[blindkid] To Sign or not To Sign

Mon Feb 25 23:21:21 UTC 2013

Arielle,

I wrote to the village clerk in my town. When I get an answer of just how
complicated getting a universal child at play sign is, I will let you know. 

I am assuming that people's motivation to ask for a blind child in area sign
had to do with the complications or impossibility of getting an all
inclusive children at play sign 

-----Original Message-----
From: blindkid [mailto:blindkid-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Arielle
Silverman
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 6:09 PM
To: Blind Kid Mailing List, (for parents of blind children)
Subject: Re: [blindkid] To Sign or not To Sign

I agree with Albert that advocating for all-inclusive "child at play"
signs is an appropriate option for concerned parents that allows them to
seek an extra measure of protection without implying anything offensive
about blindness.
Arielle

On 2/25/13, Albert J Rizzi <albert at myblindspot.org> wrote:
> Peter,
>
> The can is open, it has been opened to air out the stink from ignoring 
> things and concerns that some people have.
>
> In your particular example you stated that no one in the community 
> asked for such signage to be put up. in the discussions going on here, 
> some people are inclined to want to see a pedestrian sign alerting 
> drivers to be extra cautious as they travel through a neighborhood.
>
> So, if the can is better left undisturbed, then practice what you preach.
> Again, we can just agree to disagree. To intimate that we should 
> abdicate to your feelings on this matter and leave the can alone, is a 
> little insulting in my opinion.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blindkid [mailto:blindkid-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Peter 
> Donahue
> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 5:45 PM
> To: Blind Kid Mailing List, (for parents of blind children)
> Subject: Re: [blindkid] To Sign or not To Sign
>
> Good afternoon again everyone,
>
>     There have been a few instances where cities installed "Blind 
> Child" or
>
> "Blind Pedestrian Crossing" signs when they weren't wanted or desired. 
> The Colorado Center for the Blind is one such case. It took the CCB 
> lodging a protest against the city in which it was located at the time 
> to get the signs removed. It's a classic case of having an 
> "Accommodation" shoved down
>
> your throat when it wasn't requested. . As said previously this is a 
> can of
>
> worms best left sealed.
>
>
> Peter Donahue
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rene Harrell" <rjharrell at gmail.com>
> To: "Blind Kid Mailing List,(for parents of blind children)"
> <blindkid at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 2:59 PM
> Subject: Re: [blindkid] To Sign or not To Sign
>
>
> Out town tried to give us a "blind child" sign, and there are several 
> signs around areas that I frequently drive that caution about a deaf 
> child, one about a wheelchair user.
>
> Honestly, I think that amount of information is distractingly 
> specific. How am I goings know how to spot if the kid on the sidewalk is
the deaf one?
> And should I be any less cautious about passing a young child on the 
> road if I know he is not deaf? How can I figure out which one might have
autism?
> I can for sure tell a wheelchair user, but if I am so busy looking out 
> for the person in the wheel chair...who am I in danger of ignoring in 
> my quest to search for the obviously disabled one? And what if I never 
> see the wheelchair user? (In my 18 months ere, I ever have)....has he 
> moved? Has she stopped going out side? Does tat mean I can ignore the sign
now?
>
> I do agree that signs can be helpful reminders to simply be more aware 
> of our surroundings, I just disagree that all the extra information is 
> at all relevant to the perfect strangers speeding by for the 1.2 
> seconds they are going to process the information on the sign.
>
> If you have kids, sighted, blind, deaf, hearing, autistic, neuro 
> typical, running or wheeling themselves outside and you would like to 
> issue a gentle reminder to the driving universe, I think a "children 
> at play" sign is more than enough information to elicit the type of 
> behavioral response you are hoping for and it is general enough that 
> people can easily reinforce the message by seeing ANY child, not try and
pick a needle out of a haystack.
>
> Rene---- mom to six wonder kids, including Miss Clare age 11, (ROP) 
> and Seraphina 8 months (ONH)
>
> On Monday, February 25, 2013, Carrie Gilmer wrote:
>
>> Well stated Heather. I agree on every point, and except for being a 
>> sighted person myself, my experiences and those of others I know 
>> match perfectly. carrie
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Feb 25, 2013, at 1:57 AM, "Heather Field" 
>> <missheather at comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hello Richard,
>> > Firstly, only ONE person suggested the extreme idea of bringing a
>> resolution on the signing matter before the convention. The 
>> Resolutions Committee decides which resolutions get brought to the 
>> floor and my guess is that such a resolution would never see the 
>> light. this is because the signing issue comes up so rarely. So, no 
>> need to defend your rights regarding your blind child. We know your 
>> rights as a parent and many of us on this list are out in the 
>> trenches fighting for them daily.
>> >
>> > While such a sign does make parents feel better--whatever the 
>> > stated
>> disability of the child--there really have not been lots of studies 
>> to determine effectiveness. While you feel, naturally, that you wish 
>> to do everything you can to protect your child, the actual question 
>> here is not whether you have a right to do so because, we know you 
>> do. The real question is, does posting a sign announcing that a blind 
>> child is at play achieve your goal of affording your blind child more
protection/safety.
>> Let
>> me share what I've learnt on this subject in an effort to attempt to 
>> reach some practical conclusions.
>> >
>> > Over the years, I have had discussions with a number of parents of 
>> > blind
>> children and adult blind people whose parents posted such signs. The 
>> general consensus from these folks was that these signs did not make 
>> a difference in the behaviour of drivers and, therefore, the safety 
>> of blind children. Here's the reason we all agreed/thought explained 
>> why. Drivers did slow down on the first few passings of the sign and 
>> looked for the "blind child" referred to by the sign. However, 
>> because of the time they passed, or any number of other variables, 
>> they did not see the child or, did not recognise the blind child 
>> among those children currently playing.
>> Thus, the original shock value of the sign wore off and the impact 
>> was not reinforced by actually sighting the child in question. So, 
>> drivers simply ceased to react to the sign; they saw it but it was 
>> like so much other visual clutter in the background. Not one parent 
>> with whom I have spoken, spread out over the years of my life as a 
>> blind person, has been able to assure me that they saw a marked, 
>> long-term difference in the way people drive. Add to this the fact 
>> that many of these signs get put up and stay up for years. The blind 
>> child in question grows up and goes off to college or moves away but 
>> the sign remains and there isn't a blind child within miles of the 
>> sign. It gets known around the locale that the sign is meaningless.
>> When the drivers who are familiar with the old sign move to new 
>> areas, it is very likely, because drivers don't like slowing down, 
>> that they dismiss similar "blind child at play" signs, particularly 
>> if they don't see the blind child.
>> >
>> > As to your point about IEPs, I actually believe that, in many 
>> > cases,
>> blind children shouldn't have any. The reason blind children, with no 
>> additional disabilities, have IEPs is because of the misconceptions 
>> about blindness that are held by the average school teacher. After 
>> years and years of sitting in on IEP meetings for blind children in 
>> regular schools, I have seen that most of what an IEP does is ensure 
>> that the blind child gets the same that the sighted child gets. Blind 
>> children just need to learn what their sighted classmates are 
>> learning and, if they need a nonvisual technique to accomplish it, 
>> the teacher of blind students or parents (and parents friends/mentors 
>> who are blind adults) should show the child how to do it. I just 
>> don't get why it all needs to be written out.
>> The IEP perpetuates, in the mind of the classroom teacher, that the 
>> blind child needs all this incredible amount of additional, special
"stuff".
>> >
>> > There are thousands of blind people, of whom I am one, who 
>> > successfully
>> attended mainstream programmes, who did not have IEPs and who went 
>> off to college or to work in their chosen profession. IEPs are 
>> considered necessary to ensure that an under informed, underfunded 
>> public school monolith doesn't under-educate blind children. However, 
>> it is possible to argue that it would be simpler to say "do whatever 
>> you have to do to ensure that this blind child can do what his same 
>> age peers can do". . There are lots of reasons, I'd be happy to chat 
>> about them when we next catch up, why IEPs for blind children are so 
>> often not the helpful documents we wish they were, and can, in the 
>> hands of some professionals, actually be a hindrance to some blind 
>> children. Sounds controversial, I know, but thousands of blind 
>> children in the developed world have IEPs that are not being 
>> followed, so no guarantees.
>> > I know I've strayed from the topic of signs but it's somewhat 
>> > related in
>> that, while signs make perfect sense to you, as do IEPs, there are 
>> reasons why both do not achieve what you want them to >
>>
>
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindkid_nfbnet.org/carrie.gilmer%40gmail.
> com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> blindkid mailing list
>> blindkid at nfbnet.org <javascript:;>
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindkid_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>> blindkid:
>>
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindkid_nfbnet.org/rjharrell%40gmai
> l.com
>>
>
>
> --
> " I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended 
> up where I needed to be."
> -- Douglas Adams
> _______________________________________________
> blindkid mailing list
> blindkid at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindkid_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> blindkid:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindkid_nfbnet.org/pdonahue2%40satx
> .rr.co
> m
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> blindkid mailing list
> blindkid at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindkid_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> blindkid:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindkid_nfbnet.org/albert%40myblind
> spot.o
> rg
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2639/6119 - Release Date: 
> 02/20/13
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2641/6128 - Release Date: 
> 02/24/13
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> blindkid mailing list
> blindkid at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindkid_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> blindkid:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindkid_nfbnet.org/arielle71%40gmai
> l.com
>

_______________________________________________
blindkid mailing list
blindkid at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindkid_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
blindkid:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindkid_nfbnet.org/albert%40myblindspot.o
rg

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2639/6119 - Release Date: 02/20/13

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2641/6128 - Release Date: 02/24/13