Library Collections: Document: Full Text

Topic No. 3

THE BLIND IN THE COMMUNITY

SURVEY BY EDWARD M. VAN CLEVE, Principal New York Institute for the Education of the Blind, New York, N.Y.

REPORT OF INVESTIGATION
MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSION FOR THE BLIND

To this investigator was assigned
Topic III -- THE BLIND IN THE COMMUNITY.
1. Field Work.
2. Home Teaching.
3. Work in Competition with the Sighted.
4. Home Work. Salesroom.
5. Local Centers.

December 6 to 9, 1916, was the period given to a personal visitation, the time being spent chiefly at the office of the Massachusetts Commission for the Blind, 3 Park Street, Boston, Mass. The opportunity was taken to visit in another city three blind persons who had come under the instruction of a home teacher.

Every sub-topic was carefully considered. In this report I shall present only a general comment, without attempt to review the work often years exhaustively; criticism, if any is worth noting; and a finding.

1. Field Work. The method of the Commission in securing information about where blind people are shows how well the forces for human betterment are organized in Massachusetts. Not only the Commission's agents, but also all organizations one can think of, help to bring to the notice of the Commission the occurrence of blindness. One is struck with the promptness of action following information. What this action may be is determined by the requirements of the case. The use of the various means of the Commission for helpfulness is admirably illustrated in the case of Mr.--, teamster, reported blind by the Massachusetts Charitable Eye and Ear Hospital, visited in his sister's home where he felt himself a burden, encouraged, given a visit in the family of another blind man wholesomely cheerful and effective, taught by home teachers to use his hands as a workman, located in a shop, now happily employed. This result, told in a sentence, required months of careful and wise management, with many visits by field agents. Not every case turns out favorably, even with patient and painstaking effort, but the impression of the investigator is that no effort is omitted to attain success.

Unfavorable criticism has been heard to the effect that field work so-called -- which included investigation of the case and bringing into action appropriate agencies for relief -- smacks too strongly of Associated Charities procedure. What such criticism really amounts to it is hard to determine, and without definition its consideration in respect to the work of the Commission is impracticable.

It seemed to this investigator that the field work is done with intelligence, sympathy, and effectiveness. The question of method is important, and some determination must soon be made whether this field work may better be done by the blind home teachers, increasing the number of these so that the addition to their duties will not withdraw them too much from their chief function of teaching, or by continuing the present method. I think the home teacher will be better able to get to the heart of most situations, but there is practically always need for using trained eyesight in making the investigation. Therefore, I should favor enlarging the function of the home teacher sufficiently to let the initial steps toward helping the blind be taken by the home teacher, and when the confidence of the subject is gained, a trained investigator should be called in by the home teacher.

2. Home Teaching has been only lately (since June, 1916) under the Commission's charge. For fifteen years this service to the blind has been rendered through the Perkins Institution, which was at the time of undertaking it the only State agency engaged in work for the blind. No more effective home teaching has been done anywhere, I believe, than in Massahusetts, due to the earnest and intelligent service of the teachers, some of whom have been in the service from 1900. Testimony to the good work of these teachers comes from all sources. In the change of status from employees of the Perkins Institution to service with the Commission, there have arisen questions of importance, some of them having to do wholly with administration or the personal equation, others with matters of principle; with the questions of length of vacation, supervision of the work, increased compensation, etc., the Commission seems to be dealing in a spirit of generosity as well as wisdom. I take up a few questions of principle: Is the field covered? No, or at most inadequately. Teachers seem to be spreading their efforts over too wide an area. More intensive work would seem possible if visits could he made to pupils more frequently, and less time spent in travel. If it be determined that to a home teacher should be assigned more social service along with teaching, then the restriction of field would be practicable, provided the number of teachers could be increased.

At this point it is proper to say that not one of the five teachers but gives more than faithful service, for every one works overtime and wholeheartedly. Already the effort had been made, before the teaching came under the Commission, while these home teachers were still part of Perkins Institution's organization, to do service to the State in ameliorating the condition of the blind, as well as service to the blind individuals by teaching them. That is, the home teachers had taken upon themselves social service, though they had, strictly speaking, no call to such work.