[Mn-at-large] Fact sheet

[David Andrews]

>
>Below is the text of the fact sheet we will use 
>for the Day at the Capitol. Print and braille 
>copies will be available on Wednesday. 
>TO:  Members of the 2017 Minnesota Legislature 
>FROM:  The National Federation of the Blind of 
>Minnesota (NFBM) RE:  Legislative Agenda for the 
>2017 Session DATE:  January 11, 2017 Legislative 
>Priorities for the 2017 session: 1. Protect the 
>right of blind persons to parent children by 
>strengthening legislation on custody and support 
>of children 2. Avert a pending crisis in the 
>education of blind children by establishing an 
>in-state teacher preparation program 3. Amend 
>Minnesota statutes to preserve private and 
>independent voting by blind Minnesotans and 
>others About The NFB of Minnesota This 
>information is provided by the members of the 
>National Federation of the Blind of Minnesota 
>(NFBM), the state’s oldest, largest, and most 
>active membership organization of blind and 
>interested sighted people, who have worked 
>together since 1920 to formulate much-needed 
>social change.  With chapters throughout the 
>state, we deliver a message of hope and 
>encouragement that blindness need not hold us 
>back.  We promote policies that will bring blind 
>people of all ages into full participation in 
>our communities. Over the years, we have worked 
>successfully with the Legislature to enact laws 
>that improve opportunities for blind 
>Minnesotans, and you can help us again this 
>year.  We want to share with you a positive 
>approach to the legislative needs of blind 
>individuals.  We ask that you consider the 
>following information about our current efforts 
>and lend your support. Protect Civil Rights of 
>Blind Parents Blind persons who are competent 
>parents have sometimes been denied the 
>opportunity for adoption, or have lost child 
>custody on the basis of blindness. The Minnesota 
>legislature took a step toward addressing the 
>problem with recent amendments to statute, but 
>stronger protection under the law is needed to 
>eliminate the bias and discrimination that blind 
>persons face in court decisions regarding 
>custody, visitation, foster care, guardianship, 
>or adoption.  Legislation should include 
>procedural safeguards if blindness is raised as 
>a factor—setting a proper legaal standard of 
>proof, shifting the burden to the party making 
>the assertion, and taking into account the use 
>of supportive parenting services if such 
>services are needed. Background: Social service 
>agencies today are often asked to conduct 
>investigations to ensure that children receive 
>proper care and adequate protection. Our courts 
>are then called upon to settle child custody 
>disputes. Like other members of the general 
>public, blind persons have sometimes found 
>themselves in the midst of child custody and 
>other family disputes. Unfortunately, a 
>parent’s or prospective parent's lack of 
>vision often becomes the overriding factor used 
>by the courts and social service agencies when 
>making decisions about the care of 
>children.  Since blindness is not well 
>understood by court and agency officials, it can 
>become the primary factor in denying custody to 
>blind parents and guardians. The National 
>Federation of the Blind has documented thousands 
>of cases of blind people who are successfully 
>raising children, many right here in 
>Minnesota.  This vast experience demonstrates 
>that blindness is not a relevant factor in 
>whether a person is fit to be a parent. We have 
>represented many blind persons in child custody 
>cases across the country, as well as in other 
>situations involving the care of 
>children.  Unfortunately, blatant discrimination 
>still occurs in too many of these cases.  Even 
>when no other problems were uncovered, blind 
>parents were forced to demonstrate their 
>child-rearing capabilities beyond that which was 
>reasonably expected of sighted persons. The 
>capabilities of blind individuals to care for 
>children are often brought into question even 
>when they had been successfully caring for their 
>children for many years. When a custody dispute 
>arises between blind and sighted spouses, the 
>sighted spouse frequently makes unsubstantiated 
>accusations about the incompetence of the blind 
>spouse. In other legal proceedings, the 
>defendant is deemed innocent until proven 
>guilty. In custody cases, however, court 
>officials assume that the blind defendant is 
>incompetent or guilty.  Frequently this 
>defendant has to prove that the accusations are 
>false. In September 2012, the National Council 
>on Disability issued a report entitled Rocking 
>the Cradle: Ensuring the Rights of Parents with 
>Disabilities and Their Children 
>(http://www.ncd.gov/publications/2012/Sep272012). 
>This report states that parents with 
>disabilities, “are the only distinct community 
>of Americans who must struggle to retain custody 
>of their children.” The report goes on to say 
>“In families where the parental disability is 
>physical, 13 percent have reported 
>discriminatory treatment in custody cases. 
>Parents who are deaf or blind report extremely 
>high rates of child removal and loss of parental 
>rights. Parents with disabilities are more 
>likely to lose custody of their children after 
>divorce, have more difficulty in accessing 
>reproductive health care, and face significant 
>barriers to adopting children.” Existing 
>Legislation: The Minnesota Legislature has 
>demonstrated its understanding that disabled 
>parents and caregivers should not be denied a 
>role in raising their children merely on the 
>basis of disability. Current law1 states that 
>"Disability alone, as defined in section 
>363A.03, of a proposed custodian or the child 
>shall not be determinative of the custody of the 
>child." Although this law was a positive step, 
>the language needs to be strengthened to require 
>a judge to be more specific about the reasons 
>for a decision—in other words, to require the 
>court to show that no  discrimination has 
>occurred. Additionally, the law should be 
>changed to offer a blind parent the opportunity 
>to demonstrate his abilities or to learn about 
>supportive parenting services before limiting or 
>denying custody rights. Our proposed legislation 
>defines supportive parenting services as 
>“
services that may assist a blind parent  or 
>prospective blind parent in the effective use of 
>nonvisual techniques and other alternative 
>methods to enable the parent or prospective 
>parent to discharge parental responsibilities as 
>successfully as a parent who is not blind”. 
>Supportive parenting services may be 
>accomplished by having the blind person work 
>with other blind parents.  They may learn that, 
>for example, putting bells on an infant’s or 
>toddler’s shoes will help the blind parent 
>keep track of the child’s location.  Another 
>example of supportive parenting services may be 
>the provision of training to help the blind 
>parent improve her independent living and 
>mobility skills. By providing supportive 
>parenting services, the court will not only be 
>abiding by the Americans with Disabilities Act, 
>but also will avoid the unnecessary destruction 
>of family bonds between blind parents or 
>caregivers and their children. Legislation 
>Needed: Minnesota statutes should be amended to 
>prohibit any legal presumption that a blind 
>parent is unfit to carry out parental or 
>caregiving responsibilities. A party raising 
>blindness as an issue would have the burden of 
>proving by clear and convincing evidence that 
>blindness impacts the best interest of the 
>child. If the burden is met, the blind parent or 
>prospective parent will be given the opportunity 
>to demonstrate how the implementation of 
>supportive parenting services can alleviate any 
>concerns which have been raised. If a court 
>determines that a blind parent’s right to 
>custody, visitation, foster care, guardianship, 
>or adoption should be denied or limited in any 
>manner, the court must set forth specific 
>written findings stating the basis for such a 
>determination and explaining why the provision 
>of supportive parenting services is not a 
>reasonable accommodation that must be made to 
>prevent such denial or limitation. Note 1: 
>Minnesota statutes 518.17 Subdivision 1b(5) 
>Establish an in-state Licensure Program for 
>Teachers Who Work with Blind Children and Youth 
>A recently-commissioned report to the Minnesota 
>legislature2 documents a current shortage of 
>teachers trained to provide needed education 
>services to blind children and youth in 
>Minnesota. Further, the report projects that 
>within the next two to three years, one third of 
>the existing group of teachers, about 65% of 
>whom are over the age of 50, will retire. The 
>ability to hire new teachers to replace them is 
>severely limited by the lack of a licensure 
>program within the state. To prevent significant 
>deterioration of the education of blind children 
>and youth in Minnesota, the state needs its own 
>teacher preparation program. With proper 
>education and opportunity, blind children and 
>youth grow up to enter the workforce and become 
>fully contributing members of society. In order 
>to access the same academic standards as other 
>students, blind students must learn specific 
>skills such as reading and writing Braille, 
>using computers with speech or braille output, 
>moving safely and confidently through the 
>environment, using transportation, etc. These 
>and other such skills, known as the Expanded 
>Core Curriculum, are taught by teachers with 
>specialized training as required by federal and 
>state law. The number of students who are blind 
>in Minnesota has remained stable for several 
>years, but there is an increasing shortage of 
>available qualified teachers. Teachers of the 
>Blind and Visually Impaired represent the 
>highest percentage of shortages among teachers 
>in Minnesota. Additionally, the current teachers 
>are, by age, the oldest group of special 
>educators in the state. Of the 69 current 
>teachers, 45 are over the age of fifty, with ten 
>of those 45 over the age of sixty. One-third of 
>them are expected to retire in the next two to 
>three years. The effects of the teacher shortage 
>can already be seen. For example, students 
>learning to read in braille, who need 
>instruction daily just as do sighted students 
>learning to read in print, may only have the 
>opportunity to receive reading instruction from 
>a teacher once a week or less. Educational 
>decisions must not be made based on the 
>availability of teachers, but on the needs of 
>students. For teachers of the blind/visually 
>impaired, recruitment and retention is limited 
>by the lack of a teacher preparation program in 
>Minnesota. A program of this type once existed 
>in this state, but it was eliminated more than 
>fifteen years ago with the retirement of its 
>director. Since then, there has been no direct 
>pathway to licensure in Minnesota for these 
>teachers. Teacher candidates have only two 
>options: either leave the state for school, or 
>participate in a virtual program at an out of 
>state institution. For teacher candidates from 
>Minnesota, both of these options create 
>barriers, as there are limited slots available 
>in the virtual programs, and programs have 
>preference for in-state candidates. For teachers 
>who prepare in other states, there are no 
>automatic pathways to licensure as there would 
>be for teachers who graduate from a Minnesota 
>Board of Teaching approved program. Nor is there 
>a guarantee that programs from other states will 
>address standards for licensure in Minnesota, 
>since other states do not have the same 
>standards. With an extremely limited pool of 
>teacher candidates, the districts, cooperatives 
>and regions of the state lack the specialized 
>skills to meet the unique educational needs of 
>blind students in Minnesota. Legislation Needed: 
>We urge the Legislature to appropriate $250,000 
>per year for a five year period of time to 
>explore, develop and establish a teacher 
>preparation program at the University of 
>Minnesota or other appropriate institution of 
>higher education, leading to licensure as a 
>teacher of the Blind/Visually Impaired, 
>consistent with Minnesota Rule 8510.6100. The 
>dollar amount is based on information gathered 
>about the start-up of existing programs in other 
>states. The funding will be used for staff time 
>and benefits, and research on how to 
>develop/implement evidence based practices to 
>support education of students who are 
>blind/visually impaired. Note 2: Students who 
>are Blind or Visually Impaired, Fiscal Year 
>2016: Report To the Legislature As required by 
>Minnesota Statutes, section 125A.63. Summary of 
>efforts, data, and results of work from 
>education-based agencies, departments and 
>individuals who serve students who are blind or 
>visually impaired in Minnesota. Statistics and 
>recommendations on teacher preparation begin on 
>page 34. 
>http://education.state.mn.us/MDE/about/rule/leg/rpt/2016/ 
>Preserve Accessibility and Privacy for Blind 
>Voters As a result of the Help America Vote Act 
>(HAVA) and related state legislation, blind 
>Minnesotans have for the past ten years been 
>able to vote privately and independently in 
>elections by the use of technology that displays 
>and speaks the ballot information and enables 
>the voter to mark the paper ballot. This 
>technology has also opened the possibility of 
>independent voting by people with reading 
>difficulties or other disabilities that impede 
>access to the print ballot.  The AutoMark, which 
>is the machine currently used most often in 
>Minnesota for this purpose, complies completely 
>with Minnesota's requirement that a paper ballot 
>be used.  However, in light of the fact that the 
>AutoMark machines are aging, are difficult to 
>maintain, and are no longer manufactured, 
>additional new solutions are needed to ensure 
>that individuals who are blind or have other 
>disabilities can continue to vote privately and 
>independently while allowing for affordable 
>options. The Minnesota Secretary of State has 
>investigated the matter and found there to be 
>additional accessible voting machine options 
>that meet Minnesota's requirement for the use of 
>a paper ballot.  However, cheaper prices, 
>smaller size and wait, and lower maintenance are 
>often achieved by producing a paper ballot that 
>is of a different design and size. Such machines 
>are not only for use by blind and disabled 
>voters but can be effectively used by anyone. 
>Legislation that will be introduced would amend 
>Minnesota statutes to allow for continued access 
>to independent and private voting by broadening 
>certification criteria, so that newer machines, 
>as well as other voting technology yet to be 
>developed, can be eligible for certification in 
>the state of Minnesota. The National Federation 
>of the Blind of Minnesota urges your support for 
>this legislation when it is introduced, as long 
>as it includes provisions that: • assure that 
>voters who use thhe accessible technology have 
>access to all of the same information that is 
>available to voters who do not use the 
>technology to read and mark their ballots; • 
>assure thaat voters using the technology can 
>vote for all offices and questions, perform 
>write-ins if desired, verify and correct votes 
>before casting the ballot, and access all other 
>voting options available to voters not using the 
>technology; • assure that ballots of voters 
>using the technollogy are not segregated from 
>ballots of voters who do not use it; • take 
>proactive measures to ensure preservatioon of 
>the anonymity of the paper ballots in the event 
>of a re-count or post-election review. For 
>further information on these legislative 
>priorities, or should questions arise on any 
>matters affecting blind people anywhere in 
>Minnesota, contact Jennifer Dunnam, President, 
>National Federation of the Blind of 
>Minnesota,  by phone at (612) 203-2738 or email 
>jennifer.dunnam1829 at gmail.com _______________________________________________