[blindkid] Signs

Heather Field missheather at comcast.net
Thu Feb 28 02:55:29 UTC 2013


Hello everyone,

I've combined my thoughts, reactions, comments etc. on what has been said in 
several emails. If you don't like long emails, just go ahead and delete, 
because, as per usual, it's a bit long.

I would like to respond to the call for supporting research that was posed 
to Peter.  I expect that there is no research available supporting his 
contention that "blind child at play" signs attract bullies and can result 
in blind children being bullied. However, it is disingenuous for people to 
request that people back up their opinions with hard data, research studies 
because of the simple fact that so little research on any blindness related 
issues has been done. As blindness is a low incidence disability in the 
child population, this lack of research on such a topic is what we would 
expect, because there is so little research on just about every important 
issue surrounding the lives, capacities or experiences of blind 
people--children or adults. So, in the light of the general lack of research 
on the experiences of the blind in general, Peter's claims are not 
invalidated by his inability to cite research. To be candid, I always regard 
the "where is your hard data research" as a straw man argument when it is 
raised because, the reality is, that there is hardly any research on 
blindness issues and, even where a study or two exists, results are obtained 
from such a small sample that they really cannot be generalised anyway.

However, this is not to say that nothing is accurately known about the 
experiences of the blind in general. One of the tremendous advantages of 
being a participant on an NFB email listserv is that, in the lack of hard 
data research on issues related to the experiences of blind children and 
adults, one has access to the wealth of anecdotal data that blind people on 
the list can share when particular topics come up. Peter was sharing his 
personal experience and, it is valid and should be taken into account. 
Having grown up blind, and having been involved, personally and 
professionally, with blind children all my life, I support Peter's assertion 
that such signs "may" raise the likelihood of bullying of blind children. I 
would dare to assert that it is a rare blind child who makes it to age 
eighteen without having been bullied and teased mercilessly on numerous 
occasions. For all sorts of reasons, many blind children never tell their 
parents about such incidents or they don't tell the whole story. For those 
of us who have experienced this, emotions rise up when we hear that someone 
is contemplating drawing unnecessary attention to a blind child because we 
know, from bitter experience, that such attention is almost never positive, 
and is one more thing we have to overcome in our attempts to find acceptance 
in a sighted world.

Obviously, the crux of the discussion on whether to post "blind children at 
play" signs has centered around whether they are necessary. The degree of 
perceived "necessariness" is deemed to outweigh the perceived negative 
consequences; and some lengths have been gone to to establish the reasons 
for why such signs might be deemed necessary by some parents, of some blind 
children, in some situations. My analysis of the responses of the blind 
adults who have grown up blind, and the parents of grown up children, is 
that they are saying that such signs are not necessary enough to outweigh 
their negative impact. Please don't take my next comment in the wrong way, 
because nobody believes in the role of parents of blind children more than 
me, and I spend the greater part of my spare time working with them to 
ensure the outcomes they want for their blind children. But, it is 
significant that those supporting the idea of such signs possibly being 
"necessary" enough to outweigh any perceived negative effects, are people 
who have grown up sighted and who believe that, even if the protection such 
signs might afford is minimal, then it is better to have that bit of 
protection. It is worth noting that the reasons given for needing such 
protection, as far as I can ascertain, have all been hypothetical (except 
for the quiet cars issue). As Steve explained in his post about growing up 
as a blind child, the proposed situations that would make such signs 
necessary, are simply not applicable to our childhood experiences as blind 
children. Nor do they exemplify the present-day experiences that blind 
parents and blind teachers allow the blind children in their care.  As with 
sighted children, we don't give them the freedom to get themselves seriously 
injured or killed until we consider them developmentally mature enough to 
deal with the level of responsibility we give them and avoid such outcomes.

Now, please don't think for a moment that I am arguing that parents don't 
have a right to do what they consider is best for their child; it would be 
preposterous to claim that I, who work so hard to ensure parents can 
exercise their parenting rights, am saying that parents can't get "blind 
children at play" signs posted if they want them. However, I am stating 
unequivocally that we, the blind, believe that we are the experts on 
blindness issues. The NFB, through its amalgamation of anecdotal data from 
hundreds of thousands of experiences of blind children and adults, its 
analysis of this data for trends, implications and needs, and its 
implementation of policies based on the unique collection and processing of 
this anecdotal data, is the organisation which can expertly speak on 
blindness related issues. And, as we have all witnessed, as experts in our 
field we do speak out. No sighted person can know what it was like to grow 
up as a blind child; they cannot know the secret thoughts and feelings that 
blind children wrestle with, sometimes not even admitting to themselves. 
Many children cannot articulate these thoughts and feelings now, nor would 
they tell you if they could because the relationship is complicated with 
considerations such as pleasing parents, easing parents apparent guilt or 
distress, not wishing to cause trouble and on and on. But we who have been 
blind children, we do know what its like and we remember! We share when we 
believe it might help parents and their blind children. Parents, and other 
sighted friends, don't have to like what we say or even agree with it. 
However, I'm sure they can appreciate why we do not give their opinions on 
blindness issues as much credence as our own. I am personal friends with 
many parents of blind children and we often have lively discussions and 
frequently disagree. I have no problem with this. I always believe that 
parents know their children best as precious little people, unique and 
individual. But, I will always consider that I am better at understanding 
the blindness issues in their children's lives because I am blind. I grew up 
blind, fighting the subtle "protections" that people wanted to constantly 
put in place for me. I live blind and I am still fighting the "protections" 
that well-meaning sighted folks try to impose on me. I live with the sighted 
people's take on my blind world and life daily. My family and my dearest 
friends in all the world "think" they know. But, to know "about" something 
is not to know it. Try describing taking a bath to a child from the desert 
who has never seen water used for anything but cooking and drinking. Ask the 
burn victim if his experience of 90% burns to his body was anything like 
he'd ever imagined. So, from our perspective, we believe, on the basis of 
our experience, which includes anecdotal research on the effectiveness of 
such signs, as well as personal experience of their effect, that our view of 
them is correct. And, we will vociferously disagree with you regarding their 
necessity or positive value. But, we will forever respect your right to 
disagree, and parent your blind child as you choose.

Finally, I am not saying that sighted people can't have good ideas about 
blindness issues. But, I will say that only a very small number of the ideas 
proposed by the sighted, for the betterment of the lives of the blind, ever 
pass the real-world, reality check to which such ideas are subjected by the 
blind.
Warmest regards,
Heather


l Message----- 
From: Albert J Rizzi
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 3:30 PM
To: 'Blind Kid Mailing List,(for parents of blind children)'
Subject: Re: [blindkid] Signs for Susan

Steve,

I agree this is a forum for sharing ideas and learning from them. but some
seem to take a condemning approach, and a judgmental approach, that is not
necessary.

I am comfortable agreeing to disagree, but that does not seem to be returned
in kind.

Peace.

-----Original Message-----
From: blindkid [mailto:blindkid-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Steve
Jacobson
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 10:25 AM
To: Blind Kid Mailing List, (for parents of blind children)
Subject: Re: [blindkid] Signs for Susan

Albert,

The problem here is that what you are saying in this note is a very good
argument for general kids at play signs.  Why should the
blind child be singled out so all kids can be safer?  At some point, we
probably do all need to agree to disagree to some extent,
but the purpose of lists like this and discussions like this is to change
minds and truly explore the logic of situations.
Sometimes that can be a little painful.

Best regards,

Steve

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 23:01:55 -0500, Albert J Rizzi wrote:

>Peter,

>Give it a shot. Still not going to stop parents wanting to take any and all
>steps to protect and ensure the well being of their children.

>You just can't agree to disagree can you?

>One thing came to mind as one of the posts discussed how a driver would not
>be able to tell a blind child from a sighted child. And for all practical
>purposes that is completely true.

>The individual then said the drivers would be wondering which one of the
>kids was blind. in that case, the blind kid is no different than the
sighted
>kid in those instances, and all the kids would be safer because a sign
>informed that there was reason to do so. The fact that a blind child looks
>just like any other kid to the casual observer, the blind kids then become
>that driving force that brings awareness to a need for a driver to slow
>down, because you could never know which kid is or is not blind, thereby
>requiring all drivers to look at all the kids as the same. no stigma as I
>see it, just a lot of kids, and one is blind, and without ever knowing who
>that blind kid is, the driver  by default treats all the kids the same and
>drives in a safer manner then he would had if a sign had not been present.
>the need to be concerned about pedestrians with a different way of seeing
>things is a socially conscious thing we should be aware of.


>Again, just agree to disagree.

>I still contend that to not accept the differences we all bring to the
table
>is not empowering at all. blind is blind and sighted is sighted. Now, I
have
>never seen more clearly then I have as a blind person, but that does not
>mean, without Braille, or assistive tools and such, including a cane or a
>guide dog, that I would be  less of a person for having to use them. But
the
>blind are different, we do things differently than the sighted do then, and
>heck we even do them differently from one blind person to the next.

>Seems like if the federationists  do not find a value or purpose in choices
>that some prefer to make, then we are not good members of the blind
>community.

>Why don't we focus on more critical matters that will destroy our
children's
>self esteem, like text books in alternate formats, that are immediately
>available at each school year. Why not get schools to stop taking a Childs
>cane away for fear that the cane would be used  as a weapon or that the
>child could hurt themselves. Why not get schools to offer assistive
>technologies, in every school in the nation, so that a blind child does not
>have to rely on an aid to take their notes and such.

>I am sure that many parents on this list are raising very capable, adept,
>independent and powerful children full of self esteem. But not all schools
>are like that.

>Wouldn't it be a better way to spend your energy peter, if you passed a
>resolution that would require that all schools across America offered the
>least restrictive environment for a blind student, and not lower their
>independence  and self esteem by getting them an aid to do their work.
> The technologies are there to allow any student, blind or not  to be as
>independent as they themselves are able. Wouldn't it be a better use of
time
>to pass a resolution to have the blind student, and only a student that has
>nothing more than blindness, to not be considered special ed? They are not
>special needs if we follow the logic of the sign discussion we have going
on
>here. they are cognitively adept, and yet they have ieps and are looked as
>special needs. The are just blind, and I for one would like to see a
>resolution requiring that schools not treat a child with a simple diagnosis
>of blindness as a special needs child.

>Teachers need to t3each to the students ability and use all the tools they
>have with the goal of the student thriving as an independent free thinking
>participatory person in the classroom, and the entire school.

>So much more needs to be done with those resolutions you speak of to make
>websites and intranets as well as school networks accessible and usable to
>the blind. there is much more that a resolution might do for ensuring
>independence and building self esteem for all blind people of all ages, if
>it were resolved that all aspects of section 508 of the rehab act were
>enforced. Federally funded agencies, must be accessible according to my
>interpretation of the 508 regulations. Yet, many, many schools are not
blind
>friendly from a technology perspective. Our county websites, and our town
>websites are not user friendly to jaws or window eyes. As citizens we are
>guaranteed the right to access the information about our politicians and to
>apply for county jobs, but we cannot as seamlessly as our sighted peers.
>Print disabled parents, and their print disabled children are not able to
>access the internet and the website for their schools, which is the major
>2way schools disseminate information these days. that could use a
>resolution.

>But working on a resolution to limit a parents right to sign or not to sign
>is not a fight that will open the doors to the internet for our children,
it
>will not open the doors of employment and it will not open the political
>doors unless and until we acknowledge that the blind are different, not
less
>then, different, not incapable, just different, and as such we need
>different tools and options so we can assimilate and live in a world that
is
>full of people who are the majority and that majority has sight.

>The sighted community has many signs we use, and this sign discussion is
one
>I feel, while heated, is best left on a case by case basis. No resolution
>passed by the ffederationists  will curtail anything a parent chooses  to
>do, that in their opinion, serves to protect and ensure that their child or
>children grow up to be confident young men and young women full of self
>esteem, because they did not get hit by a driver of a car, who was not able
>to take in enough sensory information to understand that the child they hit
>was blind or deaf or any other child who's god given difference is not a
>norm that narrow minded people see as normal.

>Normal is what we make it. what is normal for the sighted world, is no
>longer my normal in my blind life.

>Normal is what we make it, and if two normals are diametrically opposed,
>and if putting up a sign even impacts one Childs life positively, and in
>turn makes their parents lives better, and that sign possibly positively
>impact the lives of children positively as well. then what is the harm.

>Perhaps instead of a resolution banning signs, common place pedestrian
>signs, we should   work on resolutions that ensure adaptive technologies
are
>in the schools, that they are in the colleges and universities, that the
>colleges and universities  offer course work for wc3 regulations, section
>508 regulations, and computer courses that teach programmers how to make
the
>virtual world open and accessible to the blind, and then take that next
step
>to ensure that corporate America also makes their work environments user
>friendly to the print disabled, allowing our blind children and our print
>disabled children to work gainfully, which I assure you would be one huge
>roller coaster of self esteem that would take them through the rest of
their
>lives.

>Resolve to make work environments better, virtual public forums accessible,
>resolve to make banks accessible and usable, brokerage firms should be
>accessible.

>There is so much more we could do with a resolution, then ban a parents
>right or an individual's right to choose  to put up a pedestrian sign
>letting people know that a blind person lives in the area. Peter we got
>bigger fish to fry, and I hope we can agree on that.
>.




>-----Original Message-----
>From: blindkid [mailto:blindkid-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Peter
>Donahue
>Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 9:41 PM
>To: Blind Kid Mailing List, (for parents of blind children)
>Subject: Re: [blindkid] Signs for Susan

>Good evening everyone,

>    I heard that we never could get a resolution passed concerning
>dining-in-the-dark, but one was successfully passed last summer in Dallas.
>The convention ultimately decides which resolutions are adopted and which
>will not. We have taken stands on other types of programs and behaviors
that
>stigmatize blind people and have adopted resolutions concerning many of
>them. Perhaps it's time that a position concerning the use of "Blind
>Child/Pedestrian" signs is brought to the convention for consideration. All
>the best.

>Peter Donahue


>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Arielle Silverman" <arielle71 at gmail.com>
>To: "Blind Kid Mailing List,(for parents of blind children)"
><blindkid at nfbnet.org>
>Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 7:52 PM
>Subject: Re: [blindkid] Signs for Susan


>Hi all,
>As my (hopefully) last post on this topic, I would just like to make
>the observation that all the former blind children on this list who
>chose to comment expressed opposition to putting up "blind child"
>signs as opposed to "child at play" signs. That is, all the blind
>adults on this list who have personal experience growing up blind
>oppose use of the signs. (Albert, since you said you have only been
>blind for seven years, I am assuming that you lost your sight in
>adulthood-correct me if I am wrong). I think this sentiment among
>former blind children is something worth considering if you find
>yourself grappling with this decision. We can argue about whether or
>not the signs confer benefit to a blind child or if they actually
>address risks blind children experience that sighted children do not
>experience. But we also need to keep in mind that the potential stigma
>and self-esteem threat posed by a blind-child sign is a real problem
>that former blind children have picked up on. As former blind children
>we know what it is like to be told, directly or indirectly, that
>blindness is an inferior condition of being, or to be labeled as
>different in the eyes of others. A sign is a label saying that someone
>is blind and therefore deserving of special treatment. Perhaps this is
>justified in certain situations, perhaps not, but either way it is
>stigmatizing and threatening to one's sense of positive identity. I
>know you want to keep your children safe, but I also think you want to
>raise children who are ultimately comfortable with themselves and OK
>with their blindness. I think it's important to keep both of those
>things in mind when deciding whether or not to get a sign or to do any
>number of things that call special attention to a blind child. While I
>don't personally support an NFB resolution to oppose signs and am
>confident such a resolution would not pass, I do think that former
>blind children need to be consulted when evaluating these kinds of
>accommodations. I think that is one of the great things about NOPBC.
>Similarly, I think that people in the deaf community, and especially
>those who were once deaf children, are the best ones to comment on the
>benefits and risks of "deaf child" signs. I'm glad this topic was
>brought up as, to be honest, I didn't even know such signs existed
>before we began this discussion.
>Best,
>Arielle

>On 2/26/13, Rene Harrell <rjharrell at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Richard,
>>
>> I think you did an excellent job of outlining risks and concerns. :) I
>> simply struggle with understanding how it translates in the practical
>> reality of a sign. Unless your child is carrying a cane, her disability
is
>> INVISIBLE to the drivers coming down the road. They have no way to
discern
>> if your child is the Blind one that the sign refers to, or whether or not
>> to treat every child walking down the road as if they might be the blind
>> one. All they know is that there might be a blind child in the area but
>> without a way of identifying a blind child, there is no way for them to
>> see
>> a 10 year old walking down the street and prepare themselves for the
>> chance
>> they might veer off into the road unexpectedly. As a driver then, I am
not
>> looking at your 10 year old and being any more careful about them than I
>> would for any other ten year old, even with the "Blind Child" sign.
>>
>> If your child is carrying a cane, then I don't need a Blind Child sign to
>> recognize that your child is blind and to be extra vigilant about her
>> crossing the road. Everywhere Clare goes with her cane, and when we are
>> crossing roads, when drivers see that she is carrying a cane they assume
>> the responsibility of being more aware of themselves and their driving.
>> Most of them probably have no idea that white cane laws exist. This is
how
>> we safely navigate areas with no such sign in sight.
>>
>> Same thing with "deaf child" and "autistic child" signs. When there is no
>> way to actually differentiate the child who is the reason for the sign,
>> you
>> have no way discernible way to know for whom to be vigilant *for*. The
>> sign
>> then actually provides no benefit if you can't figure out *who* it is
that
>> is requiring this caution. If I see a 10 year old walking by the "deaf
>> child sign" but he doesn't "appear" deaf to me, then I am not going to
>> presume he's deaf.
>>
>> I am not meaning to insult any one for choosing to use such a sign, and I
>> don't think any one needs to feel guilty, shamed, or browbeaten for
>> choosing to something they believe protects their child's safety,  nor
>> needs to apologize for it. That was in no way the intent of my original
>> post on this topic, and I apologize if my words came across in that
>> manner.
>> When determining this for ourselves, I ultimately concluded that people
>> may
>> not be able to identify my blind child if she were outside without her
>> cane, but people CAN readily identify children. As I happen to have six
>> young children, it is far more practical that people know to keep aware
>> for
>> little ones in general than my blind child in specific, and with her cane
>> she would require no extra explanation that she is blind. Therefore, when
>> the town wanted to put up a "BLIND CHILD" sign we declined, but my when
>> across the street neighbor told me that he shifted a couple of signs he
>> put
>> up around my next door neighbor's house back when they had four small
kids
>> so that they encompassed my house, I smiled and said "thank you". As it
>> is,
>> we live on the corner of a half-forgotten street that dead ends into an
>> even smaller and more forgotten street with only four additional houses.
>> The road is so narrow that only one car can be on it at a time and if
>> there
>> are two cars going in opposite directions, one needs to pull off in a
>> neighbor's yard for the other one to pass by. We have a couple of
>> teenagers
>> in the back who like to hot-rod their way down the road and have friends
>> who like to do the same, but they know us personally because the
>> neighborhood is incredibly small, and they keep a watchful eye for my
kids
>> in our yard. I think in reality, even the "Children at Play" sign does
>> nothing practical, but as they were already there, I saw no harm in
>> keeping
>> them.
>>
>> Rene--- mom to six amazing kids, including Miss Clare age 11 (ROP) and
>> Seraphina, 8 months (ONH)
>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Albert J Rizzi
>> <albert at myblindspot.org>wrote:
>>
>>> Amen and testify Richard. Great post.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: blindkid [mailto:blindkid-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Richard
>>> Holloway
>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 6:05 PM
>>> To: Blind Kid Mailing List, (for parents of blind children)
>>> Subject: Re: [blindkid] Signs for Susan
>>>
>>> Steve, I appreciate your question. I'm happy to discuss these matters.
>>>
>>> Purely from a driver's standpoint, I expect different reactions from
>>> different situations in a driving environment. In that specific example,
>>> certainly, if the kids were going to be playing, particularly in a
>>> location
>>> where there were limited range of vision for a driver, either sign would
>>> be
>>> appropriate and helpful. In that specific case, kids are indeed playing.
>>> If,
>>> as a driver, you're in an alert status, looking for either "kids at
>>> play",
>>> or a "blind child" you'll probably react safely, so in that case I
>>> suggest
>>> either sign might be helpful.
>>>
>>> Now, put a blind child near the street in a yard or on a sidewalk. I
>>> might
>>> actually expect ANY two-year-old to dart in any direction virtually
>>> randomly, so I would slow down, especially if I didn't see an adult
>>> holding
>>> such a child's hand. But make the child a bit older. 5 or 6 perhaps. A
>>> kid
>>> that age, I believe, would be less likely to jump out in traffic. By
that
>>> age, I more expect kids to be chasing balls without looking, but
>>> otherwise
>>> reasonably attentive. Blind kids at that age, or at least my blind
>>> daughter
>>> was probably MORE likely to bolt into the street than at a more docile
>>> age
>>> 2
>>> or 3. By 6 or 7, she was much more driven to abrupt movement, yet not at
>>> all
>>> clear about the concept of cars coming down the street.
>>>
>>> Now as a 4th grader, my daughter is perhaps slightly less likely to do
>>> something abrupt than at age 6, but still FAR more likely than her
>>> sighted
>>> peers to walk arbitrarily into the street if she looses her bearings.
>>> This
>>> sort of situation is NOT what "child at play" brings to mind.
>>>
>>> When driving, if I see a 10 or 12-year-old walking in a straight line
>>> across
>>> the street, I would not anticipate the child making a sharp turn or
>>> reversal. Most sighted kids I know don't generally do that. My blind
>>> 10-year-old daughter certainly might. Again, from a car driver's
>>> perspective, my daughter's behavior is not what is typical from a child
>>> her
>>> age. A confused driver is, in my opinion, a good deal more likely do do
>>> something dangerous in that sort of situation. I think knowing she's
>>> blind,
>>> might keep her safer from that driver, if only slightly so.
>>>
>>> Most important to me, again, as a driver, I often make eye contact or
>>> exchange gestures with people on the road. I don't know how universal
>>> that
>>> is. Maybe it is a regional thing. Down south, we wave to say "thanks"
>>> when
>>> a
>>> driver lets us merge in front of them, and in fact failing to wave is
>>> often
>>> taken as an insult. We wave people-- both kids and adults, across the
>>> street
>>> all the time, or the pedestrian may wave off the driver. The exchange is
>>> a
>>> very visual business. I slow down sometimes and wait for eye contact to
>>> feel
>>> as sure as I can that I'm aware of a pedestrian's intention. Well if you
>>> "make eye contact with my daughter" what you inferred isn't going to be
>>> very
>>> accurate. I can just imagine the later discussion-- "I saw her, she
>>> looked
>>> right AT me, then she walked right in front of my car!!! I had no idea
>>> she
>>> couldn't see me! I'm so sorry!!!" I feel ill at just the notion. That's
>>> what
>>> I want to avoid with such signs. "Child at Play" is no help there.
>>>
>>> In my opinion, in my situation here, I think that if we were not on SUCH
>>> a
>>> quiet street, I would have already requested signs to protect my
daughter
>>> and minimize potential driver frustration, however, our street is really
>>> VERY quiet, and we watch our daughter very carefully.
>>>
>>> With that said, she's old enough that at some point, I'm going to have
to
>>> give her a little more freedom near the road. If I decide she's not 100%
>>> safe, I reserve the right to request such a sign. I don't want a lot of
>>> flack if I do so.
>>>
>>> As I think I mentioned before, I feel like a deaf child could easily
>>> react
>>> differently as well. If the parents of a deaf child are worried the
child
>>> won't hear certain sounds and it puts them at increased risk, from a
>>> driver's standpoint, I like to know that someone won't react to the
>>> warning
>>> of a horn, for example. In that case, I'd prefer a "deaf child" sign.
The
>>> information is more specific; more useful to keep the child safe.
>>>
>>> The differences are subtle, but important. I think this is a personal
>>> choice
>>> for each parent, and it really concerns me that pressure of any kind is
>>> being exerted by others to avoid somehow casting aspersions on the blind
>>> population by requesting these signs.
>>>
>>> With that said, I also think this is a personal choice for a blind adult
>>> as
>>> well-- a choice the adult makes for himself, mind you. I think what
>>> happened
>>> in Colorado was really inappropriate, because others were deciding this
>>> for
>>> the blind travelers. That doesn't mean if some adults feel safer with
>>> these
>>> signs in place that they should be prevented because it reflects poorly
>>> on
>>> those who don't want the signs. If others disagree, but I feel it is
pest
>>> to
>>> err to the side of caution.
>>>
>>> The social connection you mention is great. If added safety, no matter
>>> how
>>> little it may be, from the sign helps some parents feel slightly more
>>> comfortable letting kids have a little more freedom to play or otherwise
>>> go
>>> about their business, that does indeed increase the chance for these
very
>>> important connections.
>>>
>>> I will add one thing more as well. After giving this a lot of thought, I
>>> think such signs do one thing more. After more than 10 years of
observing
>>> and watching reactions to the "what are you doing letting your blind
>>> child
>>> go and do dangerous things like that" mentality-- crazy things like
>>> riding
>>> a
>>> bike, jumping into a pool without a sighted helper holding onto her,
>>> playing
>>> in and around trampolines, running across the yard, going to gymnastics
>>> classes or yoga classes... maybe some of us like the idea of telling
>>> others
>>> that our kids may be out there and we know it, and they have every right
>>> to
>>> be there, yet we'd appreciate it if they'd be just a little bit extra
>>> careful in case their behavior or reaction to a passing car is a little
>>> different. I'm not inviting a great debate on this matter, and the last
>>> part
>>> (this paragraph) is just a thought that recently occurred to me, but I
>>> think
>>> maybe there is a touch of truth in that for some of us as well.
>>>
>>> Thanks again for the discussion.
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>>
>>> Richard
>>>
>>> On Feb 26, 2013, at 2:09 PM, Steve Jacobson wrote:
>>>
>>> > Richard,
>>> >
>>> > While you and I seem to disagree on this, I would truly like to
>>> > understand your position better.  Are you really saying that the
>>> > two-year-old sighted kids that are racing with her child are totally
>>> > responsible and in need of no protection?  If there is no separation
>>> > between the street and where these kids are playing, I do not see how
>>> > a blind child is going to be at a greater risk, there is some risk for
>>> > all of them and a warning that there are children at play is probably
>>> appropriate.  Connecting her ability to get a sign with the child's
>>> opportunity to play with other kids completely baffles me.  .  The
>>> solution
>>> isn't in the sign, it is in making the social connections, and I, too,
am
>>> glad to see that Susan's child, certainly with her help, made those
>>> connections, but I truly do not see that a sign is necessary to make
that
>>> possible.  Have I misunderstood your note?
>>> >
>>> > Best regards,
>>> >
>>> > Steve Jacobson
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 23:09:07 -0500, Richard Holloway wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Susan,
>>> >
>>> >> I don't see anything wrong with requesting such a sign for your child
>>> >> at that age, or at any age where you, the parent, feel it
>>> > is appropriate.
>>> >
>>> >> You did a good thing. More parents should find solutions to get their
>>> >> kids, be they sighted or blind, out and playing in
>>> > situations like that!
>>> >
>>> >> (How I wish they'd had jeeps like that when I was a kid!!!)
>>> >
>>> >> Richard
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> On Feb 25, 2013, at 8:39 PM, SUSAN POLANSKY wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>> We moved on to a dead end court when our son was 2. We asked our
>>> >>> town for a sign at the entrance to the street. I feel it was
>>> > totally appropriate to have a sign when our little one was out playing
>>> > with the other kids and basically drag racing the other little ones in
>>> > his toddler jeep. Would we not have asked for a sign if he had been
>>> > older. Each parent needs to look at their child and their neighborhood
>>> and
>>> make their own decision. I think this subject has been beaten to death.
>>> No
>>> more "to sign or not to sign"  emails for me, any more will be deleted
>>> without opening.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Susan T. Polansky
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> ________________________________
>>> >>> From: Bernadette Jacobs <bernienfb75 at gmail.com>
>>> >>> To: "Blind Kid Mailing List, (for parents of blind children)"
>>> >>> <blindkid at nfbnet.org>
>>> >>> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 8:11 PM
>>> >>> Subject: Re: [blindkid] To Sign or not To Sign
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I am a very strong opponent of blind, deaf, Autism, or any other
>>> >>> signage.  None of us needs to be put on that kind of display!  Only
>>> >>> thing this says to me is, "Walking Target!" Target!" Walking Target.
>>> >>> When I had my hysterectomy at an inner city hospital here, when I
>>> >>> came out of surgery and into my room, my husband mentioned to me
>>> >>> that there was a sign on my door, "Blind Patient!"  If I wasn't sick
>>> >>> enough from just having had surgery, I sure was sickened then.  So,
>>> >>> my husband tore down the first sign.  Bright and early next morning
>>> >>> when he came in vack in to visit me, another signed had replaced the
>>> >>> first one.  He went out to find that nurse.  Before long, suddenly I
>>> >>> heard the nurse arguing with my husband.  I forced myself up out of
>>> >>> bed, grabbed my cane and began walking down the hall, holding onto
>>> >>> the rails for dear life and simply excused myself quietly and then
>>> >>> proceeded to waste no bones about how that woman oughtta do
>>> >>> something real quick.  After all, who was her bread and butta???  I
>>> >>> had insurance.  I didn't feel guilty in the least.  She turned on me
>>> >>> and I simply went back to my room; called my doctor at his home; and
>>> >>> Hmmm!  For some strange reason I never heard from or saw that woman
>>> >>> again and the sign soon disappeared.  Then when someone called weeks
>>> >>> after I had been released from the hospital to ask me about how I
>>> >>> felt about my hospital experience, I really laid it on thick that to
>>> >>> post blind signs, or any other Special Needs' sign, would only serve
>>> >>> to identify those individuals as vulnerable walking targets and no
>>> >>> matter what the intent, it was truly a bad idea.  After all, Seems I
>>> >>> actually remember Dr. Jernigan saying once, that "The road to Hell
>>> >>> is paved with good intentions."  I'm sure I need not say more.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Bernie
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On 2/22/13, Carly B <barnesraiser at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>>> Hi Merry-Noel,
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> I've thought about this, too. There are a couple of signs on
>>> >>>> streets near our own. We have not pursued trying to get a sign for
>>> >>>> our neighborhood. I haven't really thought that through, I think
>>> >>>> it's just a gut feeling that I don't want to put more of a
spotlight
>>> on
>>> my child than there already is.
>>> >>>> Know what I mean? I'm not really sure the benefits of having a
>>> >>>> sign...
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Thanks for bringing it up. I look forward to hearing what others
>>> think!
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> :) Carolynn
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 7:40 PM, Merry-Noel Chamberlain
>>> >>>> <owinm at yahoo.com>wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>   Hi,
>>> >>>>> My daughter, Ashleah, is working on a girl scout project and would
>>> >>>>> like to know your thoughts about the "Special Needs" sign.  She is
>>> >>>>> blind and walks to and from school independently.  Do you think
>>> >>>>> having a Special Needs sign by our house is a good thing?  Why or
>>> >>>>> why not?
>>> >>>>> Thanks.
>>> >>>>> Merry-Noel
>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>>>> 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/barnesraiser
>>> >>>>> %40gmail.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/bernienfb75%4
>>> >>>> 0gmail.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/sepolansky%40v
>>> >>> erizon.net _______________________________________________
>>> >>> 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/rholloway%40go
>>> >>> pbc.org
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> 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/steve.jacobson%
>>> >> 40visi.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/rholloway%40gopb
>>> > c.org
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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<http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindkid_nfbnet.org/albert%40myblindsp
o
>t.o%0Arg>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/rjharrell%40gmail.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/arielle71%40gmail.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/pdonahue2%40satx.rr.c
o
>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%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


>_______________________________________________
>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/steve.jacobson%40visi
.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: 2641/6136 - Release Date: 02/27/13

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2641/6135 - Release Date: 02/26/13


_______________________________________________
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/missheather%40comcast.net 





More information about the BlindKid mailing list