[humanser] Jury finds IA Dept. for Blind's guide dog policy does not discriminate

[Marion & Martin]

Carmella,
    NAGDU will be sponsoring a seminar during the national convention in 
which representatives from various programs will present their policies and 
answer questions such as these. We are not sure when it will be held, but it 
will be either on Friday, July 3 or Sunday July 5 between 7:00 - 10:00 pm. 
Watch for further announcements or check the convention agenda when it is 
released.

Fraternally,
Marion Gwizdala, President
National Association of Guide Dog Users
National federation of the Blind


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Carmella D Broome" <cdbroome at worldnet.att.net>
To: "Human Services Mailing List" <humanser at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 2:04 PM
Subject: Re: [humanser] Jury finds IA Dept. for Blind's guide dog policy 
does not discriminate


> Some comments, for consideration.  Just my thoughts as I've been mulling
> this thing over.  I'm really not trying to provoke anyone. I'm trying to 
> come at this from the help me understand perspective that maybe I just am 
> not appreciating all the particulars or whatever. I'm just trying to sort 
> all this out.  I don't really know enough about the
> center or the case to make any clear pronouncements as far as my opinion.
> There's just something about  the all or nothing stance here that doesn't
> sit well with me.  It seems  kind of pajoretive and rigid. "You deserve 
> dignity and independence and  we want to help you regain those things. You 
> have the right to use personal assertiveness, and to make choices as you 
> are not a child and we want you to be a confident and capable blind 
> person. But we're going to tell you this
> is  the way to do things and if you don't then  we won't even work with 
> you
> to meet your stated goals and needs. We only  serve people  that do things
> the way we say because what will people think of us if we modify anything 
> or
> come up with a policy for how to  address the needs of those who use guide
> dogs."   What if someone is diabetic and has no feeling in their finger 
> tips
> from neuropathy?  Will they be forced to take a Braille class even though
> they won't be able to read Braille?  Wouldn't this modify or compromise 
> the
> program and just open  the floodgates for total anarchy where students 
> just
> think they can do whatever they want.    I don't think so. I think fair 
> and
> reasonable are words that make a lot of sense in situations like this. 
> There
> has to be balance somewhere.
>
> Again, I don't know, but  most people would seem to be rational and open 
> to
> reasonable compromises. Its a lot of doing to take something to court like
> this unless the individual feels that no effort was made to work with them
> to come up with some kind of solution.
>
> Analogies are interesting. I suppose that, in a perfect world, a  person 
> who
> is blind could go to any rehabilitation center and get  first hand 
> exposure
> to using all methods of mobility, including cane,  guide dog, sighted 
> guide,
> using any of these with a GPS, and whatever other options are out there.
> Oftentimes, presentations are given about these various options, but
> consumers don't  get to   experience them first hand or experience them
> extensively enough to be able to make an informed decision.
> Each of these may be the best choice in various settings, including 
> sighted
> guide.
>
> Yes, I said sighted guide can be a valid choice. I believe that.  Part of
> adjustment to blindness training, in my opinion, is helping people know 
> when
> to insist on being completely self sufficient and when it is okay, or even
> adviseable to ask for help.
>
> If the only issue had been that the center has a certain way they teach
> things, that any student has to go through the same  learning modules, or
> whatever they're called, and that  the belief is that their way of
> providing cane and O&M training is so thoroughly unique and therefore 
> can't
> be  tested
> out of, regardless of previous training, I can accept that fine.
>
> My problem with the  IADP situation is that part of the argument made was
> that blind
> people need to learn to travel without assistance from anything that
> provides visual help.   In other words, cane only.  That seems to suggest
> that  cane trumps dog or that those who use a cane are actually more
> independent and self sufficient than those of us who choose to travel 
> with
> a guide dog.  It implies that the blind person is relying on the dog to do
> everything, or most  everything, when this is not the case.  A dog is not
> the same thing at all to sighted guide. We don't just grab on and  go 
> where
> the dog goes because the dog knows how to get places without our doing
> anything.
>
> Given such statements, I wonder if the jury was left with the impression, 
> as
> many people have, that
> a guide dog  knows where to go and how to get there and that, as Chris 
> Rock
> once said, "they just give you a dog to drag your blind ass around," and
> read traffic lights, and  execute the entire route just because I say,
> "Maggie, WalMart."  That  would be unfortunate.  I can certainly 
> understand
> a facility saying, "Look, you can't bring your sighted guide with you to
> lead you around everywhere you go here.  That just isn't something we can
> accomodate because it isn't reasonable."  That would defeat the purpose.
> Most of us don't  consider  sighted guide  an independent means of
> traveling but most would say a  cane and a guide dog are  independent 
> means
> of traveling in which the blind person is actively participating and
> responsible for the ultimate outcome.
>
> I wonder if  they were told about the communication that happens between
> handler and dog, the  work
> that goes into them being a team, the way each communicates with the other
> but how it is  ultimately up to the blind person to  make decisions about
> when to cross a street and  which way to tell the dog  to go.  Just like a
> cane, the dog helps  the blind person to avoid  obstacles, to detect steps
> and curbs, and to not veer into traffic. This all assumes the dog is
> properly trained and that the training is  reinforced by the handler, of
> course.  Was there testimony from trainers from a reputable school?  How
> about by folks  from any of the guide dog organizations, either  NAGDU or
> GDUI, since the center  shouldn't  be  exclusively in either camp given
> state funding.
>
> I think testimony from someone who worked there isn't exactly un biased
> testimony.  The woman who works for IADP and uses a dog is in a weird spot
> with possible conflict of interest.  She's not going to put her job on the
> line, even if she does feel uncomfortable with the situation.  Someone 
> from
> an outside org should have also been involved. I don't know if this was 
> the
> case or not.
>
> Unfortunately,  an animal also requires care and  reinforcement and
> correction and so on. It is  not just a tool. I've known  people who will
> say they think  a guide dog is a great mobility aid, but don't want  the
> responsibility.   With an animal, there has to be a bond. The dog has to 
> be
> worked regularly or it will not retain its skill. If it is separated from
> its handler for extensive periods of time, the bond will be damaged and 
> the
> working relationship will be damaged.  Cane skills may get rusty, but 
> those
> can be improved with practice.  Dogs can do this to an extent, but not if
> the lack of use goes on for too long and not if the bond with the primary
> handler is severely compromised.   Dogs aren't robots. How would an agency
> such as the IADP  accomodate this?  Surely, there would be times when the
> blind person would be allowed to choose to work their dog enough to keep 
> its
> skills up and so that the handler's skills don't get rusty either.  Would
> the blind person be expected to return the dog to the school and have to 
> go
> and retrain with another dog at some later point. That  makes no sense at
> all to me.
>
> If  students there must  do all travel without any sighted assistance, I
> suppose that means  asking for help from anyone sighted at
> any point when executing a route, even  asking for directions  or to know
> which streets are in front of and parallel to, is forbidden also.   GPS is
> out, too.  To me, part of  being a well adjusted blind person is knowing
> when to ask for help  instead of getting more lost or  putting oneself in
> possibly dangerous situations, such as when at an intersection near lots 
> of
> loud equipment, for example.  Sighted people get lost and ask for
> directions. If I'm in a hurry  to get somewhere and have a meeting or
> something, and I  somehow realize I'm not  where I thought I was, I might
> not always have time to  backtrack and figure things out for myself.  Does
> that make me less  independent?  Or is it better to ask appropriate
> questions to get back on track so I can make it where I need to be on time
> and not completely frustrated and rattled.    Do I look less  independent
> asking help or wandering around clearly confused and unsure where I am,
> whether I'm using a dog or a cane?  Does that make me less independent?  I
> don't think so.  It makes me someone who makes use of available resources. 
> I
> still have to decide what to do with the information I' given. That is
> active not passive, unless I just let people tote me across the street, 
> etc.
>
> Even with a dog, there are times when I have to do the same things as far 
> as
> asking for an explanation of the intersection I'm approaching or  for
> directions or for help across the street if there's a lot of noise.  Being
> independent means nothing if I get creamed by a  car I don't hear, either
> because there is too much background noise. I can hear it now, "Wow, that
> blind girl just  got run over,
> but at least she was trying to cross the street by herself and didn't ask
> for help because she's so independent."
>
> Some people have major veering problems and  a dog truly may be the safest
> thing for these people, if the problem  persists despite lots of work 
> with
> an O&M  instructor.  If someone keeps veering into traffic and can't 
> master
> that, for some reason, I'd much rather them have the option of learning to
> work with a dog than to refuse to  travel due to fear  of winding up in
> oncoming traffic.  Same goes if someone has a slight hearing loss where 
> they
> may not hear the quietter cars that are becoming more and more of a
> challenge for all of us.  Having a dog may  truly be helpful as these
> people will have  the added confidence that comes with working with an
> animal who knows intelligent disobedience  in case the blind traveler
> misses the sound of an approaching vehicle. I'm not talking about severe
> hearing loss where it would always be unsafe for  the person to call
> intersections.  I'm talking about how slight hearing loss can be 
> dangerous
> for anyone with limitted vision who is trying to listen to  traffic
> patterns. I'm not saying dog is better than cane.  I don't think there is
> necessarily a better than. I think it is a matter of preference.  However, 
> I
> think there may be times, just as when a cane is best, that using a dog 
> may
> be the best thing.
>
>
> In terms of O&M, I'm not sure good cane skills are as important as good
> orientation skills.   Plenty of people, me included, can cross streets all
> day long and follow a route but have trouble with orientation concepts. 
> I'm
> not one of those who couldn't find my way out of a paper bag but this does
> make me less confident when  I travel, particularly in  unfamiliar areas.
> Something in my brain just  gets scrambled when it  comes to some of that.
> I'm not sure why that is. I have a guide dog, but I  know I'd have the 
> same
> problem with a cane. Reason being that it is about what's going on in my
> brain,  not which  mode of travel I use.
>
> Now, I know that using a cane properly is the mobility part of the usual
> O&M.  Mobility instructors  usually don't have much experience with 
> working
> with guide dogs, and some of the guide dog schools don't even employ any
> actual O&M instructors.    If I'm learning a new area, I may very well 
> need
> the help of an O&M instructor, whether I use a dog or a cane.  I don't
> expect that person necessarily to have experience with guide dogs, though 
> it
> is true that schools do offer exposure to this for  those who teach O&M. 
> In
> the past, instructors I've worked with  have largely  been there to assist
> me with the orientation and making sure I am aware of any major concerns
> with a route or area.  They allow me to work my dog and may point out a
> problem they observe with what the dog is doing but that problem is mine 
> to
> handle unless the dog is continuing to  do things that put me at risk. 
> The
> instructors  I've worked with have simply brainstormed with me and we've
> communicated about how we would work together given their lack of 
> experience
> with guide dogs.
>
> If my skills or the guide  dog's work are so poor   that  we are 
> repeatedly
> doing unsafe things in an instructor's presence, the  instructor can 
> suggest
> I contact the guide dog school or just say they don't feel able to 
> continue
> helping me as I am not progressing towards stated goals or improving in
> skill or responsive to  feedback, etc.  The same should be true if someone
> is using a cane. It is pretty  clear what is  safe vs what is unsafe.
> Boundaries are necessary and just as with clients, I have to draw lines at
> times around what I will and will not continue to help with if the person
> isn't working with me to accomplish their goals. That person should 
> document
> such issues, just as counselors do when  something may come back up where 
> we
> have to justify our actions taken, etc.
>
> Guide dog schools do this when a team has not done what is necessary to
> graduate and be sent home.   The schools put  lots of time and money 
> (often
> donated money as they are non profits) into their dogs and they do have
> certain criteria for graduation. They hahve the final say in which teams 
> go
> home and which students will leave without a dog, but the dogs are matched
> with students based on each students' individual needs. It is not a cookie
> cutter thing.  Training is often individualized also due to particular
> student needs.  Safety and ability to work successfully as a team are 
> bottom
> line requirements.
>
> People have  to be comfortable using their particular mode of travel 
> before
> they can
> truly focus on orientation, in my opinion. It is very difficult to  do 
> work
> on  orientation when one is concentrating on simply learning to use cane 
> or
> dog or whatever. In both cases, this is why the initial work is focussed 
> on
> proper  technique and confidence with the method in question.  Otherwise,
> the person is going to be too distracted to be able to  stay focussed on
> orientation issues.    There has to be a certain level of comfort to be 
> able
> to multi task that way.
>
> Just because a person  uses a dog, that doesn't mean they can't go back 
> and
> learn  better cane skills. I'm not sure how that would be different from
> learning to use a cane and then a dog.  Dog users should probably practice
> with their canes often enough to feel comfortable with the  skill.  I do
> think we should all know how to properly and efficiently use a  cane in 
> case
> we need it and that dog users should keep a cane with us.  Cane users 
> should
> probably always keep an extra cane with them.  Do we all do this?  I doubt
> it. In all truthfulness, though, if something  happens to my dog such that
> she suddenly becomes ill or incapacitated,  I will likely be too upset to
> travel safely for  at least a day or so. Again, knowing when we are just 
> in
> no shape to  travel independently is no different than someone who drives
> knowing when they're too upset or otherwise impaired to  operate a 
> vehicle.
> We need to be able to focus  on  traveling safely. If its for  a more long
> term issue, then yes,  being comfortable using a cane again would be
> important.
>
> The other concern is that  each state generally only has one 
> rehabilitation
> facility for the blind, correct? Its not as if this woman had other 
> options.
> Probably, if she's working with state voc rehab,  she's  going to have
> trouble being sent out of state. She also may not want to go out of state
> due to difficulty   spending time with loved ones when not at the center.
> Are the  course requirements spelled out at the rehab center as far as
> descriptions and objectives being  given in a form document to each
> potential student? Did she know all this when she  entered the program 
> with
> her dog?  Was all this formalized in preexisting documents?  I have 
> trouble
> believing no one has ever tried to use a dog in the rehab program there
> before. What has happened in the past?  Was this just something that got
> blown out of proportion?  Did she know what the deal was and choose to
> challenge it by just walking in there with her dog so she would then be 
> told
> she couldn't use the dog and take it to court?    Maybe she just felt that
> strongly about the situation or maybe she truly didn't know and assumed 
> that
> she would have the right to use her dog as she does in most other 
> settings.
>
> Do  students receive official grades and a transcript? Sylabi for each
> class? Any freedom to choose electives?  These are not institutions of
> higher education.  They don't give out college degrees.  Colleges and
> universities do have  differing reputations also but I don't think  that
> comparison really works for me.  I did make choices about which colleges 
> and
> universities I wanted to attend. I made those choices based on various
> factors.  For grad school, for example, I wanted to focus more on clinical
> work than on research so wanted a program where a thesis wasn't required.
> The USC program was this way. They also were in state, which meant less
> money than going out of state. They  allowed me to study  marriage and
> family  therapy  in addition to  the basic counseling coursework.  I could
> take the MAT or the GRE and I  took the  MAT.  I liked having that option.
>
> Even with guide dog schools, there is a range of choices.  Are some better
> than others?  I think most of us who use dogs recognize that reality.
> Students who might make it through one program wouldn't evenbe accepted 
> into
> another.   Some offer home training, and others offer programs for those
> with multiple disabilities. Some  pushfor high drama graduation 
> ceremonies
> and meeting puppy raisers. Others don't require this. Some offer more 
> follow
> up support and so on.  Rehabilitation facility choices are much more
> limitted. Where else would this student be expected to go if she insists 
> on
> using her dog for some or all of her training?
>
> With all due respect,  how is  having an  Individualized Employment Plan
> where a person is seeking to complete certain goals any different from 
> each
> person who is blind  having  individual needs  or reasons for attending a
> rehab center.   Consumers need to be empowered to make decisions about 
> their
> own needs to at least some extent, in my opinion.  They should be 
> presented
> with rationale for options but be allowed some flexibility in  making
> certain decisions based on stated goals. It can be documented that  the
> higher ups or those in charge or whatever they're called advised against
> such choices due to feeling that the client wouldn't  receive maximum
> benefit  from the program, but that they believe in empowering the  user 
> of
> services, as an adult, to make certain choices. This doesn't mean 
> completely
> changing an entire  program, but it may mean  modifying something to meet 
> a
> person's needs. This is no different than allowing a student to use 
> adaptive
> technology or a reader to take a test, getting extra time, etc. That 
> doesn't
> mean   they don't meet prescribed requirements.  It may just mean they go
> about meeting them differently.  That is different, in my opinion, from
> opting out  entirely and getting a complete exemption from something that 
> is
> required of all students.  Isn't that what reasonable accomodation is?
>
>
> Maybe I'm just missing a vital piece here, but those are the things I've
> been thinking about.
> Carmella
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> humanser mailing list
> humanser at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/humanser_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> humanser:
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/humanser_nfbnet.org/swampfox1833%40verizon.net