[nabs-l] Any thoughts on Washington seminar?

[Sean Whalen]

Good afternoon,

 

George is correct. There are no national standards in education. NCLB
requires states and local educational agencies, if they wish to continue to
receive federal education funding, to test and measure the progress of their
students. There is no definition of standards on the federal level, and
there is no common curriculum mandated by the federal government. Each state
is left to set standards and define what students must know, they are only
required to test students to see if students are achieving the standards
states have set forth. NCLB does require that each state have only one
standard, for all districts and all students. That "all students" ought to
include blind and other disabled students.

 

Certainly there could be implemented laws or regulations that would
encourage states, with financial or other incentives, to create better
standards for the education of blind kids without mandating specific
standards from the federal Department of Education. Personally, I have no
problem with federal requirements for standards or curricula, but I realize
many people do not feel that way. States rights, I suppose, include the
right to have a woefully inadequate public education system, as long as it
is equally inadequate for all students statewide.

 

Regarding the political viability of the commission to start working out
what might be done to address the problem, I agree it is a tough sell
politically in this environment, but so would be virtually any legislative
initiative that involved additional resources being expended. That would be
most legislative initiatives we could take up. The mere fact that a thing's
success does not look immediately probable in no way implies that the thing
is not worth fighting for. Yes, IDEA reauthorization would have been a nice
time to address this, but that ship has sailed. Besides, we were too busy
arguing that we former SSDI recipients with jobs should still be raking in
the government cheese. I agree that political realities and opportunities
should play a large determining role in what legislative initiatives we take
up, and, in my opinion, this is one place where are legislative strategy has
occasionally fallen short, but I also very much believe that if you see an
issue that needs addressing, you should bring it to people's attention, lay
the groundwork for success, and wait for the opportunity to effect the
change you desire. I think that is what we are doing.

 

Regarding the 21st Century Communications Act, yes, it is sad that our
inability to acknowledge that the ACB ever does anything good stopped us
from vocally supporting it, but it has passed. What more ought we to be
doing to support it? While it does cover some devices of major import, it
left many untouched in its initial form, and, in fact, was largely gutted
before passage. Even the initial version of the bill was not a panacea, and
the passed version, relative to broad access to technology, scarcely makes a
dent. I don't think we are concerned about products that can be easily made
accessible. I am troubled by the knowledge that, one day in the not too
distant future, I might not be able to use my stove, washer, or thermostat
at home, or the fax machine, data base, or communications device at work.
Again, is this a tough political sell? Of course. Does that mean it is not
worth fighting for? To my mind, no. We may have to bang this drum for a long
time, and we will likely never achieve the 100% access we desire, but the
problem is real and the solutions are viable. I don't mind banging my head
against the wall on an issue of fundamental fairness like this, though I
certainly did not enjoy the repeated noggin knocking over the SSDI issue,
which was grounded in a notion that was fundamentally unfair, and I would
submit, at odds with espoused NFB philosophy.

 

Take care,

 

Sean