[blindkid] Testimony Against Putting the WashingtonStateSchoolfor the Blind Under Washington's Education Department

[Heather]

I guess that some of my bias comes from the fact that I have seen a lot of 
teens and adults, normally mentally abeled, but extremely socially stunted 
who spent their entire highschool careers at a school for the blind.  Also, 
compaired to many blind kids, apparently, I had a pretty good time of it in 
a regular school setting.  I mean, there were issues, but when I start 
talking to other parents and other blind students I do see that I had some 
things very easy.  Additionally, someone very close to me went to a terrible 
school for the blind where she was given a substandard education in some 
accademic ways, where she watched the kids who didn't go home on the 
weekends get physically and psychologically abused and where she was 
molested as a kid.  That school still exists, and still calls it's self a 
school for the blind, even though, now, all of their students are 
low-functioning, developmentally challenged individuals who just happen to 
be blind.  We are not talking like your daughter that you described, we are 
talking very low functioning.  They need to change the name of the school, 
as people see school for the blind and then these people and think that is 
what all blind people are like.  The day that particular school closes it's 
doors, I will do a lot of victory dancing.  In general, in New York State, 
the push in services in the main-stream setting are pretty darn good 
compared to other parts of the country.  Especially locally.  Perhaps, due 
to the absence of an appropriate school for the blind, the school districts 
around here have had to adapt, and have gotten the hang of it by now.  I am 
sure that in the beginning it was rough and some kids did slip through the 
cracks, but maybe, just maybe, if forced to improve, by the absence of a 
residential blind school, the school districts in washington would begin to 
improve?  Just a theory.  I really don't have any idea of how good that 
school for the blind might be or how bad the ordinary schools might be.  All 
I know is that locally, the school for the blind is a real detremment to 
blind people everywhere and the ordinary schools are doing a damn good job, 
in most cases of making sure that adaptive technology teachers, TVIs and O 
and M instructors are helping blind students to learn and grow accademically 
and socially in their main-streamed settings.  At one point at some 
convention or another, ACB, NFB, I have no idea, maybe neither of those, I 
remember walking into a premotional meeting for the Carol Center, and my 
friend and I sat down and listened.  We were, um, eight or nine, and the 
lady was saying things like "We can help your teens learn basic living 
skills like preparing meals from mixes and boxes, calling taxi or 
paratransit services to schedule rides, calling stores and take-out food 
restaurants to have pizzas or groceries delivered, making beds and doing 
light cleaning.  It was at that point that my friend turned to me and said 
"Heather, I, do all of our vacuuming, and I fill the dishwasher, and I've 
been making my bed since I was six."  Says the young Heather, "Yeah, I know. 
My mom goes to work super early and I have been scheduling her liftline 
rides and checking bus schedules for her on the phone since I was seven. 
Teenagers don't know how to do this?  Mom is so busy and has volinteer 
shoppers from a local saurority and I go shopping with them and make sure 
they get everything right and even order stuff from the bakery and the 
delly."  "Is she serious cooking from mixes?  I already make things from 
mixes and I'm starting to make stuff from scratch."  "So, let's never go 
there, ok?"  "Sounds good."  She and I sort of laughed and walked out.  The 
kicker?  Her parents forced her  to go to the Carol center when she was 
older, her parents are sighted, mine are one of each, and she learned 
several skills while she was there, namely how to get in to trouble with the 
other more normal blind kids there, how to make out with unsavory boys, how 
to syber, how to do other inapropriate and sometimes illegal things with 
computers and, I really don't want to know what else.  So, hopefully you can 
see why I have such a hard time thinking of blind schools with anything but 
loathing.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Freeman" <k7uij at panix.com>
To: "NFBnet Blind Kid Mailing List,(for parents of blind children)" 
<blindkid at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 12:21 AM
Subject: Re: [blindkid] Testimony Against Putting the 
WashingtonStateSchoolfor the Blind Under Washington's Education Department


> Heather:
>
> There are at least four good reasons for sending some kids to a 
> residential school: money, money, money and money! The local districts 
> would rather pay for football teams (yes, some special ed dollars have 
> gone into this and there's no way to stop it easily).
>
> As forstandards, if the kids' IEP calls for them to meet the academic 
> standards, they do. But for some kids (such as my daughter) who are 
> developmentally delayed or have learning disabilities that require a 
> different IEP, the IEP governs expectations. But for academic kids, they 
> absolutely must meet the same academic standards as anyone else.
>
> But even this gets complicated because some of the standard tests are 
> drawn up in such a way that it requires vision to answer the questions. WE 
> are slowly making progress in changing this but it's only been with the 
> election of the current Superintendent of Public Instruction (who is 
> actually a good guy) that we (and the school which is right with us) have 
> been able to get stable special ed personnel in place whom we can educate 
> on the issue and put pressure on the testing authorities to eliminate 
> visual bias from the tests. And I don't mean that one shouldn't expect the 
> blind to know about sight; one should. But the tests were actually drawn 
> in such a way that the blind couldn't answer the question.
>
> And the residential students go home on the weekends. And, in general, 
> almost all the students only spend a year or two in the School for the 
> Blind, boning up on their blindness skills and then they are placed back 
> in their local districts with appropriate support.
>
> Mike
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Heather" <craney07 at rochester.rr.com>
> To: "NFBnet Blind Kid Mailing List,(for parents of blind children)" 
> <blindkid at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 8:27 AM
> Subject: Re: [blindkid] Testimony Against Putting the Washington 
> StateSchoolfor the Blind Under Washington's Education Department
>
>
>> Ok, I preface all of this with the fact that I am not a business or 
>> acounting major and with the fact that I have some questions, but, I 
>> don't believe in schools for the blind.  Now, outreach services are 
>> another thing entirely, but I believe that sending children and teens to 
>> a school for the blind full time, instead of to ordinary schools is 
>> socially stunting, even socially retarding, and highly detremental.  One 
>> question that I have, because I freely admit that I don't know a lot 
>> about the state education system in Washington State or about this 
>> particular school for the blind, is, are the students at this school for 
>> the blind being held to state standards, taking standardized state tests, 
>> the SATs the ACTs, having AP and Honors courses offered and being 
>> mandated to uphold the state wide teaching standards for course content, 
>> etc?  That makes a lot of difference in my opinions.  Now, while I don't 
>> agree with solely educating blind children at such schools, I would hate 
>> to see some of the outreach services be negatively effected by the 
>> preposed changes.  Another question, aside from potential finantial 
>> difficulties, would this change over of management result in a higher 
>> level of acountability for the actual accademic achievement of the blind 
>> children attending the school? I personally, see no reason for blind 
>> children, with out other compounding disabilities to attend such a 
>> school, but the parents should have the right to such an option, if they 
>> feel that this is best for their children, and so, I wouldn't want to see 
>> this school close.  I am just wondering how the change-over, if it was to 
>> be passed, would effect the ciriculum and accademic expectations and 
>> implementation at the school?  I am not critisizing, I am just looking 
>> for more information.  I want to stay well informed on such issues as the 
>> blind parent of a blind child and as a student of education.  Thanks so 
>> much for making us all aware of this.
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Mike Freeman" <k7uij at panix.com>
>> To: "NFBnet Blind Kid Mailing List,(for parents of blind children)" 
>> <blindkid at nfbnet.org>; "NFB of Oregon mailing list" <nfb-or at nfbnet.org>; 
>> <nfb-idaho at nfbnet.org>
>> Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 12:39 AM
>> Subject: [blindkid] Testimony Against Putting the Washington State 
>> Schoolfor the Blind Under Washington's Education Department
>>
>>
>>> Hello, all.
>>>
>>> In the current session of the Washington state legislature, a bill, 
>>> SB-6491, has been introduced which would place the Washington State 
>>> School for the Blind (WSSB) and the Washington State School for the Deaf 
>>> (WSSD) under the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, 
>>> Washington's education department. (In Washington, there is local 
>>> control of schools but the Office of the Superintendent of Public 
>>> Instruction passes through some Federal education funds to local 
>>> districts and has some overall function coordinating educational efforts 
>>> for K-12 education in the state).
>>>
>>> Currently, WSSB and WSSD are separate, independent state agencies whose 
>>> superintendents and boards of trustees are appointed by the Governor 
>>> with the advice and consent of the state Senate. Hence, the schools can 
>>> run their programs with maximum efficiency and program innovation and 
>>> accountability to organizations such as the NFB of Washington and 
>>> minimum bureaucracy. Hence, we oppose the bills to put the schools under 
>>> the education department.
>>>
>>> My testimony follows.
>>>
>>> Mike Freeman, president
>>> NFB of Washington
>>>
>>> *************************
>>>
>>> Testimony Opposing SB-6491
>>>
>>> Before the Senate Committee on Early Learning and K-12 Education
>>>
>>> By Michael Freeman, President
>>>
>>> National Federation of the Blind of Washington
>>>
>>> January 20, 2010
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Senator McAuliffe, Senator Kauffman, Senator Oemig, Senator King and 
>>> Members of the Committee:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I am Michael Freeman, a member of the Board of Directors of the National 
>>> Federation of the Blind and President of the National Federation of the 
>>> Blind of Washington, one of the two major organizations of the blind in 
>>> the state. The National Federation of the Blind of Washington is an 
>>> affiliate of the National Federation of the Blind. My home address is 
>>> 3101 NE 87th Avenue, Vancouver, WA 98662. I thank you for the 
>>> opportunity to appear before you today.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The National Federation of the Blind of Washington strongly opposes 
>>> SB-6491 which would place the Washington State School for the Blind 
>>> (WSSB) under the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction 
>>> (OSPI), thus ending the status of the school as an independent state 
>>> agency. This legislation will not increase efficiency or reduce costs 
>>> within state government, will detrimentally affect education of blind 
>>> children in Washington and will disenfranchise parents of blind 
>>> children, blind consumers and the state legislature.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The October, 1996 issue of the Braille Monitor, the monthly magazine of 
>>> the National Federation of the Blind, carried profiles of four schools 
>>> for the blind whose programs were considered outstanding by educators of 
>>> the blind around the United States. They were the Texas School for the 
>>> Blind, the Indiana School for the Blind, the Washington School for the 
>>> Blind and the Kentucky School for the Blind. These outstanding schools 
>>> had one thing in common: they were independent state agencies. This gave 
>>> them the freedom to design innovative educational and blindness skills 
>>> programs and to hire and allocate staff as needed to provide outstanding 
>>> yet efficient service. The Texas, Indiana and Washington schools for the 
>>> blind are still viewed by the blind as the best schools for the blind in 
>>> the country. They are still independent state agencies. While the 
>>> Kentucky School for the Blind is still good, its programs are not as 
>>> good as they once were. It is significant that this school is no longer 
>>> an independent state agency.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It is true that if one merely looks at an organization chart, it would 
>>> seem that placing the School for the Blind under OSPI (which could be 
>>> considered a "good fit" for its functions) makes sense. However, actual 
>>> experience should trump theory. The School for the Blind has actual 
>>> experience using consolidated business and other services for at one 
>>> time these were consolidated with those of the School for the Deaf. When 
>>> the School for the Blind "deconsolidated" these services, acquiring its 
>>> own business staff, costs went down! There was less bureaucracy and the 
>>> business staff could concentrate on using budget dollars to best 
>>> advantage. Yet when asked how SB-6491 would increase state government 
>>> efficiency and reduce costs, members of Governor Gregoire's staff could 
>>> only say vaguely that this streamlining might possibly facilitate 
>>> finding more blind students in local districts and that there might be 
>>> efficiencies using common business and accounting staff. When pressed, 
>>> however, they admitted that no immediate cost savings would result from 
>>> the legislation. Furthermore, it should be noted that the School for the 
>>> Blind already has the best database of blind and visually impaired 
>>> students in the state. It is hard for the National Federation of the 
>>> Blind of Washington to see how placing the School for the Blind under 
>>> OSPI would improve the situation.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A recent study (commissioned as a result of a previous incarnation of 
>>> legislative scrutiny of this issue) found that, next to schools operated 
>>> by private nonprofit entities, the most efficient arrangement for 
>>> schools for the blind was as independent state agencies. We can supply 
>>> copies of this study upon request.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It is obvious to us that SB-6491 was drafted in haste. It strives 
>>> valiantly to retain the administrative structure and budget procedures 
>>> of the School for the Blind while placing it under OSPI. However, as 
>>> Abraham Lincoln said after delivering the Gettysburg Address: "It won't 
>>> scour!"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Consider the process of determining the School for the Blind's budget. 
>>> At present, the school drafts both an operational and capital budget for 
>>> consideration by the legislature just as other state agencies do. But if 
>>> the school is placed under OSPI, the mechanics of this process are, at 
>>> best, unclear, if not muddled. OSPI is not set up to handle 
>>> administration or financing of agencies such as the School for the 
>>> Blind. Under this legislation, what would be the process for approving 
>>> the operations budget? And how would ongoing capital expenditures to 
>>> maintain and improve campus facilities be handled? Presumably, the 
>>> "Assistant Superintendent" in charge of the School for the Blind would 
>>> draft these budgets but would they then become part of OSPI's budget, 
>>> presumably subject to approval by the Superintendent of Public 
>>> Instruction? And what would be the appeals process were parents of blind 
>>> children or blind consumers dissatisfied with the budgetary allocation 
>>> to the School for the Blind by OSPI? It is difficult for us to see how 
>>> the amended process fosters increased accountability of the School for 
>>> the Blind to its constituents.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Before continuing, let me hasten to say that this testimony should not 
>>> be viewed as criticizing the Office of the Superintendent of Public 
>>> Instruction. It is only that the number of blind students is so small 
>>> compared to the total number of students (the School for the Blind has 
>>> records of some fourteen hundred blind and visually impaired students in 
>>> Washington) that it is all-too-easy for their needs to get lost in the 
>>> continuing struggle to educate all of Washington's students. It is the 
>>> experience of affiliates of the national Federation of the Blind around 
>>> the country that when schools for the blind are part of departments of 
>>> education or, for that matter, other agencies such as state departments 
>>> of human services, the needs of those receiving services from the 
>>> schools are all-too-often forgotten and even upkeep of the physical 
>>> plant and buildings is given a low priority until the neglect catches up 
>>> with state governments and schools for the blind are either abolished or 
>>> absorbed by entities not primarily dealing with blindness. The case of 
>>> the Oregon School for the Blind is emblematic of this process. While I 
>>> am sure that the Superintendent of Public Instruction would do his best 
>>> to guard against such neglect, it is hard to fight the tendency to 
>>> marginalize education of the blind when blindness services are provided 
>>> as part of conglomerate agencies.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Consider the process of vetting members of the Board of Trustees and the 
>>> Superintendent of the School for the Blind. Current law provides that 
>>> each voting member of the Board of Trustees is appointed by the Governor 
>>> with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Superintendent of the 
>>> School for the Blind is also subject to this process. Under SB-6491, the 
>>> Superintendent of Public Instruction would appoint members of the School 
>>> for the Blind's Board of Trustees and the "Assistant Superintendent" in 
>>> charge of the School for the blind without legislative oversight or 
>>> public hearings. In other words, these would be administrative 
>>> appointments with little or no opportunity for legislators, parents of 
>>> blind children, blind consumers or the general citizenry of Washington 
>>> to have meaningful input. Surely this is not the sort of accountability 
>>> Governor Gregoire and state government say they wish to encourage!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Moreover, when contemplating introduction of this legislation, neither 
>>> parents of blind children (either of those attending the School for the 
>>> Blind or of those benefiting from its services) nor blind consumers 
>>> (either members of the National Federation of the Blind of Washington or 
>>> the Washington Council of the Blind) were consulted. We only heard of 
>>> this legislation a few weeks ago when it was presented to us as a fait 
>>> accomplis: the train was a-comin' and we'd best jump on board or get 
>>> crushed! Whatever else might be said, this is not accountability of 
>>> government to its citizenry! We, the blind of Washington, are angered 
>>> and offended at this cavalier treatment. We care very deeply about the 
>>> education of blind students. We know what works and what does not work 
>>> for we've been there! We want to help to make the School for the Blind 
>>> as good as it can be while increasing its efficiency. We cannot help if 
>>> we are not consulted.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The Washington State School for the Blind is outstanding! Parents of 
>>> blind children from other states move to Washington so their children 
>>> can attend the school. The school serves blind children throughout the 
>>> state, both in on-campus intensive learning programs and in their local 
>>> school districts through the Outreach Program and the Washington 
>>> Instructional Resource Center. In conjunction with the Braille Access 
>>> Center (operated in partnership with the State Printing Office and the 
>>> Department of Corrections), textbooks are provided in Braille and 
>>> large-print to blind students throughout the state and Braille is 
>>> generated for blind citizens on a fee-for-service basis, resulting in a 
>>> cost savings for the state. The School for the Blind provides adaptive 
>>> technology to blind students throughout the state, also resulting in 
>>> cost savings. Some eighty percent of school graduates over the last few 
>>> years are employed, tax-paying Washingtonians or are in college or 
>>> vocational training to become so. I could go on but this is enough to 
>>> indicate that the School for the Blind is a vibrant, efficient 
>>> institution. It does not need reorganization; it isn't broken; there is 
>>> no need to fix it. Please do not approve SB-6491.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I again thank you for the opportunity to speak before you.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> blindkid mailing list
>>> blindkid at nfbnet.org
>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindkid_nfbnet.org
>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
>>> blindkid:
>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindkid_nfbnet.org/craney07%40rochester.rr.com
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> blindkid mailing list
>> blindkid at nfbnet.org
>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindkid_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
>> blindkid:
>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindkid_nfbnet.org/k7uij%40panix.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> blindkid mailing list
> blindkid at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindkid_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> blindkid:
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindkid_nfbnet.org/craney07%40rochester.rr.com