The caseloads for TVIs are large and overwhelming. I have been a TVI for 40+ years so completely understand that. I think the danger in deciding the student with CVI deserves less direct and consult service than the student learning Braille is the problematic thing for me. It gives the feeling that the children with CVI are not really visually impaired. You know, of course, that is not true. That type of thinking is driving some states to mandate service to Braille students while writing policy to only serve student with CVI monthly and only in a consult model.
This shows a great lack of understanding of CVI as a visual impairment. It ignores all the building evidence of visual improvement due to visual neuroplasticity. We should be making service decisions based on children’s functional vision and based of children’s assessed need.
Dangerous stuff when we start separating students needs based on the location of the condition location: eye or brain. It limits the professional determination for direct and consult service based on assessed functional, individual needs. We do not determine service based on the fact that the child has an ocular or cortical/cerebral diagnosis. Not now, not ever and certainly not when the population numbers of students with CVI continues to explode.