OUR MISSION "Safe Toddles' mission is to provide parents with a white cane solution for keeping their toddlers who are blind safe as they explore to learn." DOWNLOAD OUR IRS DESIGNATION LETTER OUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS Grace Ambrose-Zaken President & CEO Dr. Grace Ambrose-Zaken is the leading expert on early walking and safety for learners with mobility visual impairment or blindness. She recently retired Orientation and Mobility professor, she is credited with developing Hunter College of The City University of New York's Hybrid Distance Learning Orientation and Mobility program. Her published and unpublished research resulted in being the first to identify the need for a wearable white cane for parents to use with their blind babies. She created the first ever working Belt Cane prototype. She co-founded Safe Toddles in 2016. Roxann Mayros Board Chair Roxann Mayros is a nonprofit consultant. Her experience included Executive Director of the Lighthouse for the Blind and Visually Impaired in Florida where she got the first blind babies bill passed for statewide funding. She began Vision Serve Alliance which now bestows the Roxann Mayros Champion award. She brings expertise in creating collaborative partnerships, organizational management and growth, board governance, fund development, public relations, communications, and policy/grass-roots advocacy. She holds certifications, and degrees in business and nonprofit management. Janie Blome Board Vice-Chair Janie Blome is the co-founder of the Getting Touch with Literacy conference, the world renown, largest conference on the literacy needs of learners with visual impairment or blindness. She was the Executive Director of Association for Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired a professional membership organization dedicated to professionals serving people who are blind or who have low vision. She was Director of Field Services American Printing House for the Blind overseeing a dynamic team of professionals who ensured learners with visual impairment or blindness around the United States received the materials they needed to fully access their education. Janie began her career in early education of learners with visual impairment. She continues to be a fierce advocate for the needs of children born with visual impairment or blindness. Janie is a sought-after speaker and presenter. Cheryl Roe Board Treasurer Cheryl is a Social Enterprise Strategist, Leader, and a Disruptor. She has 25 years’ nonprofit experience. She retired from role as President for InterConnection, based in Seattle, WA. she was responsible for governance and operational oversight working closely with the Board of Directors managing all facets of the enterprise. This included directing strategies that supported both bottom lines and expand program development, future growth, as well as the control of current assets and expenditures, the sustainability of the enterprise and the fulfillment of the mission. Her strengths are leadership and management skills and ability to guide and develop a diverse staff. Sylvia Stinson-Perez Board Secretary Sylvia is the Executive Director/CEO at VISIONS/Services for the Blind and Visually Impaired. She is a dynamic innovative executive in the blindness/low vision field and a national expert in service delivery, agency management and leadership training. Sylvia has dedicated her career to improving the lives of people with a visual impairment. Her vast experience includes leadership roles at the Lighthouse for the Visually Impaired and Blind, the National Research and Training Center on Blindness and Low Vision at Mississippi State University, and the American Foundation for the Blind (AFB). As an inspiring leader and innovative strategist, Sylvia is known for her collaborative approach and advocacy for high-quality vision rehabilitation services, equity, and inclusion. Her lived experience as a person who is blind adds a unique and valuable perspective to her role. She serves on the Boards of the Academy for Certification of Vision Rehabilitation & Education Professionals (ACVREP), and Success Beyond Sight. She is a member of the Association for Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired (AER) Organizations and Schools Accreditation Council; And as a content writer and podcast cohost with Bold Blind Beauty and occasionally with Cooking Without Looking. Sylvia is a sought-after speaker and presenter. Nick Mueller Board Member Professor Gordon H. “Nick” Mueller is an American historian and Founding President and CEO Emeritus of The National WWII Museum, located in New Orleans. He served as President of the museum until 2017. He was Vice Chancellor at the University of New Orleans. The National WWII Museum is ranked by TripAdvisor users as No. 3 among American museums and No. 8 among museums worldwide. His exceptional contributions to the preservation and interpretation of WWII history and his special contributions to public awareness of the D-Day landings in Normandy have resulted in numerous awards, including the French government’s Legion of Honor, which in May 2016 was bestowed on him. Constance Engelstad Board Member Constance Engelstad is President The Shaman Group, Inc. and for over 29 years a human resources and organizational development consulting firm. She has held leadership positions in non-profit and for-profit sectors. She retired from her position as SVP, Administration at the Lighthouse for the Blind, Inc. She has provided services to the American Foundation for the Blind, Inc. (AFB), National Industries for the Blind, Inc. (NIB) and many of its affiliated agencies, and the American Foundation for the Blind, Inc. She contributed to the book, “The Mission-Driven Organization”. She served as a mentor to numerous blind professionals in NIB’s Business Management Training (BMT) program. Among other many projects, her work brought awareness of the technology capabilities of blind people to the tech world and significantly increased the number of people with disabilities hired by big tech. Her efforts resulted in improved access to computer applications by people with disabilities. She is a highly sought after consultant who assists organizations in successful strategic planning, OD, HR spaces in support those organizations and their clients. She provides Organizational Development and Human Resources (OD/HR) consulting within the non-profit, blindness, disability employment and for-profit fields. Marom Bikson Board Member Professor Marom Bikson is Harold Shames Professor of Biomedical Engineering at The City College of New York (CCNY) of the City University of New York (CUNY) and co-director of the Neural Engineering Group at the New York Center for Biomedical Engineering. He has published over 400 papers and book chapters and is inventor on over 50 patent applications. He is known for his work on brain targeting with electrical stimulation, cellular physiology of electric effects, and electrical safety. Bikson coinvented High-Definition transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (HD-tDCS), the first noninvasive, targeted, and low-intensity neuromodulation technology. He consults for medical technology companies and regulatory agencies on the design, validation, and certification of medical instrumentation. Bikson is cofounder of Soterix Medical Inc., Safe Toddles 501(c)(3), and Neuromodec NYC Neuromodulation. Joyelle Harris Board Member Dr. Joyelle “Joy” Harris, Ph.D., MBA, is an engineer and educator at Georgia Tech. She is also part-time Executive Director of the Council of Schools and Services for the Blind, a collection of schools and agencies whose mission is to educate and serve children who are blind or visually impaired. As Executive Director, she oversees their strategic planning, marketing, grant writing, business development, and leadership development. At Georgia Tech, she is the Director of Undergraduate Transformative Learning Initiatives in the Office of Undergraduate Education. In this role, she focuses on closing equity gaps, lowering barriers, and increasing access to all opportunities within undergraduate education. Dr. Harris also serves as faculty director for the Engineering for Social Innovation (ESI) Center, where she creates the space for students to use their technical skills to make a social impact. Dr. Harris was recently appointed the Director of Women in Engineering for the College of Engineering (CoE) where she serves those who are underrepresented throughout CoE. She serves and celebrates diverse learners by providing equitable access to the best educational experience. She is skilled in Data Analysis, Electrical Engineering, Strategic Planning, Program Design, and Non-profit management. June Allison Board Member June is an Extended Content Special Education teacher. June is a graduate student at North Carolina Central University in Special Education for teacher of the visually impaired and orientation and mobility. She is the mother of 6 children, one of whom has Cortical Visual Impairment. June searched the web for answers for her son, Caeden. When she learned of the Pediatric Belt Cane she advocated for its use for her son and many other North Carolinians. She joined a group of professionals who regularly speak at conferences and meetings about the benefits of the Belt Cane. MEDICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Paul Chong 4th Year Medical Student Paul Chong is a fourth-year Army HPSP medical student at Campbell University School of Osteopathic Medicine who will be continuing on to residency training in ophthalmology at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. He engages in clinical informatics research activities with a concentration in image data analysis and machine learning solutions in collaboration with institutions ranging from The University of Colorado School of Medicine, the National Institutes of Health, and the Vision Center of Excellence." He is set to Graduate May 2024! Post-graduation: "CPT Paul Chong will be an ophthalmology resident at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. He plans to engage in clinical informatics research activities with a concentration in image data analysis and machine learning solutions in collaboration with institutions ranging from The University of Colorado School of Medicine, the National Institutes of Health, and the Vision Center of Excellence." Dr. Robert Enzenauer Pediatric Ophthalmologist Ophthalmology Professor Dr. Robert W. Enzenauer, MD, MPH, MBA, MSS, is chief of the Division of Pediatric Ophthalmology at Children’s Hospital Colorado, Professor of Ophthalmology at the University of Colorado School of Medicine. Enzenauer completed two residencies, one in pediatrics and another in ophthalmology, and then a fellowship in pediatric ophthalmology. He also earned a master’s in public health in epidemiology as well as a master’s in strategic studies and a Master’s of Business Administration. He belongs to dozens of community and professional groups and serves on numerous committees. He’s been awarded 16 major military awards and decorations and dozens of academic honors. He’s published more than 100 articles in various medical journals and makes presentations at medical conferences several times a year. He’s contributed chapters to five books and lead-authored one of his own, “Functional Ophthalmologic Disorders.” Professor Anne L. Corn Expert in Low Vision Research and Practice Professor Anne L. Corn, Ed.D., is professor emerita of Vanderbilt University and researcher at the University of Cincinnati's ophthalmology department. In 2012, she was inducted into the Texas Women's Hall of Fame in recognition of the positive impact she has had for many thousands of students who are blind and visually impaired and their teachers throughout Texas, across the United States and around the world. Anne Corn is a visionary within the field of blindness and visual impairment. She has worked as an educator, researcher and advocate. Her groundbreaking contributions in low vision have changed the way children born with visual impairments are educated. She is and will forever be celebrated for her work bringing low vision devices into the classrooms of elementary, middle and high school students to allow them immediate access to their visual environment. She has served on the boards of multiple organizations, including Prevent Blindness Texas. Safe Toddles is so proud to welcome Professor Anne Leslie Corn as an honorary board member! She brings to Safe Toddles a wealth of knowledge in the field of visual impairment, important experience in nonprofit work and a true belief in our mission – so much so she helped us to craft Safe Toddles’ mission statement which reads: To provide parents with a white cane solution for keeping their blind toddlers safe as they explore to learn. COMMUNITY ADVISORS Bob Sonnenberg Nonprofit Leadership Bob recently retired from CEO, Earle Baum Center of the Blind (Chris Kittredge photo). He has more than 30 years of experience in finance, development, and investments, including operating my his brokerage and insurance business and manufacturing business. Prior to joining Earle Baum Center, he served for more than 10 years as Associate Director of Planned Giving and Major Donor Officer for Guide Dogs for the Blind. Kirk Adams Organization and DEI Consultant Kirk independent consulting business Innovative Impact LLC is his most recent venture. He is a preeminent leader in the field of blindness and longtime champion of people who are blind or visually impaired is committed to creating a more inclusive, accessible world for the more than 20 million Americans with visual impairment or blindness. He has consulted with top leadership at Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and other high-profile tech-oriented companies to discuss topics ranging from product and digital accessibility to civil and disability rights, as well as key leaders in sectors that include finance, public policy, and non-profits. As the president and chief executive officer of the American Foundation for the Blind (AFB), he led AFB in a new and innovative direction through developing strategic relationships with peers, policymakers, employers, and other influencers. Dr. Adams also served as president and CEO of The Lighthouse for the Blind, Inc., where his work involved providing independence and self-sufficiency through employment for people who are blind. He also served as a member of AFB’s board of trustees. Roslyn Adams Early Childhood Education Roslyn Adams is married to Kirk Adams. She has dedicated her life to the charitable support of blind babies. She is an advocate for accessibility and inclusion. Brent Weichers Manufacturing and Distribution Brent has extensive experience with the Toyota Production System and Danaher as a Lean and Six Sigma Sensei. A Master Black Belt in Toyota Production System, he is a change management expert with a keen ability to pinpoint areas for improvement, lead teams through multi-phased initiatives, and deliver measurable and sustainable results. He is a continuous Improvement Director for North America Responsible for all sites (7) in North America, assisting them to build meaningful measures to grow the business. His specialties include conducting Whitebelt and Greenbelt Training programs, leading Kaizen activities, develop and train Lean principles to all levels of an organization. Including design cell layouts, product flow, and automate the Standard Work process

Press Watch Our Story Over 200 CBS affiliates including the 24-hour CBSN broadcast carried the story of the Pediatric Belt Cane aka Toddler Cane. Blind Toddlers Walk Freely With a Wearable Cane WDBJ7 Anchors call Dr. Grace Ambrose-Zaken a genius for inventing a tool parents can use to keep their blind toddlers safe as they explore to learn. Special cane allows local girl, who is blind, to conquer anything she wants This is where it all started for Jorge, he now uses a long cane - check out our YouTube Videos! Dr. Gomez WCBS-TV reported, “The Toddler Cane is a deceptively simple and ingenious device…" giving kids with visual impairment their mobility so they can learn.” FIRST LOOK: Breakthroughs and trends in the world of technology: Assistive Technology: Baby Gait, American Society for Engineering Education, Prism Vol. 27, No. 8, SUMMER 2018 Pediatric Belt Cane featured on CBS New York

How to Measure for a Pediatric Belt Cane The fit of the pediatric belt cane needs to be exact. For best outcomes, the waist belt needs to fit snuggly. The frame length is measured to the child's shoulder. HEIGHT: Cane length is based on a child's shoulder height TIP: Measure floor to shoulder Hip: Use a ruler to obtain hip width. TIP: Measure number of inches hip to hip Waist: Use a measuring tape to obtain circumference TIP: Avoid measuring over bulky clothing results in wrong waist measurement. Javi stands still Nobody has ever said measuring a toddler was easy. However, this video shows how easy it can be with a child who stands perfectly still. Charna moves about -Mohamad shows the method for measuring a squirming toddler girl. The method is to wait for your moment and be ready with the measuring tape SizeChart

The origin story of the field of orientation and mobility (O&M) is about the heroes of WWII who returned home blind, were handed Lions Club canes, and told they were ready to return to civilian life. The Lions Club cane was too short to check the walking surface ahead of the next step. They were taught to wave the Lions Club canes when standing at the curb to let drivers know they wanted to cross the street. "When the blind person crosses a street let him extend it so that everyone can see and be aware of his blindness" (Martin & Kleinfelder, 2008, p. 33). The presumption was these brave, blind WWII veterans now had everything they needed to get about town independently. Russell described what it was like to walk without a white cane in his autobiography To Catch an Angel: Adventures in the World I Cannot See. Born sighted, he lost his vision at age five. The first time he left the protective walls of the New York Institute for the Blind by himself was in 1936. He did not even have a short Lions Club cane when he turned twelve and his parents signed the permission slip... “With trembling hands, I took my first slip from the principal's office to my housemother and made a dash for the gate. I had nowhere to go; but to stand outside the fence was enough...Fortunately, there was another boy in the same predicament. Together we mustered the courage to explore the wilderness of the Bronx. Stumbling over curbs and running into lampposts, we finally covered the seven blocks to the business section of White Plains Road. After banging into nine hundred baby carriages, asking countless questions, and receiving much help, we made our way to the dime store..." (1962, p. 62). The young men who had helped to defeat Hitler and Hirohito rejected this precarious strategy of getting about town that Bledsoe later dubbed "the stumble and crash method" (2010, p. 583). The blinded vets in their twenties were not as gullible as 12-year-old blind boys. They refused to walk independently with tools and techniques that did not adequately protect them. A blind adult invented the long cane for blind adults. US army Sergeant Richard Hoover is regarded as the father of the long cane. Hoover credited William Hanks Levy's with the discovery. Levy was blind and had made his living by establishing handicraft industries and workshops for the British blind. Towards the end of his life, in 1872, he published his treatise on blindness (Koestler, 1976). Levy used a long stick when he walked and described the length, shape, and his system for using it specifically for safety. He described how he used his stick to systematically check the ground"...about six to nine inches from the feet, the ground will always be examined before being actually trodden (p. 70). He called it a "stick" but, please do not picture a branch off a tree. Levy's stick was a well-crafted, elongated walking stick that was repurposed for checking ahead of him. It had a handle "somewhat like a hook, and sufficiently large to be grasped firmly, so that it may not easily be knocked out of the hand"...and "...suited to the height of the individual, but it should be longer than what would be used..." as a support cane. and "...it should always have a good ferrule..." (a ferrule is a metal cap or band placed on a wooden pole to prevent splitting) (Levy, 1872, p. 70). Hoover famously altered Levy's cane arc technique, or the instruction that makes up the “M” or Mobility part of the new field orientation & mobility (O&M). Levy had described "waving the stick alternately from right to left to correspond with the movements of the feet”. He explained that he used his long stick to check ahead of his leading foot (Levy, 1872, p. 70). Hoover recommended tapping the long cane so that it checks the ground ahead of the trailing foot. His goal was to provide two steps of reaction time. In 1977, Bledsoe explained to John Chester on his radio show “Dialogue Today” that long cane "...use has to be taught and carefully taught in conditions and situations in which blind travelers go. One of the first things we discovered is that no one picks up a cane and touches in front of the trailing foot naturally. In fact, it takes hours and hours of training to get blind people to do it that way. It seems to be the opposite of conditioned reflex." Curiously, when Hoover (sighted), Bledsoe (sighted) and Williams (adult on-set blind), devised the “O” or the Orientation part of the O&M training program; they did not make any changes. Levy believed that the most important ability is for a blind man to be able to cope if he did not have a guide "...if he were to be left alone at any moment he would be master of his own actions, and be enabled to direct his steps through the world, gives to him such confidence and comforting self-reliance which no other possession could afford" (1872, p. 69). This description of the confidence a blind man gains by walking alone without a guide was given prior to his discussion of his stick. The history of early intervention O&M has shown that most believed that people with a MVI/B would be better off, once they were able to walk alone. Everyone knew the danger of not being able to see where you are going, yet they believed that injury was a necessary consequence of independence for blind people. I call it the walk first, safety last paradigm that has plagued the field of early intervention O&M since its inception. The purpose of this blog is to demonstrate the lineage of this paradigm, how it made its way into current practice, and why it needs to be replaced with Safety First, everything else after safety. Walk first, safety last has always been a bad idea. And so it happened, that even though it was the blind vet's objections to walking unprotected that created the long cane, their instructors insisted they prove they could walk without it, first (Miyagawa, 1999). Blinded veterans were taught orientation skills inside the Valley Forge medical center with only pre-cane skills to protect them, first, before they learned the long cane. Levy's 1872 recommendation for walking with a long stick to probe the ground ahead for safety, ignored for 73 years, is now the defacto mobility tool for everybody. If others had begun using Levy's long stick as early as 1872, perhaps it could have led to innovative designs for protecting all blind people. As it was, walk first, safety last remained the only method for teaching blind people to walk independently. This may explain why, in 1945, there was no recognition whatsoever that if blind WWII heroes were afraid to walk without protection, then so too must infants with a MVI/B be afraid. Safe Mobility and Age of Onset. Most would have us believe that infants born with a MVI/B and adults who acquire a MVI/B have very different outcomes from the same disability due to the age of onset. Adults who became blind as adults demonstrate the same outward visible motor affectations as children with a congenital MVI/B do when they are asked to walk exclusively by the grope, stumble, and crash method. Consider the story told by Dorothy Eustis, founder of the first US guide dog school The Seeing Eye, of a blind WWI veteran before and after he took the harness of his guide dog. "He was about forty-five years old and stockily built. She guessed he had once had a good deal of exercise, perhaps as a farmer, but since his blindness, his muscles had turned to fat. When he moved, he shuffled uncertainly with hesitant groping gestures of his hands and feet. He seemed timid, lost, helpless, and very, very blind...when the big farmer straightened up from buckling on his dog's harness.... his head was erect. His shoulders were thrown back. He gave his dog the command forward and strode out confidently" (Putnam, 1963, pp. 25-26). The guide dog and the long cane demonstrated that blind travel could be safe and efficient. These were the first tools that could replace two functions of vision necessary for independent walking: obstacle preview and balance. Yet, the leading profile of a 'mobility tool user' was someone who was smart, physically able, with an adult-onset MVI/B. Up until recently, no infant born with a MVI/B has known the feeling of reliable safety from obstacles all day long. We cannot know and will only learn what blind infants are capable of once we ensure they feel safe all day, every day. We will learn what blind infants are capable of once we ensure they feel safe all day, every day. The development of mobility tools by adults for adults fit neatly into the "must walk first" paradigm. All the people who used them were able to walk and talk already. Graduate students who learned to travel with the white cane fit the same profile, they were all physically and cognitively capable people. University programs preparing teachers of learners with a visual impairment (TVIs) and O&M specialists imported the cane training curriculum directly from the originators of O&M. The walk first, safety last paradigm was adopted without question into the curriculum for preparing teachers of children with a MVI/B. Starting in 1945, adults were provided long canes and gained the confidence only attainable through independent safety. At the same time, parents continued to watch their infants fail to navigate through their world safely and seeming to lose more confidence with each passing year. The problem with external motivation is it doesn't work on infants. One major difference between adults and children under five is that it is harder to get children to ignore their basic instincts and walk into danger, than adults. The young, blinded vets of WWII were able to patiently wait and endure their difficult training protocols because they were externally motivated. They could only receive their additional blind benefit pay if they completed the mandatory program (Koestler, 1976). Infants have an internal sense of self-preservation. Since the beginning of time, they have successfully thwarted all attempts by adults to make them walk without safety. Infants with a MVI/B's inability to walk independently only served to make adults work harder to achieve this unattainable goal. This safety-last instructional sequence remained throughout the century. Any further innovation of white cane safety tools for the diverse group of humans with MVI/B would have to wait. Including white canes in the advice for educating children with a MVI/B. The introduction of the US Army's long cane instruction crashed civilian life as an uninvited party guest. In the 1950s, the loudest opposition to white canes came from residential school staff, who found fault with the method for training the instructors, “The sighted individual who is blindfolded can approach problems of the newly blinded adult in a way he cannot approach problems of the congenitally blind” (Bledsoe, 1952, p. 3). Which, of course, is true. Instructor training methods were only part of the resistance to long canes (Bledsoe, 1952; Hoover, 1960). There was great professional concern that providing a safety tool and systematic instruction to children with a MVI/B would do more harm than good. As it was truly believed that blind babies needed to walk first, despite the injuries (See prior blogs). Warren Bledsoe was born and raised on the campus of Maryland School for the Blind (MSB), because his father was superintendent. Bledsoe was the co-inventor of the long-cane technique, after which he, Hoover, who had been a PE teacher at MSB before the war, and many others spent considerable time trying to get long cane use accepted into civilian life. Bledsoe explained, “…this battle began in a world in which one of the most complimentary things his friends could say about a blind person was, "He goes all over the place without a cane." To this it was often added by some cynic, "With the help of 120 million people." I know in any case that a great premium was put on the natural appearance which was attributed to blind people who managed to go about without canes” (Bledsoe, 1952, p. 2). During these early exchanges on whether to teach long cane use, what never appeared in the discourse was any imperative to improve safety through white cane designs for infants, people in wheelchairs, on crutches, with cognitive limitations and those with no functional use of their hands. People who were on the move, but unable to see where they were going and needed safety, too. The field instead presented the long cane as the one and only mobility tool for people who did not want or were too young to use a guide dog. Anyone who could not use the long cane continued to be taught 'pre-cane' skills until they were ready to use the long cane or never. Most children with a congenital MVI/B are unable to use the long cane for safety, no matter what age it is introduced to them (Ambrose-Zaken, 2023; 2022). Pre-Cane Hand Skills. The US army formalized the natural response of using one's hands for protection and information and called them pre-cane skills. Done the army way, pre-cane skills resemble a soldier marching in a military parade. The problem with pre-cane skills is they are unable to guard against hazards beyond hand's reach, like drop-offs. Pre-Cane Listening skills. The US Army had an interest in finding other technologies and strategies beyond the 'long white stick' for use by its blind veterans. One example included investigating and testing the limits of human hearing. As part of their final stage before discharge, and their increased benefit pay, blinded WWII vets were told to leave their long canes behind at Valley Forge before being shipped out to Avon Old Farms. There, the men were taught to use facial vision to navigate. Facial vision is a term that encompasses the hearing ability to detect both audible and inaudible sound waves as they bounce off objects. The farm had low ceilings and many oddly shaped stairs and passageways. This made navigating without a long cane extremely stressful. Most reports from the blind vets confirmed that facial vision did not work well enough to feel safe walking without the long cane. They simply put up with it to receive their pay bump at the end of the program and this crazy scheme was the last obstacle in their way (Koestler, 1976; Miyagawa, 1999). Various teachers in public schools attempted to teach children with a MVI/B to use their facial vision and said they found improved outcomes for their subjects (Manley, 1962; Hunter, 1962). As described by Hetherington in 1955, “Much of the success of a student’s ability to master foot travel is dependent somewhat upon his ability to perceive objects in time to avoid them... It is our belief that the sooner a child can become aware of this ability and develop it, the more confident he becomes. The elementary students taking travel are given obstacle perception exercises and training...” (P. 15). To be clear, the "obstacle perception exercises" being advocated for here were listening skills. While listening is an educable skill, nobody's hearing can detect the exact location of the edge of a coffee table or drop-off. To do that, you either need sight or a white cane. Children and adults with a MVI/B, who are also hearing capable, can develop more skillful listening abilities. It is just a lot easier to detect obstacles with a white cane. People with a MVI/B who have highly trained listening skills, like Daniel Kish, a blind man who has made a career teaching object perception and echolocation, use long canes (pictured). Long canes intentionally excluded from the classroom. In the 1960s, teachers of learners with a visual impairment (TVIs) were employed by school districts and most O&M specialists were employed by vision rehabilitation agencies. Most TVIs in schools were women who were doing everything they could to follow the prescribed standard of education, 'walk first'. Most O&M specialists were men who jealously guarded their new profession. O&M specialists were taught that students had to possess certain pre-requisite knowledge and skills before they could learn long cane skills. TVIs were responsible for students developing travel concepts and pre-cane skills. TVIs understood that the long cane was not in their job description. All TVI university programs intentionally omitted the use of the long cane during their blindfold lab classes. Lord and Blaha (1968) wrote, “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). From the start of the 1960s, the accepted division of labor between TVIs and O&M specialists was TVIs would continue to teach everything but the long cane at school and O&M specialists would teach long cane and outdoor travel skills, when the child was ready. O&M instructors in the 1960s began to use the long cane as a carrot, a reward that children with a MVI/B could earn by learning to walk without it (Lord and Blaha, 1968; Gronemeyer, 1969; Weiner, 1980). For example, Gronemeyer (1969) concluded the difficulty in teaching an adolescent blind boy is he “needs to be more physically active before he can have a cane” (p. 41). Waiting for the long cane. The long cane is a deceptively difficulty tool to use correctly for safety. It is important to understand the mechanics of long cane safety. The user must be able to interpret and respond to sensory information transmitted through the half-inch diameter cane tip. To ensure the best safety outcome, the user must rhythmically swing the cane tip back and forth with each step to check the ground for danger. Used correctly, the user is two steps from a decision. He must be able to interpret the tactile information in time to stop, investigate further, and decide what to do next. Used any other way, the long cane is not a safety tool. Infants do not possess the intellect, patience, or motor skills to maintain the cane tip position, rhythmical movement or respond to long cane feedback. In the 1960s, attempts to teach high school students to use the long cane were frustrating to the O&M instructors for many reasons, not the least of which was the difficulty students had in learning the precision the proper techniques demanded, finding that "some were careless in the application of the skills, which resulted in unsafe and inconsistent performances (Miyagawa, 1999, p. 193). The degree of difficulty in using the long cane further ensured the walk first, safety last paradigm for infants with a MVI/B. The need to qualify for long cane instruction may have brought even greater pressure to bear on parents of infants with a MVI/B to get their children walking and talking on time so they could finally be safe. For example, Lowenfeld (sighted), a highly acclaimed educator of blind children, instructed parents that their children with a MVI/B… “…must learn to walk without help of any kind in familiar territory. What is familiar territory expands as they grow older, until they learn to venture out into places that are new to them. When the time comes to do this, they should learn to use the cane. Usually this is found practical only after a youngster is fourteen years of age, more often older than that” (Lowenfeld, P. 187-188). Table 5. Modern interpretation of 1961 advice to parents. Lowenfeld’s recommendation rests on his correct assessment that the long cane was too challenging for infants to learn to use correctly for safe mobility. Yet, he firmly believed that infants with a MVI/B could be motivated to work against their own self-interest and learn to walk independently without safety. He understood that children who remained stationary, as children with a MVI/B did, were also delayed in reading comprehension. He was aware that TVI lessons did not include the long cane. He taught TVIs to include independent walking into their teaching activities because, "Reading will come more easily to a child who can relate the words he reads to realities he has experi­enced. It is the responsibility of his teacher to see that he continues to enjoy many experiences and has opportunities to learn what is going on in the real world around him, first in the school, its grounds, and then the world outside (1956, p. 126). The unattainable prerequisite skill. Lowenfeld, like so many before him, truly believed children with a MVI/B needed to wait until they had the prerequisite skill of walking independently before getting a white cane. The prerequisite skill of unsafe independent walking is unattainable for most children with a MVI/B. The ability to walk into danger should not be the necessary bar to achieve before infants are provided with tools that allow them to safely walk independently and learn to read. Lowenfeld's use of the term “permit” again promoting the theory that blind infants would walk if adults allowed them to. The newly minted curriculum for teaching independent travel was based on working with blind adults which led teachers to the misguided conclusion that children with a MVI/B, like recently blinded adults, were pining away for safety. These children had no concept of what safety meant; they had always just run into walls without warning. Doesn't everybody? An early 1950s pilot project brought three of the originators of O&M, Stanley Suterko, John Malamazian and Larry Blaha to teach a group of high school students with a MVI/B. It was very difficult for them to understand why some high school children could master the long cane and some could not. Those children who could learn O&M skills were seen as cooperative, those who couldn't were faulted for not trying hard enough, not wanting it enough. They reported, "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). There was no understanding of the life these high school children had led until then. Every child who failed to pass the prerequisite test or master the long cane was faulted for lacking an interest in learning to be independent. No one took into consideration the fact that these children had been left to fend for themselves for 16 years without safety. How could they even conceive of the idea that there was a safe way to get about. Those children who actually received these specialized services were the lucky ones. In describing the results of her experimental life skills program at the Illinois braille and sight saving school for developmentally-delayed visually-impaired children, O'Meara admitted that "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). Imagine the strain that must build up when you must travel without safety. In the 1960s, educators began to ask in earnest, “At what age should mobility training start?" Miller's answer "I would risk saying, emphatically, ‘in the cradle!” (1964, p. 307). Miller was among the first graduates with a master's degree in O&M. After having learned to travel blindfolded with her long white cane, it was plain to her that children with a MVI/B needed the protection of white canes too, but how? Infants with a MVI/B could not use a long cane; toddlers did not have the language to learn long cane skills, preschoolers appeared to reject holding the long cane, and most school-aged children were unreachable, quiet, solitary, stationary people, worn down by a life of unsafe expectations and demands to walk into danger to prove their worthiness for safety. The same year Miller (1964) was reporting the detrimental motor outcomes she found in the student population she served, Royster (1964) detailed his instructional map for teaching a child with a MVI/B from birth using the walk first, safety last approach. Royster explained: "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). In 1964, Miller observed: “The problem presented itself to me as soon as I entered a school for the blind. Why, if blindness was their only defect, did these children present such a picture of physical abnormality, with poor posture, awkward gait…I asked Dr. Hoover*, What could be the cause of this? “…He looked sad and said, “Nothing, I guess, but tension. Imagine the strain that must build up when you have to travel like that (without safety)” (Miller, 1964, p. 305). * R.E. Hoover, originator of the Hoover cane technique. At the time of her publication in 1968, Moor reported that, “one-tenth of the population of individuals with a visual impairment were under twenty years of age” and 25% were infants and toddlers who were not receiving educational services. Moor also painted a bleak picture of the children with a MVI/B entering her school at the end of the 1960s. She described the children with a MVI/B as “frequently indifferent to the school experience, and at first may physically withdraw by curling up on the floor or even on a bookshelf” (p. 9). Moor’s choice of the word ‘indifferent’ seems out of context with her description of children with a MVI/B physically withdrawing. A blind child hiding inside a bookshelf seems more like a cry for help, than indifference. 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. This is not to ignore the those children with a MVI/B who were able to walk and learn to use the long cane as teenagers. Most children with MVI/B were crushed by the expectation of walking into danger every day had to be in special classes to address the consequences of daily, unsafe mobility. 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). 1966 COMSTAC Report Twenty years after the introduction of long cane “most of the work with systematic orientation and travel training programs had only been done with blind adults” (Koestler, 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 as: “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 COMSTC 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. Landmark O&M study exposed flaws in current theory of early O&M methods. At the close of the 1960s, Lord and Blaha reported their findings from the first of its kind O&M demonstration project. Three O&M instructors evaluated and taught fifty-one adolescents with a MVI/B aged thirteen to twenty-one to use the long cane. Their evaluations found the “blind adolescents have limited travel …in relation to normal youths of similar age. Their social life is very limited... Their travel often is confined to a high school campus and home...” (1968, p. 78). The report recommended the adolescents' “Orientation skills and knowledge need to be developed further, primarily because blind children lack experiences with their environment. They have a great need for orientation materials that can be classified as educative rather than rehabilitative” (p. 11). Their O&M instructors reported that long cane instruction had “enhanced their physical and mental development” (p. 11). They also reported that, like Blacklock did in 1797, the 1968 “Students tend to blame parents for their limited travel experiences” (p.  12). These fifty-one adolescents were the physical and cognitive demonstration of unsafe walking since infancy. Lord & Blaha’s conclusion was ‘parents needed to try even harder to give their infants with a MVI/B more opportunities to walk independently BEFORE they became teenagers’. Their recommendation, “It therefore appears that active programs of recreation, travel, etc. should be instituted to generate normal travel needs. Orientation and mobility training would then become an important service to a youth in relation to these needs.” (Lord & Blaha, 1968, p. 74). Blaha had died suddenly of a heart attack in March of 1968. Lord was tasked with finishing their report. Throughout the report we see the suggestion that children with a MVI/B did not travel because they were uninterested in going places outside their familiar routines. This narrative appears to blame children for the outcomes of the decisions made by adults since they were infants. Lord's thesis demonstrates the utter inability for sighted people who keep flashlights, extra batteries, candles, and matches at the ready for when the power goes out, to understand the safety problem for blind children. How could they never once consider how impossible a task they had given infants with a MVI/B to grow up and learn with only their two feet in contact with the world. Summary Beginning in the 1960s, it became well documented that toddlers with a MVI/B didn’t explore even when their legs worked fine, didn’t speak even though they understood, and didn’t seek out their peers even though they loved being engaged socially. Lord and Blaha's 1968 findings had exposed the antiquated 19th century experiment of “treating blind children the same as sighted peers” as an epic failure, yet the connection of delayed walking skills and unsafe mobility remained elusive to these early educators. Afterall, 160 plus years of certainty that infants with a MVI/B must first learn to walk, was difficult to dispute and was left unquestioned. Instead, research throughout the 20th century consistently described preschool children with a MVI/B, as demonstrating devastating developmental delays that began very early and recommended additional external motivators be applied. Although throughout the 1970s there were multiple studies that revealed these instructional mandates were not successful with children with a MVI/B, the fault was assigned to the children and to their families. Any innovation in mobility tools would have to wait for the 1997 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) that included Part C, early intervention. The next blog will discuss the early intervention in the 1970s before and after the authorization of P.L. 94-142 Education of All Children Education Act. References 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- 291. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X231188728. 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X221121824 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. (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. 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. 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. 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) 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. 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. 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 https://archive.org/details/blindnessblindor00levyiala/page/n5/mode/2up Manley, J. (1962). Orientation and foot travel for the blind child. The Education of the Blind, October. Martin, P., & Kleinfelder, R. (2008). Lions Clubs in the 21st Century. Authorhouse. 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. 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. Putnam, P. (1963). The triumph of the Seeing Eye. Harper & Row. Royster, P. M. (1964). Peripatology and the development of the blind child. The New Outlook for the Blind, 58, 136-138. Russell, R. (1962). To Catch an Angel: Adventures in the World I Cannot See. Vanguard Press. 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.

At the turn of the 20th century, children with MVI/B were educated at their state residential schools for the blind by well-meaning matrons and headmasters, or homeschooled. A mid-century epidemic in premature births resulting in blindness and the forward-thinking changes in US education law in the seventies created a dramatic divide between the first and second half of the 20th century for children with mobility visual impairment or blindness (MVI/B). By the turn of the 21st century, most school-aged children with a visual impairment were taught in their home districts by university educated teachers certified in the field of blindness and visual impairment. An educator who bridged the first half of the 20th century and the second was Thomas Cutsforth, whom the 1963 New Outlook for the Blind necrology said was “the most often-quoted author in the entire field of blindness” (p. 114). Cutsforth was born sighted in 1893 and went blind in 1904. In his book, The Blind in School and Society he declared, “No one as yet has adequately understood how to educate the blind” (1951, p. 2). The most impactful 20th century educational theories on the education of babies with MVI/B were based on personal experiences, not applied science. US public schools were started in the 20th century with the mission to prepare boys with the skills to read, write and follow commands; to make them ready and able soldiers for the 'next world war'. Public schools educated the educable children and used exams and grades to rank them on a set of academic and physical achievement standards. Public schools only began attending to the individualized educational needs of its children, after the 1974 education law Educating all Handicapped Children's Act (reauthorized in 1990 as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) required it. Cutsforth's first edition of his book was published just prior to the retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) epidemic, in 1933. It was a time when children with a visual impairment were held to the same educational standards, yet were educated separately from their sighted peers. Cutsforth's education theories were based on his experiences growing up sighted. He believed sight was a necessary prerequisite for infants' physical and cognitive development. He had learned the skills he needed to succeed in school, before he went blind. The narrative basically goes like this, sighted infants only learn to walk, talk and be social "...by watching" each other (Cutsforth, 1951, p. 5). Thus, despite of, or perhaps because of, Cutsforth's own ability to perceive the world around him without vision, he believed the developmental delays in blind infants must be because they couldn't learn how he did, visually. Cutsforth's theory is the foundation upon which all current early intervention orientation and mobility (EI/O&M) textbooks are based today. The observable outcome that infants with MVI/B's delays are because, they are "...aware of nothing, objectively, outside the arcs described by his unsteady hands and feet (1951, p. 5)”. Today, every EI/O&M textbook includes a statement that blindness causes infants to be unaware of things beyond their reach as a basis for theories of why they don't walk independently. A blind child's lack of visual contact with the world does prevent them from detecting objects beyond their reach, which is unsafe for them. Yet, the converse of that statement is also true, touch is a primary learning sense for blind babies. Instead of finding ways to capitalize on their primary learning sense of touch, they chose to accept the obvious outcome; blind children don't develop on par with sighted infants. The white cane is an example of a tool that extends the reach of the user allowing her to check the ground ahead of her next step. In 1904, there was no white cane. As a blind adolescent, Cutsforth regained his ability to travel independently through the school of hard knocks, armed only with an insider's knowledge of the sighted world. His ability to get about without a long cane was something he was incredibly proud of, especially after long canes were invented (Koestler, 1974). Which is why he thought them unnecessary and, like many others, he worried they would result in 'soft blind kids' (Bledsoe, 1967). Adventitious and congenital blindness are different. Having had vision during the first 11 years of life, Cutsforth's early experiences were very different from an infant born with MVI/B. By age 11, he had learned to walk, talk, dress, read, run - everything; as a sighted child. He was able to bring all those skills and concepts into his new life as a blind child. His feelings of loss and success were very real, yet did it make him qualified to judge the needs of infants born with MVI/B? He went from the fluid, easy and quick movements of a sighted adolescent to having to navigate the gauntlet of furniture like an unsteady toddler. He had to find ways to retain his balance to remain upright after encountering varying terrain changes and other dangers without any warning from a long cane. All the time likely fending off sighted adults well-meaning offers of help. In 1904, going blind meant children had to learn to endure, even welcome, the bodily collisions they could no longer visually avoid. He attributed his success in life to this blunt method of adjustment, akin to a father throwing his son into the pool to teach him to swim. Those who succeeded believed it to be the best system of education, those who didn't drowned...became developmentally delayed. Cutsforth believed the only path to independence for blind children was the one he endured, one that was trod without a guide or white cane protection. Cutsforth’s second edition of The Blind in School and Society was published six years after the invention of the long white cane, in 1951. His advice on independent walking remained unchanged from the first edition, in 1933, to the final printing in 1972. He characterized the blind child’s need to stay in physical contact with the world as a bad habit that needed to be broken. Cutsforth's advice to parents was to withhold their helping hand when their child with MVI/B needed it most, writing: “When the child has once learned to walk, it is well to omit any form of manual guidance about the house and to permit the child to become oriented himself, even at the expense of minor injuries and emotional distress of both the children and the other members of the family…" (Cutsforth, 1951 p. 21) Cutsforth's advice in this influential text included the well-known thesis that it was natural for blind children to get injured when they walked independently. His contribution was to oppose providing children with MVI/B with any hand-held assistance, and later; he opposed the use of the long cane for children with MVI/B (Koestler, 1976). Although it continued to be obvious that infants with MVI/B avoided walking independently, the only possible reason Cutsforth would have us consider was the child's natural inclination to walk was being held back by a parent. Cutsforth advocated for allowing children with MVI/B to attend their local public school. He saw the current system of residential institutions as part of the problem, and asked the reader to consider the accomplishments of "so many prominent blind men not educated in institutions, such as Gore, Pulitzer, Person, Schall, Irvine, Scapini..." (p. 203). Each of these men became blind as teens and adults. As blind men in the early 1900s, their accomplishments in life are to be admired, but none of the men on his list were born blind. This blurring of lines of the real life differences among men who became blind as beacons of what is possible for children born blind made it all the more difficult to advocate for a more nuanced approach to educating children with MVI/B. The 12-year-old Tommy Cutsforth felt perfectly capable of being independent and, like Blacklock, believed his parents had been too protective. Thus, the use of the term permit the child appears to have accurately defined their experiences. They wanted more permission to move about independently and were certain that is what all blind babies wanted, despite all evidence to the contrary. The use of the word permit is intentional. The reader should not assume that the often-repeated phrase ‘permit the child to become oriented...’ was based on published outcomes showing its success. It appears more likely to be a form of rebellion only available to adults looking back and repairing the perceived wrongs of their childhood. 'Permit the child' also fits neatly into the theory that he, Howe and Blacklock proposed, that mothers were preventing their children with MVI/B from walking freely, because they wanted to protect them. 'Permit the child to walk' is based on the assumption that the blind child's tendency to sit quietly is driven by an external force (e.g., being prevented from walking), not an internal one (e.g., self-selecting to avoid the danger of walking without visual or tactile anticipatory control). This narrative serves to "easily" explain the cause of children with MVI/B's developmental delay, 'it is the mother's fault' (Hatton, Ivy, & Boyer, 2013; Howe, 1841; Huffman, 1957). Howe (1841) wrote “the mother runs and fetches whatever the child requires, and pets and humors it continually. The consequence is that he is unfitted for the rough arena of the world…” (p. 6). The permit the child narrative places blame on external forces (e.g., the mother) for the consistent delays found in infants with MVI/B early walking attainment. The child feels unsafe theory espoused by Ambrose-Zaken focuses on the internal, self-protective forces that prevent children with MVI/B from moving into danger without effective protection. Adults control the external forces they provide children with MVI/B. Unfortunately, the mothers' natural fear for the safety of their children with MVI/B; and their children's clear fear of walking independently did not inspire innovation in safety tools for blind babies. By not developing tools to improve blind babies safety, the families were left with improvising external forces to improve the safe mobility of their children, like holding their hands, pushing them in strollers, and shouting verbal warnings. These external forces impact the child's internal feelings of confidence. In the picture, on the left, the physical therapist (PT) applies the external force of her position and readiness to intercept danger on behalf of the child with cortical visual impairment (CVI). The child is wholly unaware of what her therapist is doing to keep her safe. Thus, there is no internal feeling of safety directly resulting from the adult's actions. On the right, the same child's PT provided the external force of a Belt Cane. The touch feedback from the Belt Cane child gives clear indicators that she is protected from obstacles in her path. Her internal feelings are easily measured in her outward confidence, improved quality, and amount of walking (Ambrose-Zaken, 2022, 2023; Ambrose-Zaken, et al., 2019; Penrod, Burgin, Ambrose-Zaken, 2024). It should be very easy to understand there is a serious problem with any educational philosophy regarding infants that recommends bruises as an instructional method. In these often repeated phrases 'the permit the child to walk' and 'allow them to sustain injury' we see blind infants being treated very differently from sighted infants. Teachers began reporting their experiences and offering how-to guides to assist other teachers in following this advice. In these publications, the walking intervention of having no protection is again and again shown to be the basis upon all educational initiatives for children who had no insider's knowledge of the seeing world. 18th century beliefs perpetuated in the 20th century. In the 1960s, one of the foremost educators in special education reviewed the book, “Fun Comes First for Blind Slow-Learners”. He wrote, Huffman's text "...for classroom teachers, written by a classroom teacher..." was an instructional guide that had “been awaited with eagerness by teachers from Maine to California” (Goldberg, 1958, p. 65). Huffman's (1957) gives us an inside look at the difficulty teachers had implementing these independent walking theories in real life. She was guided by the principle that blindness restricted her students' opportunities and the “lack of these experiences was… responsible for much the emotional disturbance and asocial behavior found in the children under the writer's supervision” (p. 3). Huffman's remedy for lack of experience was to fill her students' days with experiences of roller skating, rock climbing and other thrilling challenges. Huffman believed the teaching of safety was “…the same for all children. The only “…difference in teaching being that emphasis was placed on sound rather than sight” (Huffman, 1957, p. 76). Huffman gave the following example of how she employed a referee's whistle to protect her pupils with MVI/B including those with physical and cognitive delays: -------------------- “Any hazards or danger-spots in the school environment were utilized as a means of teaching objective lessons in realistic problems. Among tangible factors used to teach safety habits were: Steep steps, retaining walls with rough protruding rocks, roadways over which maintenance or delivery trucks frequently traveled; construction areas, deep and wide ditches… For acquiring prompt group responses, a referee’s whistle was found to be convenient when used as a definite means of signaling. A long, shrill blast meant “Danger! Stand still! Listen!” The children were taught that this danger could be anything from an unexpected appearance of a car to the possibility of a child’s walking in front of a swing, stepping off in a ditch, or walking into some obstacle in his path.” …When there was danger of an approaching car, one long shrill blast was blown, followed by the assembly signal of three short blasts repeated twice in succession. Next, I stepped to a safe place off the side of the roadway where the group collected in a compact unit until the car had passed” (pp. 76-77). --------------------- Huffman made clear the difficulty she had supervising students who were unable to independently detect and avoid hazards. Contrary to the recommendations of Blacklock, Moyes, Howe, and Cutsforth no teacher could, in good conscience, allow her students to get hurt on her watch. Her detailed whistle types and their descriptions of communicating danger was a page long. She was on constant guard. A side note: The problem with shouting general warnings is bind people are unable to see who the target of the warning is. When you shout “watch out”, what is the blind man supposed to do? You may have been warning your child from stepping into on coming traffic. Or you may have been warning him that he was about to step into a ditch. Sound is an inferior warning system when compared to touch (see Seatbelt safety). Consider the problem of the "assembly signal" for a child with MVI/B - what if there is a drop-off between the child and the assembly location. Without a safety tool, the blind child still doesn't know exactly where the drop begins or how deep it is. Those are the jobs of the white cane. Huffman intended for ALL her students within earshot of the whistle blast to stop what they were doing. All had to stop so they could find out which one of them was in danger. Huffman’s whistle was her unique solution to her very real problem caused by the lack of a white cane solution for her students. Huffman began teaching children with a visual impairment TEN YEARS after the white cane had been invented. A white cane is a tool that enables the user with MVI/B to use their touch sense to safely feel/detect “…steep steps, retaining walls with rough protruding rocks, and roadways... a ditch, or ...some obstacle in his path” two steps ahead (1957, p. 76). The next blog in this series will discuss the slow introduction of the long cane in schools. Suffice to say, Cutsforth and Huffman were both right in their intensions, they wanted their students to be independent. They were misled from the beginning about the actual causes preventing their students with MVI/B from walking freely. Their students had not been held back by their mothers, they were simply trying to protect themselves. The blind child is aware of things he is in contact with through his hands and feet, and it makes a difference how he learns of objects. A Belt Cane is a white cane for blind babies, it gives them a two-step safety buffer, preventing most direct body collisions and gives clear indicators of objects and drop offs. The Belt Cane extends the reach of infants with MVI/B in many meaningful ways. References 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- 291. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X231188728. Ambrose-Zaken. (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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X221121824 Ambrose-Zaken, G. V., FallahRad, M., Bernstein, H., Wall Emerson, R., & Bikson, M. (2019). Wearable Cane and App System for Improving Mobility in Toddlers/Pre-schoolers With Visual Impairment. Frontiers in Education, 4. doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00044 Cutsforth, T. D. (1951). The blind in school and society; a psychological study. (New ed.). American Foundation for the Blind. Goldberg, I. (1958). Book Review: Fun Comes. First for Blind Slow-Learners. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 52(2), 65-68. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X5805200208 Hatton, D. D., Ivy, S. E., & Boyer, C. (2013). Severe visual impairments in infants and toddlers in the United States. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 107(5), 325–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X1310700502 Howe, S. (1841). The Ninth Annual Report of the trustees, of the Perkins Institution and Massachusetts Asylum for the blind 1841 from Boston: Eastburn https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=0JoyAQAAMAAJ&hl=en&pg=GBS.PA36 Huffman, M. (1957). Fun comes first for blind slow-learners. With a foreword by Samuel A. Kirk. C. C. Thomas. Penrod, W., Burgin, X., & Ambrose-Zaken, G. (2024). Study Result: Pediatric Belt Canes Improved Children with Mobility Visual Impairments Safety and Independence. The Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, submitted for publication. The New Outlook for The Blind (1963). Necrology. 57(3), 113-114.

Infants, toddlers, and preschoolers have very different walking abilities. The infant cannot walk. The toddler unsafely and unsteadily walks 3 to 6 hours a day meeting incremental milestones. The preschooler safely walks independently 6 to 8 hours a day in most environments (Adolph, et al., 2012). Parents and professionals express difficulty providing their children with mobility visual impairment or blindness (MVI/B) under the age of six with a safe and effective way to participate independently in their 6 to 8 hours of recommended daily physical activity. Parents find the challenges of helping their toddlers with MVI/B to use long canes correctly and consistently prevents them from participating safely in most activities (Ambrose-Zaken, 2023, 2022). The Pediatric Belt Cane is a 2-step safety buffer. It has a singular and very important job - to detect obstacles in the path ahead. The rest is up to you. If you want to teach your toddler with MVI/B to achieve preschool-level independence just remember that, like in the dictionary, mobility comes before orientation. First, make your child feel safe moving, then teach them to go places. When children are safely moving independently, they learn more freely, easily, and happily. Toddlers safe mobility is in the hands of their adults. Safe Toddles provides parents with a white cane solution for keeping their children with MVI/B safe. Contact us at info@safetoddles.org for more information 845-244-6600. References Adolph, K. E., Cole, W. G., Komati, M., Garciaguirre, J. S., Badaly, D., Lingeman, J. M., ... & Sotsky, R. B. (2012). How do you learn to walk? Thousands of steps and dozens of falls per day. Psychological science, 23(11), 1387-1394. 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- 291. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X231188728. Ambrose-Zaken. (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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X221121824