[nabs-l] Any thoughts on Washington Seminar

Wed Feb 23 02:12:42 UTC 2011

Hi Joe and all,

I don't know the answers to the questions asked about the technology
bill, but the points raised all seem reasonable to me. If you have
questions about the details of the legislation, perhaps a call to
Jesse Hartle at the national center could be useful. I think Jesse
will have the most accurate information about the NFB's positions and
he is a very reasonable guy who won't object to debate or dissenting
opinions.

Regarding the education bill, the question I would ask is: To what
extent is education of sighted children governed by national standards
vs. state standards? I don't fully know the answer to that question
either, as I am far from expert about the balances of power between
state and federal legislatures. However, I would submit that to the
extent teachers of sighted children are held accountable to national
standards, blind children should be as well. We do know that sighted
children are subjected to lots of national testing, and although blind
children often have to take the tests, our scores aren't analyzed.
While I have mixed feelings about the utility of national standardized
tests, I think it's crucial that we be held to the same performance
standards as our sighted peers, be they shaped by state or national
mandates. The truth, which hundreds of us have demonstrated, is that
blindness by itself has no impact on one's intelligence or academic
potential. Unfortunately a good percentage of blind children are
behind the curve even if they have no intellectual disabilities, but
in the vast majority of cases, this can be attributed to a lack of
access to materials, or a lack of opportunity to learn essential
literacy and math skills. If clear performance standards are set and
blind children are not meeting them, the responsibility must be put
upon the teachers and the school to provide the needed access and
learning opportunities. I see no reason why states' autonomy is more
important for the education of blind children than it is for the
education of children in general.

Arielle

On 2/22/11, Joe Orozco <jsorozco at gmail.com> wrote:
> I too support the legislation.  Yet, I think it was a mistake not to join
> the coalition surrounding the 21st Century bill.  I think we could have
> included more of the provisions in that successful legislation had we been a
> part of the group.  If this bill gets anywhere, I'll be a monkey's uncle,
> but I think this is going to go the way of Social Security caps.  Net
> neutrality, privacy and rural broadband would appear to be higher on the
> totem pole to leave much room for this type of legislation.  It's not about
> being anti-Federation.  It's about pointing out practical concerns, and it's
> always bugged me that we've mostly gone onto the Hill without a concrete
> plan or even specific proposed language to support our cases.  I also
> support the second priority about educational standards, but come on, it's
> as if we have the NFB world and then the rest of reality...
>
> Best,
>
> Joe
>
> "Hard work spotlights the character of people: some turn up their sleeves,
> some turn up their noses, and some don't turn up at all."--Sam Ewing
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf
> Of Bridgit Pollpeter
> Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 6:00 PM
> To: nabs-l at nfbnet.org
> Subject: [nabs-l] Any thoughts on Washington Seminar
>
> Joe and others,
>
> I agree with your point about the Technology Bill of Rights.  In theory
> it is great, but how practical is it?
>
> We certainly have rights and should have equal access to technology, but
> shouldn't everyone then?  This legislation creates a huge mountain when
> you begin to think about all the people who can not use current
> technology with traditional means.  Is it fair to enforce accessibility
> for one group, but exclude others?  Blind people are not the only group
> who require alternative means to technology.
>
> Also, I understand the legislation would allow company's to create their
> own means to alternative access, and we are not asking for the most
> expensive route, or that everything must be audio.  But this is a huge
> undertaking when you think about it.  Are we requesting literally
> everything be made with accessible features out of the package?
>
> For instance, most microwaves are not readily accessible, but I placed
> Braille labels on my microwave after purchasing it.  Same with the oven
> and washing machine.  It did not require much work to do this.
>
> I am aware that more and more technology is developed with flat touch
> screens replacing dials and buttons, and this includes appliances like
> the ones mentioned above.  I recently attempted to purchase a hand
> mixer, but the speeds were on a touch pad.  I now need to see one in
> person to determine how difficult it may be to use.
>
> But even simple alternative methods may take years before all technology
> would meet the standards.  Or are we just talking about mainstream
> technology like airport kiosk and mobile phones and elevators, etc.
>
> Anyway,  I question the practicality of this Bill.  Without knowing the
> specific language, I wonder to what extent we are looking at here.
>
> I have only ever been told that the bill is meant to give equal access
> to current and future technology, and it allows groups to develop their
> own accessibility, but what are the specifics?  What role will the
> Federation play?  Is there a timeline?
>
> Before anyone accuses me of being anti-Federation, *smile* let me say
> that I support this bill, and it would be great to have instant access
> to technology, but I just wonder how feasible this is.
>
> Bridgit
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 19:31:38 -0500
> From: "Joe Orozco" <jsorozco at gmail.com>
> To: "'National Association of Blind Students mailing list'"
> 	<nabs-l at nfbnet.org>
> Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Any thoughts on Washington seminar?
> Message-ID: <629B16A89EE441B6B974CB1DC40C0752 at Rufus>
> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="US-ASCII"
>
> A couple questions:
>
> 1. Is the NFB planning on doing anything to reinforce or enhance the
> 21st Century Accessibility Act?  I would have thought much of what is
> requested in the Technology Bill of Rights can already be covered in the
> former.
>
> 2. How will the NFB battle states' rights mentality when it comes to
> setting this national standard?  I think it's a great idea in theory,
> but how feasible is it for states to give up their flexibility in favor
> of a national benchmark?
>
> I think the third legislative priority is an excellent one.  I'm already
> an ethnic minority and can enjoy the tax benefits of owning a business,
> but hopefully the expansion of coverage to disabilities will motivate
> more people to venture out and start their own operations.
>
> Thanks for any information on the first two points.
>
> Joe
>
> "Hard work spotlights the character of people: some turn up their
> sleeves, some turn up their noses, and some don't turn up
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nabs-l mailing list
> nabs-l at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> nabs-l:
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/jsorozco%40gmail.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nabs-l mailing list
> nabs-l at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> nabs-l:
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/nabs.president%40gmail.com
>

-- 
Arielle Silverman
President, National Association of Blind Students
Phone:  602-502-2255
Email:
nabs.president at gmail.com
Website:
www.nabslink.org