[nagdu] Response to Meleah's post

[Angie Matney]

Meleah said:

>Going to a center and demanding to use my dog wouldn't be any more 
>acceptable than me going to a dog school and demanding to use my cane once 

Well, if all things were equal, I might agree with you. But they aren't, and the analogy falls apart.

Basically, I already summarized how I feel about this in my aarticle that was published five years ago in the Monitor. Here's the text. (I don't generally go around quoting myself, but in this case, it's just easier to reproduce the whole thing.)

Another Perspective on Guide Dogs and Training Centers

by Angie Matney

>From the Editor: From time to time we publish articles about mobility and the tools blind people use to achieve it, whether they be canes, dogs, or high-tech
solutions. In the October issue we printed an article by James Omvig that discussed the role of canes and cane travel in the work of NFB orientation-and-adjustment
centers. Angie Matney is a past NFB scholarship winner. She holds an MS in mathematics and is currently working on an MS in rehabilitation counseling at
Virginia Commonwealth University. She is treasurer of the Virginia student division. This is what she has to say:

In his article "On White Canes and Training Centers" in the October, 2003, issue of the Monitor, Mr. James Omvig outlines his reasons for recommending that
orientation-and-adjustment (O&A) centers refuse to allow students to use guide dogs during training. As a guide dog user I was intrigued by some of the
points he made. In particular Mr. Omvig presents an excellent illustration of the role informed choice should play in the process of adjustment to blindness.
Informed choice should not allow someone to force a program to substantially alter its curriculum. However, I disagree that guide dogs are inherently incompatible
with O&A training. Furthermore, I believe it is imperative that the staff of our O&A training centers find a way to enable guide dog users to attend training
while using their preferred mobility aid. I hope that Federationists will consider what I have to say.

Mr. Omvig begins his article by explaining that, as someone who is "intimately involved in the rehabilitation system," he is able to offer a unique perspective
on this issue. Indeed Mr. Omvig has done much to further the cause of empowerment for blind people over the years. However, I feel that the perspective
of someone who has actually traveled extensively with a guide dog is at least as important to the consideration of this issue. While I am not a leading
expert on guide dog mobility, my experience as a guide dog user has provided me with insights that might well be unapparent to even the most dedicated
professionals in the field of rehabilitation for the blind.

Mr. Omvig points out that carrying and using a nonfolding, long cane makes it impossible for students to try to hide their blindness. The same is true of
using a guide dog. One could argue that working with a guide dog forces students to deal even more directly with public attitudes about blindness since
people are more likely to approach and ask questions of a guide dog user than a cane user. This has certainly been my experience: I have answered more
questions about blindness (and introduced more people to positive Federation philosophy) in my nearly three years as a guide dog user than I did in my
sixteen years using a cane. This is not meant to suggest that the public's preference for dogs over canes is an advantage of guide dog mobility. It simply
illustrates that the guide dog is at least as effective, if not more so, as a straight cane at increasing the visibility of a person's blindness.

Mr. Omvig also says:

When the student completes a long and complicated travel route independently using only the cane, that success in and of itself evokes feelings of pride
and self-confidence--I did it!...If exactly the same long and complicated training assignments--or the shorter trips--are completed using a guide dog rather
than a cane, the trainee does not experience the same boost of self-confidence. "Did I do it, or did the dog do it? I wonder if I could have done it without
the dog?"

The above statements are nothing more than conjecture on Mr. Omvig's part, even though they are presented as facts. They represent Mr. Omvig's own opinion
of guide dog mobility, but a significant number of people who have used guide dogs would disagree.

For example, I've recently moved to a new city, and while this isn't the same as receiving initial O&A training, it does involve the use of certain orientation
skills that might not be fully used in an area where everything is familiar. I recently decided to find a coffee and bagel shop that has a good reputation
at my university. Anyone who knows me knows how exhilarated I would be to find a coffee shop. I found the place with the assistance of my dog, and both
of us were pleased. I recognized the part that she played in the mechanics of getting me there, but I am also well aware that she did not make the decision
to go there. She did not look for the address or get directions to the location. She didn't decide when to cross a street; she didn't choose whether to
turn right or left when we reached an intersection. I know that I did all of these things, and I know that I could do the same things without a guide dog.
And my exhilaration in finding the coffee shop on my own was in no way diminished by my dog's being there to share the experience with me.

Mr. Omvig adds: "Actually it has always been my understanding that the guide dog schools themselves have had the policy that consumers must be adjusted
to their blindness and also be good cane travelers in order to qualify for admission into their programs."

It's true that most guide dog schools expect a certain level of proficiency in cane use from their students. In fact, if everyone agreed on what constitutes
a good cane traveler, the discussion of whether dogs should be used in O&A centers would be irrelevant, since all guide dog users would, by necessity,
be good cane travelers. Unfortunately, however, no such agreement exists. We know this because so many graduates of other O&A programs go on to attend
NFB centers: they recognize that, while they may have some knowledge of cane technique, their orientation skills and general confidence are not what they
could be. And just as cane users do not always receive satisfactory O&A training on the first try, guide dog handlers sometimes don't either.

It's important to keep in mind that the words "orientation" and "mobility" actually refer to two separate skill sets. The first involves an understanding
of spatial and directional relationships, while the second refers to the ability to move safely through one's environment. For the most part guide dog
schools focus on mobility instruction and don't even claim to teach orientation--or any other aspect of adjustment to blindness. They try to select applicants
whose travel skills permit them to learn a new mobility tool without orientation instruction from school staff. But the measures with which these skills
are assessed vary from school to school, and most involve evaluating the applicant only in familiar areas. The resulting reality is that many students
with mediocre orientation skills are accepted into guide dog training programs. Upon completion of training some students may feel confident in the mechanics
of using their favored mobility aid, yet they realize that their orientation problems persist.

Guide dog handlers who also received insufficient adjustment training prior to obtaining their dogs may need additional instruction in Braille, computers,
managing mail, and daily living skills. They may want to take advantage of some of the extracurricular activities that make the NFB program unique. They
may even wish to brush up on cane skills and have the opportunity to refine their sense of direction and knowledge of streets and addresses, but without
the worry and distraction of eroding their dog's training (and, in turn, their team's entire working relationship). Can we in good conscience deny a significant
segment of our community these and other confidence-building benefits of our centers? Is it truly impossible to include those with limited travel needs
while maintaining the excellence of the services we offer? The Federation has taken on more difficult challenges and succeeded.

It seems clear that O&A center staff need to consider how integration of guide dogs into the current program might be accomplished. It has been shown that
the NFB approach to O&A training works--no one can dispute that. But I'm troubled by the notion that the curriculum in its present form must therefore
be the only one that works. Integrating guide dog use into an existing travel program may not be an easy task, but developing a curriculum that effectively
serves a diverse group of students rarely is. A good educator recognizes the importance of continually reevaluating instructional methods in accordance
with student needs. I hope the staff of our excellent O&A centers have not lost sight of this fundamental principle.