[nabs-l] Any thoughts on Washington Seminar

Wed Feb 23 02:18:25 UTC 2011

George,
  No.  It's my understanding that there is a federal standard.  Take
no child left behind, for instance.  And there was a federal curiculum
that our senators/staffers kept talking about, some liked it and some
didn't at all.  So yeah, as far as I know, there are federal
standards.
  Best,
Kirt

On 2/22/11, Jorge Paez <jorgeapaez at mac.com> wrote:
> Aren't all education standards directed by the states?
>
>
> On Feb 22, 2011, at 9:12 PM, Arielle Silverman wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/jorgeapaez%40mac.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/kirt.crazydude%40gmail.com
>