialists.
University O&M programs had only just begun. The first graduate degree program opened at Boston College in 1960, relying heavily on volunteer faculty to provide clinical supervision (Koestler, p. 318). By 1970, seven U.S. programs followed the Boston College model, adopting the U.S. Army's adult-oriented O&M curriculum with practical experience closely connected to adult vision rehabilitation agencies.
Teachers of visually impaired students (TVIs) were prepared earlier in the century, beginning at Peabody College in 1921. By the 1960s, 37 university programs prepared TVIs, but less than 40% offered courses in O&M for children. TVIs were trained to teach foundational travel concepts but explicitly not the long cane. They prepared children for eventual O&M specialists in high school (Lord & Blaha, 1968).
Long Canes Intentionally Excluded from the Classroom
Most TVIs were women in public schools, while O&M specialists were men employed by rehabilitation agencies. Both groups were taught that children needed specific physical and cognitive prerequisites before learning the long cane. Both were taught that O&M was a difficult skill to master and children must demonstrate they qualified mentally and physically for formal instruction in long cane skills.
Lord and Blaha (1968) summarized:
"The acquisition of cane techniques is universally seen as the function of the fully trained specialists, and this role was clearly defined for the participating teachers" (p. 21).
Eligibility to use the long cane required sufficient strength, coordination, and cognitive ability to execute the complex two-point touch technique (Bledsoe, 1963). Early O&M users were the elite subset of blind adults—physically fit, socially engaged, and educated (Graham & Clarke, 1966).
All TVI university programs intentionally omitted the use of the long cane during their blindfold lab classes. As Lord and Blaha (1968) described,
“The presentation of the skills was done by placing the teacher under a blindfold, the actual use of the cane was not involved. The acquisition of cane techniques is universally seen as the function of the fully trained specialists, and this role was clearly defined for the participating teachers” (p. 21).The instructional strategies taught to O&M specialists and TVIs during their university programs helped to reinforce the two-tier system of safe mobility, those who can learn the long cane and those who cannot. These early O&M graduates were taught a very narrow profile of the eligibility guidelines for learning to use a long cane.
Back then, to be eligible to use a long cane for safety, one had to have the physical and cognitive ability to learn the complex contra-lateral two-point touch long cane technique, as described by Bledsoe (1963).
The Army's own research confirms the intentional selection of the elite blind man to become an elite long cane user in their 1966 study of the 851 blinded vets who received O&M instruction during the first twenty years after its invention in 1946.
The portrait of the first long cane users emerged clearly:
Out of the mass of data and the many conclusions one could draw from them, one fact stands out above all others: this population of blind persons resembles most closely their sighted fellows, by almost any criterion one wishes to choose. Thus, their mean age is 46.1 years; 77 per cent of them live with their spouses; two-thirds own their own homes; they are regular and rather heavy readers of books, magazines, and journals (above the national average, in fact); they engage in known national standards of active outdoor recreation; they are quite active in social and civic organizations not connected with blindness. Their total household income averages $8600 a year...well above the national average" (Graham & Clarke, 1966, pp. 304-305).This description offers the clearest evidence that the long cane was intended to be used only by the elite class of blind adults. Those able to walk and talk and fit enough to have places to go. This study should have been a red flag to educators, instead it was fuel for the fire.
These defacto prerequisites fit neatly into the strange narrative that blind children would one day outgrow their delays and recognize their need for a long cane. As O&M began to make its way into high schools with a series of government funded demonstration projects, the lack of readiness began to be seen as an opportunity missed. While it led to calls for increased focus on independent walking young children. Many of these congenitally blind high schoolers were essentially given abhorrent label "untrainable".
O&M Demonstration Projects and the Limits of Early Instruction
Donald Blasch (1968) spearheaded federal O&M programs in public schools and residential institutions, reporting that most were "highly successful." Yet, he also noted that congenitally blind children lacked the visual memories of their environment and were generally less oriented than adventitiously blinded children (Blasch, 1968).
Lord and Blaha’s 1968 study of 51 adolescents with congenital MVI/B exposed the shortcomings of the adult-centered model. The participants had limited travel experience, restricted social lives, and poor mobility skills. Their instructors blamed parents for not providing earlier opportunities for independent exploration (Lord & Blaha, 1968).
Even when O&M instruction resulted in improved travel skills, the paradigm assumed that mobility deficits were inherent to congenital blindness rather than the result of unsafe early environments.
The Long Cane Dilemma
The long cane is deceptively difficult. Correct use requires rhythmical sweeping, tactile interpretation, and split-second decision-making—skills infants simply cannot master. Bledsoe (1977) explained:
"Long cane use has to be taught and carefully taught in conditions and situations in which blind travelers go. … It takes hours and hours of training to get blind people to do it correctly. It seems to be the opposite of a conditioned reflex."
Yet the Army’s adult-centered training became the model for school programs. Infants were expected to "walk first, safety last," navigating without assistive devices while adults worried about their failure to thrive.
Pre-Cane Skills and Listening Exercises
To compensate, pre-cane hand skills and auditory techniques (“facial vision”) were taught. Pre-cane skills allowed hands to detect obstacles, but they could not protect against drop-offs. Facial vision involved detecting sound reflections and vibrations in complex environments, such as Avon Old Farms, where blind WWII veterans navigated without their canes. While some children showed improvement with auditory exercises, these methods were never a reliable substitute for tactile protection.
Early School Standards Favored the Able-Bodied
TVIs and O&M instructors expected blind children to walk unprotected in school. Children who succeeded were often those with residual vision or physical coordination. Others—those who failed to meet arbitrary standards—were left unprotected, withdrawn, or placed in special classes. Mobility became an entry criterion for access to educational programs (Curriculum Bulletin, NYC, 1965-66).
As Farrell (1956) noted, touch could never fully replace sight. Blind children had limited reach and horizon, leaving them vulnerable in unsafe environments. The tools of the time—the cane, the dog guide, or human assistance—were often insufficiently applied in schools.
Early school standards favored the able bodied, visual child.
The practice of preparing TVIs to walk without long canes created in them a certainty that walking without a white cane was a 'best practice' for their students with a MVI/B. It was simply expected that blind children would roam the hallways untethered and unprotected. The children who succeeded in achieving these standards were those who could walk independently. The more sight you had the better you could walk. One need only to listen to the hours of Safe Toddles Podcast interviews with adults who grew up in the 1930s thru today to know that some children born with a MVI/B beat the odds. Not only did they learn to walk, they reluctantly learned to use the long cane as teenagers, and went on to college, a career, and a full family life.
What did those kids have that the children born with a MVI/B who became crushed by the expectation of walking into danger every day, did not walk without assistance, did not talk, and were placed in special classes to address the consequences of daily, unsafe mobility, and did not go on to achieve adult independence.
In the end, the success of one group cannot excuse the failure of properly addressing the difficulties of the other. For the sake of the high achievers different educational standards remained in place in the 1960s, pre-education laws that required free and appropriate public education for all students.
For example, New York City schools used students' mobility as an entry criterion to resource room programs. The 1965-66 Curriculum Bulletin: Educating Visually Handicapped Pupils: Board of Education – City of New York, stated:
“1: Resource Program for Visually Limited Children: The resource program for visually limited children serves those pupils…whose mobility is sufficient for regular class placement…” and “2. Resource Program for the Blind serves those students who…possess sufficient mobility with which to participate in the regular school curriculum” (p. 1).While the definition of 'sufficient mobility with with to participate in the regular school curriculum' in 1965 for blind school-aged children was not provided. Given the picture below, the understanding was it meant able to walk within school grounds without a mobility tool or assistance from another person.
While this picture is proof positive that some blind children able to meet this requirement, these criteria naturally favored children with low vision 20/70-20/200 and severe visual impairment 20/300-20/800, with a full field of view. In other words, those children who were not mobility visually impaired or blind. Farrell (1956) "There is, however, one definite limitation to the substitution of fingers for eyes and that is the extend of view. Eyes can see over a wide range and for long distances. Fingers can see only what they can touch and the horizon of the blind is thereby restricted to the reach of the arms. The blind man of Puiseau, when asked by the philosopher Diderot if he ever wished for sight, replied: "Were it not for curiosity, I would just as soon have long arms." In any consideration of methods and tools of learning, these two factors, the substitution of touch for sight and the restricted horizons, must never be overlooked." (p. 94).
Farrell goes on to give a history of tactile reading systems. Forgive me, but blind men do not need longer arms to read or type Braille. The reason for the longer arms would be, of course, to reach out ahead and check the nature of the path before them. To that end, there were few choices for safer travel as a blind man. As Koestler described:
"The cane, the dog, the friendly elbow of a human guide--were these the only answers to greater freedom of movement for blind people? Could modern technology offer no more efficient solutions? Millions of dollars and uncounted manhours have been invested...with relatively few usable results. At various times since World War II, the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Veterans Administration, the Rehabilitation Services Administration, the National Institutes of Health, and other government bureaus have all sponsored and financed research efforts to find effective substitutes for the information provided by the human eye. ... "in 1961, 1962, 1964, and 1971 ...high-level experts in physics, engineering, electronics, automation, biophysics and optics exchanged ideas with equally high-level specialists in psychology, sociology, physical medicine, rehabilitation, and social services. At each conference, progress was assessed, new technological approaches disclosed and discussed, and ever-closer lines drawn between theory and application." (Koestler, p. 321)
Which seems to be part of the problem. Rather than exploiting the senses a blind person does have by enhancing them and teaching them to become more competent with better tools designed to aid those senses.
"One of the pilot demonstrations was carried out by the Society of St. Vincent dePaul of St. Louis, in 1962. Guidelines were issued in 1963, by R.S.A.,* stating the objectives of the projects as follows: The focus was clearly "...to show blind people themselves the possibilities of cultivating maximum capability in getting about without sight, thus helping them to discover and capitalize on latent aptitudes in mobility skill and become as free as possible to come and go." (Blasch, 1971, pp. 11-12)
1966 COMSTAC Report
Twenty years after the introduction of long cane, Koestler wrote, “most of the work with systematic orientation and travel training programs had only been done with blind adults” (1966, p. 231). Yet, when the leading experts in the field of blind travel gathered in 1961 to create O&M standards, they believed that there had “…been enough experience to confirm the validity of using the basic cane program standards for children as well” (p. 231).
The most anticipated publication in the field of O&M of its day, The COMSTAC report, detailed the standards for teaching O&M to children born with a MVI/B, which read a lot like Royster's (1964) instructional road map for teaching a baby with a congenital MVI/B to become a ready adolescent for learning the long cane, ignoring all of Miller's (1964) concerns.
“It is often said that preparation for orientation and travel should begin at birth. In a blind child’s earliest years, the emphasis is on orientation; as he grows, he needs more and more systematic travel teaching. Just as much care should go into good teaching and experience in orientation in the early years as should go into systematic travel teaching later… “ (Koestler, 1966, p. 231)Table 6. Modern interpretation of 1966 advice to parents.
Koestler, the editor of the COMSTAC report, was a highly respected author in the field of blindness and visual impairment. She wrote "The Unseen Minority: A Social History of Blindness in the United States" (Koestler, 1976). As the editor, she was responsible to ensure the result accurately reported the tone, intention, and current thinking of the leaders of each specialty area serving learners with a visual impairment or blindness.
The COMSTAC report once again described the familiar instructional sequence for teaching infants with a MVI/B as walk first, safety last. The authors of the COMSTAC report again maintaining that a child with a MVI/B can learn to orient to space, i.e., walk freely without a safety tool, first. Despite mounting evidence to the contrary.
Summary
By the late 1960s, research made clear that toddlers with congenital MVI/B did not explore freely, speak, or engage socially, even when physically capable. O&M demonstrations revealed the failures of 19th-century adult-centered models, yet educational policies continued to assume children could learn to walk independently without safety.
These unsafe early experiences contributed to motor delays and developmental challenges that persisted into adolescence. It would take decades—and innovations like the Belt Cane, which provides blind infants fair warning and protection—to change the paradigm.
The next blog will explore early intervention in the 1970s, before and after the 1975 authorization of P.L. 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act.
"The sense of touch has a serious and pervasive shortcoming with respect to spatial perception. Most of the objects that can be experienced and compared simultaneously or nearly so with vision must be perceived piecemeal by touch. Fragmentary tactual perceptions that have taken place at different times must be synthesized subsequently if the tactual perceiver is to gain and organize perception of the shape, size, and position of objects in his spatial world" (Foulke, 1962, p. 3).
Imagine the bravado it takes for a sighted person to question the adequacy of touch when compared to sight. This comparison has little use when using vision is not an option. Touch takes on a more important role, and enhancing it is possible through assistive tools.
References
Ambrose-Zaken, G. (Accessed 7/10/24a) Safe Toddles Talks Orientation and
Mobility, safetoddles.org/podcast.
Ambrose-Zaken G. (April, 28, 2024b). History of Early Intervention O&M: The
True Origin Story of the Long Cane, O&M and Pre-cane Skills.
Ambrose-Zaken, G. (March 23, 2024c). History of Early Intervention O&M: The
First Half of the Twentieth Century.
Ambrose-Zaken, G. (March 5, 2024d) History of Early Intervention for Children
Born with a Mobility Visual Impairment: 18th to the 20th Century.
Ambrose-Zaken, G. (2023) Beyond Hand’s Reach: Haptic Feedback is Essential
to Toddlers with Visual Impairment Achieving Independent Walking. The
Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 117(4), 278-
Ambrose-Zaken, G. (2022). A Study of Improving Independent Walking
Outcomes in Children Who Are Blind or Have Low Vision Aged 5 Years and
Younger. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 116(4), 533–545.
Anthony, T. & Lowry, S. (2004). Sensory development. In T.L. Anthony, S.S.
Lowry, C.J. Brown, & D. D. Hatton (Eds.), Developmentally appropriate
orientation & mobility (pp. 123.240). Chapel Hill: FPG Child Development
Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Blasch, D. (1971) Orientation and mobility fans out. Reprinted from
Blindness 1971, AAIB Annual. Washington D.C.
Bledsoe, C.W. (2010). Originators of orientation and mobility training. In W.
Wiener, R. Welsh, & B. Blasch, (Eds). Foundations of Orientation and Mobility:
Volume II Instructional Strategies and Practical Applications (3rd Ed) (pp.434-
485). AFB Press.
Bledsoe, C. W. (1963). For parents looking ahead to future mobility needs of
their blind children. The International Journal for the Education of the Blind,
XIII(1) October, 13-16.
Bledsoe, C.W. (1952). Resistance. C. Warren Bledsoe Manuscript Collection, AER
O&M Division C. Warren Bledsoe Archives, museum of the American Printing
House for the Blind, Louisville, KY.
Buell, C.E. (1962). Recreational and leisure-time activities of blind children. The
International Journal for the Education of the Blind, XI(3) March, 65-69.
Carroll, T.J. (1961). Blindness: What It Is, What It Does and How to Live with It.
Little, Brown and Co., Boston.
Chester, John, (1977). “Dialogue Today” C. Warren Bledsoe Manuscript
Collection, AER O&M Division C. Warren Bledsoe Archives, museum of the
American Printing House for the Blind, Louisville, KY.
Cutsforth, T. D. (1951). The blind in school and society; a psychological
study. (New ed.). American Foundation for the Blind.
Dog Guides and Blind Children a Joint Statement. (1963). The International
Journal for the Education of the Blind, XIII(1), 16-17.
Donlon, E.T., (1964). An evaluation center for the blind child with multiple
handicaps. The International Journal for the Education of the Blind, XIII(3),
75-78.
Eichorn, J.R., & Vigaroso H.R. (1967). Orientation and mobility for preschool
blind children. International Journal for the Education of the Blind, 17(2), 48–
50.
Farrell, G. (1956). The story of blindness. Harvard University Press.
Fields, H.W. (1961). How New York City educates visually handicapped children. The New Outlook for the Blind, 55(10), 337-340.
Foulke, E. (1962). The role of experience in the formation of concepts. The
International Journal for the Education of the Blind, XII(1), 1-6.
Graham, M.D., Clark, L.L. (1966). The New Outlook for the Blind, December,
303-304.
Gronemeyer, R. L. (1969). Community program of orientation and mobility
services for the blind in Missouri. Final Report. Saint Vincent De Paul Society,
St. Louis, MO. Social and Rehabilitation Service (DHEW), Washington, D.C.
Hetherington, F. (1955). Elementary school travel program. The International
Journal for the Education of the Blind, V(1), 15-17.
Hapeman, L. B. (1967). Developmental concepts of blind children between
the ages of three and six as they relate to orientation and mobility. The
International Journal for the Education of the Blind, XVII(2), 41-48.
Hatlen, P. & Wurzburger, P., Collins, R, & Kellis, T. (1966). Film entitled From
Here To There. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X58hWwXd8XI&ab_channel=annetucson (Accessed May, 21, 2024).
Hoover, R. (1960). Hoovers remarks after the 1960 Skit. PROCEEDINGS OF THE
THIRTY-FOURTH CONVENTION of the American Association of Workers for
the Blind, Inc. (Held at the Americana Hotel, Bal Harbour, Miami Beach,
Florida, (August 28-September 2, 1960).
Howe, S. (1841). The Ninth Annual Report of the trustees, of the Perkins
Institution and Massachusetts Asylum for the blind 1841 from Boston:
Hunter, W. F. (1962). The role of space perception in the education of the
congenitally blind. The International Journal for the Education of the Blind,
Inc. XI(4), May 125-130.
Huffman M. B. (1957). Fun Comes First for Blind Slow-Learners. Springfield,
Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, Publisher.
Kansas State Dept. of Education, T., & Flannagan, C. H. R. (1969). A
Concentrated Mobility and Orientation Approach for the Improvement of
Education for Partially Seeing and Blind Children in Day School Settings. Final
Report.
Koestler, F. (1966). The COMSTAC Report: Standards for Strengthened Services.
Commission on Standards and Accreditation of Services for the Blind, New
York, NY. ED025068
Koestler, F. A. (1976). The Unseen Minority: A Social History of Blindness in the
United States. New York: David McKay Co.
Kurzhals, I.W. (1968). What is "Readiness" for the blind child? The International
Journal for the Education of the Blind, XVIII()3, 90-93.
Lord, F. E. and Blaha, L. E. (1968). Demonstration of Home and Community
Support Needed to Facilitate Mobility Instruction for Blind Youth. Final Report.
California State Coll., Los Angeles. Special Education Center. Spons Agency
Rehabilitation Services Administration (DHEW), Washington, D.C.
Lowenfeld, B. (1956). Our Blind Children, Springfield, Ill. Charles C Thomas.
Levy, W. H. (1872). On the Blind Walking Alone, and of Guides” (pp. 68-76) in
(W. H. Levy) Blindness and the Blind: A Treatise on the Science of Typhlology.
London : Chapman and Hall
Manley, J. (1962). Orientation and foot travel for the blind child. The
International Journal for the Education of the Blind, XII(1), 8-13.
Martin, P., & Kleinfelder, R. (2008). Lions Clubs in the 21st Century. Authorhouse.
Mecklenburg Association for the Blind. (1965). The Freedom of Movement for
Blind Children: A Manual for Teachers of Blind Children Orientation and
Mobility. Charlotte, NC: Mecklenburg Association for the Blind.
Miller, C. K. (1969). Conservation in blind children. Education of the Visually
Handicapped, 1(4),101-105.
Minturn, E. H. (1960). The preschool blind child and his mother. The
International Journal for the Education of the Blind, X(2), 57-59.
Miyagawa, S. (1999). Journey to Excellence: Development of the Military and
VA Blind Rehabilitation Programs in the 20th Century. Galde Press, Inc.
Miller, J. (1964). Mobility training for blind children: Possible effects of an
organized mobility program on the growth and development of a blind child.
The New Outlook for the Blind, 58(10), 305-307.
Mills, R.J., and Adamshick, D.R. (1961). The effectiveness of structured sensory
training experiences prior to formal orientation and mobility instruction.
Education of the Visually Handicapped, 1(1), 14-21.
Moor, P. M. (1968). No time to lose: A symposium. American Foundation for the
Blind, New York.
O’Meara, M. (1966). An experimental program at the Illinois braille and sight
saving school for developmentally-delayed visually-impaired children. The
International Journal for the Education of the Blind. XVI(1), 18-20.
Penrod, W., Burgin, X., & Ambrose-Zaken, G. (2023). Enhancing Independent
Walking in Children with a Mobility Visual Impairment or Blindness: A
Quantitative Study on the Impact of the Pediatric Belt Cane. The Journal of
Visual Impairment & Blindness, submitted for publication 6/21/24.
Putnam, P. (1963). The triumph of the Seeing Eye. Harper & Row.
Weiner, L.H. (1962). Educating the emotionally disturbed blind child. The
International Journal for the Education of the Blind, XI(3) March, 77-79.
Royster, P. M. (1964). Peripatology and the development of the blind child. The
New Outlook for the Blind, 58, 136-138.
Sauerburger, D. (Accessed May, 19, 2024) www.sauerburger.org/nodetect.htm
Walker, D. L. (1961). Practices in teaching orientation, mobility, and travel. The
International Journal for the Education of the Blind, XI(2), 56-58.
Weiner, W. (1980). Orientation and mobility come of age. 1979-80 AAWB Annual
Blindness. American Association of Workers for the Blind, Inc. Washington,
D.C. 118-148.
Wyver, S. R., & Livesey, D. J. (2003). Kinaesthetic sensitivity and motor skills of
school-aged children with a congenital visual impairment. British Journal of
Visual Impairment, 21(1), 25–31.
R Williams history of the cane CONFERENCE FOR MOBILITY TRAINERS AND TECHNOLOGISTS; PROCEEDINGS (MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY FACULTY CLUB, DECEMBER14-15, 1967).
Massachusetts Inst. of Tech, Cambridge. Sensory Aids Evaluation Development Center.
Spons Agency- Children's Bureau (DHEW),Washington, D.C. Social and Rehabilitation Service; Rehabilitation Services Administration (DHEW), Washington, D.C.
Report No- SAV -1057-67
Pub Date (68] Note- 76p.
Ten articles treat mobility aids and training for the blind. The following subjects are discussed.
Comments