[nagdu] Response to Meleah's post

[Tracy Carcione]

Hi Angie.
Excellent article!  Thanks for sending it.
Tracy


> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nagdu mailing list
> nagdu at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> nagdu:
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/carcione%40access.net
>