[Trainer-Talk] Interesting Facebook Post

Tue Apr 28 17:26:21 UTC 2026

Hi Showe:

I am convinced that the person who wrote this is in the right. However, I would soften this a bit by pointing out that not every blind person, no matter how great the training received, is going to achieve a passing grade in whatever training program he or she is a part of.

The service delivery system has this huge problem of not paying enough, thus not attracting the top talent when it comes to trainers of blind people. The blind community as a whole continues to be plagued with pervasive and demeaning low expectations that lower the bar for what they are "expected" to achieve during training. And the unfortunate reality (once a job has been obtained) is that we all have to work harder and faster than our sighted colleagues just to keep pace with them. Those of us who have achieved success in the "real world" have been made aware of this reality through direct and personal experience.

Unfortunately, using nonvisual access technology productively and successfully presents a cognitive demand that too many people are not able to meet. I have no silver bullet to fix this particular problem; I just acknowledge that this is a reality that the system as a whole has not successfully confronted in any meaningful way.

Kind regards,

Curtis Chong

-----Original Message-----
From: Trainer-Talk <trainer-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org> On Behalf Of Showe Trela via Trainer-Talk
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2026 11:14 AM
To: List for teachers and trainers of adaptive technology <trainer-talk at nfbnet.org>
Cc: Showe Trela <myshowe86 at gmail.com>
Subject: [Trainer-Talk] Interesting Facebook Post

I read this facebook post this morning and wanted to bring it to this list to discuss as trainers how we can be better trainers and help build ideas on how we can support each other to overcome this problem. Curious to hear all of your thoughts. 

The Blind Employment Crisis Is Not Just About Discrimination
Everybody wants to talk about blind unemployment after the damage is already done.
They talk about the employer who did not hire the blind applicant, the inaccessible software, the unfair interview, the discrimination, and the low expectations from the sighted world.
And yes, all of that is real.
But there is another part of this conversation that makes people uncomfortable:
Many blind people are being failed long before they ever sit in front of an employer.
They are being failed by schools, rehabilitation systems, weak technology instruction, inflated evaluations, and reports that look professional but are not backed by proof. Too often, paperwork says a person can perform a task, but there is insufficient evidence showing they can do it independently, efficiently, and under pressure.
When someone says that out loud, defenders of the status quo often call it arrogance. No.
Arrogance is watching the same broken system produce poor outcomes for decades and still demanding silence from the people willing to name the problem.
I have been totally blind since 1980. During mainstream schooling, from elementary through high school, I received technology training, but it was deeply inadequate. It helped with basic daily tasks, not serious employment.
Community college was no better. Sighted students were being taught how to build computers and perform real technical work. Those same opportunities were not meaningfully offered to me.
So I taught myself.
I read forums and message boards. I took computers apart. I broke machines. I failed, tried again, learned from the damage, and eventually built the skills the system never gave me.
That experience shaped the way I train others.
For the past 20 years, I have trained blind clients and students in efficient technology use. Roughly eight out of ten have reached their goals and moved forward in their careers. That did not happen because I taught them just enough to survive. It happened because I focused on speed, accuracy, confidence, problem-solving, independence, and workplace performance.
That difference matters.
The employment numbers show why. The American Foundation for the Blind has reported that only about 44% of working-age blind or visually impaired people are employed, compared with about 79% of people without disabilities. APH ConnectCenter has reported a similar pattern, showing that among working-age adults with blindness or low vision, 43.6% say they work, 10.5% are out of work, and 28.9% say they are unable to work.
Those numbers should disturb us, but they should not surprise us if we are honest about the pipeline.
The problem begins when schools, agencies, and training programs confuse exposure with proficiency.
A student can be handed a device and still not be adequately trained. They can have a screen reader and still lack efficiency. They can receive services for years and still leave unable to compete.
A report, IEP note, certificate, progress summary, or trainer’s statement is only as strong as the facts behind it. Until there is an evidence trail showing that the skill was demonstrated in real time, the paper is just a claim. It may be well-intentioned. It may satisfy a requirement. But if performance does not match the document, the document is misleading.
That mismatch is dangerous.
If a report says a blind student can use a screen reader, Microsoft Word, spreadsheets, email, web forms, remote meeting platforms, or workplace software, then they should be able to demonstrate those skills with reasonable speed and accuracy and not theory, compliments, and 
 “You are doing well.”

Not “they have made progress.”

Progress matters, but progress is not the same as readiness.

The U.S. Department of Education has said assistive technology can help students “prepare them for the workforce and life after high school.” It also reminds schools that IEP teams must consider whether a student needs assistive technology devices and services.
That sounds good on paper.
Reality is often different.
The Government Accountability Office found that school staff in all eight districts it visited identified “limited knowledge about assistive technology” as a key challenge. The same report pointed to limited training time, staffing shortages, technology issues, and funding barriers.
That means the system already knows the gap exists.
The American Foundation for the Blind documented the same problem in education research. One parent said, “She has not had a lot of tech training.” AFB also found that some blind and low-vision students struggled with digital learning and basic functions like logging into video meetings.
That is not a minor weakness.
That is a pipeline failure.
Another part of the problem is friendly scoring.
Some trainers, teachers, and evaluators do not always give the score a person actually earned. They give the score that feels kind, avoids conflict, protects the program, or makes the paperwork look successful.
But friendly scoring fails students.
A person who deserves a 40 should not be handed an 80 because the truth feels uncomfortable. Someone who needs another six months of instruction should not be passed along because the report looks better that way. A task completed with prompts, hints, or hidden assistance should not be marked as independent proficiency.
That is not compassion, but sabotage dressed up as kindness.
Eventually, the real world gives the test.
The employer will not care that someone received a friendly score. The workplace will not slow down because a report exaggerated ability. Coworkers will not ignore poor performance because an evaluator wanted to be encouraging.
That is why evaluations must be honest, measurable, and evidence-based. If a learner needs improvement, say so. If they are not workplace-ready, document it. If prompts were required, record them. If the task was slow, record the time. If errors occurred, note them. If more training is needed, recommend it.
The goal should not be to make the report look good.
The goal should be to make the person good.
Anything less is a betrayal to that client, and highly destructive to the students.  
The modern workplace is digital. Almost every job now involves some combination of computers, web systems, cloud platforms, databases, email, documents, spreadsheets, remote meetings, online forms, training portals, and productivity software.
So when blind students are not trained deeply, early, and measurably, the consequences follow them into adulthood.
They may get hired, then struggle. They may know the basics, but not the shortcuts. They may complete tasks, but too slowly. They may understand one assistive tool, but not the broader computer environment. They may function in a controlled classroom, but not under workplace pressure.
Coworkers and supervisors notice, then the wrong conclusion gets drawn:
“Blind people cannot do this job.”
That conclusion may be false, and  weak training helps create the appearance that it is true.
One underprepared employee can influence how an employer views the next blind applicant. That is unfair, but it happens.
This is where the status quo protects itself.
It says, “At least they got training.”
The better question is, “Can they demonstrate the skill?”
It says, “The report says they can do it.”
The better question is, “Where is the evidence?”
It says, “We bought assistive technology.”
The better question is, “Was it the right tool, and can they use it effectively?”
It says, “They passed the evaluation.”
The better question is, “Was the score honest?”
It says, “They know enough.”
The better question is, “Enough for daily living, or enough for employment?”
A training system should leave a trail: the task, the date, the technology used, the level of prompting, the time required, the errors made, the correction process, the person who verified it, and the final independent demonstration.
That is how to separate training from comforting fiction.
Perkins published a powerful example from Ike Presley, who described schools where expensive equipment sat unused. He recalled teachers saying they had “some stuff in a closet,” but it “wasn’t the right tool for the job.”
That quote exposes the problem perfectly.
Buying technology is not teaching technology. Possession is not proficiency. Access is not fluency.
A student having JAWS, NVDA, VoiceOver, ZoomText, a Braille display, OCR software, or an AI tool means nothing if they cannot use it to complete real work.
The American Council of the Blind makes the employment connection directly, stating that most jobs held by people with visual impairments require computer-based tools and that “inadequate and untimely training” contributes to employment inequities.
That is exactly what I have seen for decades.
Some blind trainers and teachers are excellent. They stay current, push students, teach real workflows, and understand that technology and workplaces keep changing.
Others are outdated, inefficient, and underqualified. They pass on slow methods, incomplete habits, and low standards. The student trusts them, believes they are ready, and only discovers the truth when the workplace exposes the gaps.
That is not empowerment, but  managed failure.
Now, some people may read this and feel defensive.
They may think, “That sounds arrogant.”
They may wonder if I think I know everything.
They may feel this is too blunt, too critical, or too uncomfortable.
Before settling into that reaction, it may be worth asking:
Is the discomfort coming from the tone, or from the truth?
Because the evidence still has to be answered. The employment numbers still need explaining. Reports still need facts. Students still need to demonstrate skill. And the system still has to prove that it prepares blind people to compete with their sighted peers.
If the first response is to attack the messenger, that may be a sign the message touched something real.
The disease poisoning the blind and disability community is not blindness or disability.
It is the mindset that protects failure, excuses low standards, attacks accountability, and treats honest criticism as betrayal.
That mindset keeps people dependent, shields poor trainers, rewards comfort over competence, turns reports into cover, and allows agencies to say, “We served the student,” without proving the student can perform.
It tells blind people to be grateful for crumbs when they should have been trained to own the table.
So no, this is not arrogance.
Arrogance is defending weak training while large amount of   blind people remain unemployed.
Arrogance is being more offended by the truth than by the damage being done,  protecting inadequate trainers while generations of blind students pay the price.
The National Blindness Professional Certification Board says one of the largest environmental barriers facing blind people is “public misconceptions and low expectations.”
Those expectations do not only come from sighted employers. Sometimes they come from inside our own community, agencies, and classrooms.
Sometimes they come dressed as kindness,  patience, and protection from discomfort.
But comfort does not build skill.
A blind student should not graduate knowing “enough”. They should leave school able to operate technology with confidence, speed, and adaptability.
That means screen readers, magnification, Braille displays where appropriate, OCR tools, smartphones, productivity suites, cloud storage, accessible AI tools, web navigation, file systems, document formatting, spreadsheets, databases, remote platforms, and troubleshooting under pressure.
That is not asking too much.
That is asking for what the modern workplace already requires.
For anyone reading this who has received training, given it, supervised it, or signed off on someone’s progress, this is not an attack. It is an invitation to be honest.
Can I demonstrate what my report says I can do?
Can my students demonstrate what I said they learned?
Were the scores honest, or comfortable?
Did the training prepare someone for daily living only, or for employment?
Can the person perform under real-world conditions without being rescued?
Are we measuring skill, or protecting feelings?
Those questions may be uncomfortable, but they are necessary.
Employers still have responsibility. They must provide accessible systems, reasonable accommodations, and fair opportunities. They should not assume incompetence because someone is blind.
But the blind community must also separate discrimination from lack of preparation.
A practical skills demonstration can help. Not a test designed to exclude, but a fair evaluation with proper accessibility and accommodations.
Can the candidate complete the task,  navigate the required software, manage documents, email, forms, spreadsheets, or databases efficiently and effectively?   
Can they troubleshoot when something goes wrong?
Can they perform with reasonable speed and accuracy?
I have gone through those demonstrations myself, and they reveal the truth quickly. They show what a person can actually do, not just what a resume claims.
That same standard should exist in education and rehabilitation.
Before a report says someone is proficient, they should demonstrate proficiency. Before a trainer signs off, the task should be completed independently. Before an agency closes a case as successful, there should be evidence that the person can function in the environment they are being prepared for.
Because a report without evidence is not accountability.
It is paperwork.
The solution is not to lower standards but to raise training quality.
We need technology instruction that begins early, grows with the student, and keeps pace with the real world. Trainers who are current, efficient, honest, and accountable is a start. We need measurable outcomes, real demonstrations, accurate scores, evidence trails, and students tested on practical tasks instead of praised for minimal exposure.
I have been inside this system since 1985 and  know what it gave me, and what it failed to give me. That is why I made a conscious decision not to teach the way I was taught.
I do not believe in training blind people merely to survive with technology, but to work, lead, solve problems, and win.
These employment numbers have been this way for decades. They will stay this way until education and rehabilitation systems stop hiring inadequate trainers, remove those who produce subpar results, reject friendly scoring, and demand evidence-based instruction where blind students demonstrate real skills before anyone signs off,  ready to compete, contribute, and succeed.

Sent from my iPhone
_______________________________________________
Trainer-Talk mailing list
Trainer-Talk at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/trainer-talk_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Trainer-Talk:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/trainer-talk_nfbnet.org/chong.curtis%40gmail.com