The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and the Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Education Act of 2004 stress the importance of giving every child access to the general education curriculum. The Reading First program, under the No Child Left Behind Act, aimed to establish evidence-based literacy instruction for all students in kindergarten through the third grade (U.S. Department of Education , 2007). Despite this aim, data from the federal quota registration that are collected annually by the American Printing House for the Blind (APH) revealed that 36% of all school-aged students who are legally blind were categorized as nonreaders (APH, 2005).Nonreaders are defined as "students [who] show no reading potential; students who do not fall into any of the above categories [visual readers, braille readers, auditory readers, and prereaders]" (APH, 2007, Reading Media section). This definition starkly implies that nonreaders lack access to literacy instruction, especially considering that the prereader category is defined to include "students [who are] working on or toward a readiness level" (APH, 2007, Reading Media section).The quota-registration data do not clearly indicate how many nonreaders have multiple disabilities; however, the literature in the field of visual impairment links the presence of additional disabilities to the illiteracy rates of students who are blind or have low vision (Mullen, 1990;Spungin, 1990;Wittenstein &

The purpose of the study reported here was to identify the needs of educators in the field of visual impairment who work with students from diverse backgrounds. The 204 participants reported areas of need, including culturally responsive teaching and practicum opportunities. Additional findings, recommendations, limitations, and suggestions for future research are provided.

This study investigated the effectiveness of training workshops in braille literacy for teachers of students who are visually impaired and have additional disabilities. Participants in the training workshops in the Individualized Meaning-Centered Approach indicated general satisfaction with the training. Most reported using the approach with students in their caseloads and overwhelmingly reported positive outcomes for students.

expanded core curriculum is difficult to com plete within 12 years of education (Hatlen, 1996). With the vast amount of information that needs to be learned, the expanded core curriculum warrants a more official place in the educational experience of students who are visually impaired. Heumann, J., & Hehir, T. (1995). Policy guid ance on educating blind and visually im paired students. Washington, DC: Offi ce of Special Education and Rehabilitation Ser vices, U.S. Department of Education S.1248-To reauthorize the individuals with disabilities education act, and for other pur poses, 108th Congress, 1st session. (2003). Retrieved January 12th, 2006, from http:// frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc. cgi?dbname=108_cong_bills&docid=f: s1248is.txt.pdf Willoughby, D., & Duffy, S. (1989). Hand book for itinerant and resource teachers of blind and visually impaired students. Baltimore, MD: National Federation of the Blind.