[Trainer-Talk] Interesting Facebook Post

Wed Apr 29 14:26:15 UTC 2026

Hello Bryan.
When I was working for the state of CO, I had the same gripes about vendors
who never seemed to stay current and could not teach Google or Office 365
online, Mac and Android phones ETC, because they were stuck in the 1990's
way of using/teaching AT. However, I also saw the same thing from our
internal AT staff who struggled with keeping up with the ever-changing
tech. Now that I am a vendor, I find that vendors tend to get the more
off-the-wall clients that the state seems unable to teach/handle. I am just
speaking from my own experience and have been concerned about internal
staff growing their AT skills and being able to get away with pushing
things to vendors. I have also witnessed staff inflating reports and have
felt the pressure to do so myself for fear that I am the difficult employee
who is expecting too much out of my clients. It's all very messy! I see all
sides and I don't know what the fix is. I think these kinds of honest
conversations can only help shape all of our thoughts to helping us figure
it out? lol

Showe

On Tue, Apr 28, 2026 at 6:55 PM Bryan via Trainer-Talk <
trainer-talk at nfbnet.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Contractors in Missouri obtain their contract by passing a test with rehab
> services.
> My rub with this style is the person wishing to be a trainer is given the
> questions or tasks they will be required to demonstrate during the test and
> once they easily pass, they never have to take or pass another test again!
> When being paid with taxpayer funds, why do they never have to prove their
> ability again?
> I also don't appreciate a contractor being paid to create jaws scripts
> then find the contractor on the jaws scripting list asking for help to work
> out bugs in scripts created for a state client and the contractor is paid
> by the state agency!
> Are trainers in any other state required to ever prove their ability more
> than only one time?
> Bryan
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Trainer-Talk <trainer-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org> On Behalf Of Will
> Walsh via Trainer-Talk
> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2026 3:25 PM
> To: List for teachers and trainers of adaptive technology <
> trainer-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Cc: Will Walsh <willwalsh at blindmast.com>
> Subject: Re: [Trainer-Talk] Interesting Facebook Post
>
> My humble opinion is the following:
> For starters, the original FB post was incredibly well-written and thought
> out. I think we can all improve as trainers, which leads me to my bigger
> point here.
> Showe, you brought up the fact that many people do not share their
> knowledge and expertise and are generally closed off. While I can
> understand why this is the case more time than not, I feel that it is
> deeply hurting all of us. Pride isn't going to get you anywhere in the long
> run, and I stanchly believe that as professionals who are in an industry
> that helps others, we should want to help each other out just as much as we
> do our clients/students. In turn, this will strengthen the quality of
> training for everyone involved and not just to us as the service providers.
> I am a firm advocate for a team-based approach, and I feel that this is
> crucial to our longevity in so many ways. We can certainly agree to
> disagree on various topics, but the key should always be that we strive to
> give others a hand up, not a handout, as much as humanly possible. If folks
> aren't willing to receive input, then that is Soley their problem, but I at
> least can say that I tried. To me, that matters more than anything else at
> the end of the day.
>
>
> Will Walsh
> Adaptive Technology Specialist, (ATS)
> Miles Access Skills Training LLC
> 1400 SW 5th Ave, Suite 690
> Portland Or, 97201
> Phone: 971-257-9958
> Email:
> willwalsh at blindmast.com
> Web:
> www.blindmast.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Trainer-Talk <trainer-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org> On Behalf Of Showe
> Trela via Trainer-Talk
> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2026 12:55 PM
> To: trainer-talk at nfbnet.org
> Cc: Showe Trela <myshowe86 at gmail.com>; trainer-talk at nfbnet.org
> Subject: Re: [Trainer-Talk] Interesting Facebook Post
>
> Hi Curtis.
> There are so many thoughts I have about this because I don't know the
> answers either. I do know that I work with all different kinds of blind
> individuals with all different learning styles and I have bent over
> backwards to try to help some be as tech-aware or knowledgeable about tech
> but some people just don't want to or can't be. It's almost like there is
> too much technology out there now and the gap between sighted users and
> blind users keeps getting bigger! If you aren't the type to stay current
> and be adaptable, you are left behind. As a tech trainer I am struggling
> with teaching people how to bridge the gap so that they can be employable.
> I don't consider myself a “bad trainer.” But then, maybe the people who I
> have considered could use improvements in their training methods never
> thought of themselves as a "bad trainer" either! I feel like a lot of us
> trainers seem to be working so hard to get our  work done and I wonder if
> successful methods that we all are using aren't being shared so we don't
> have to keep on creating the wheel? I hate gate-keeping and love bouncing
> ideas off each other. But I also understand that a lot of us run our own
> business as trainers and may not want to share exercises, evaluations or
> business ideas. There are also so many youtube videos out there with
> trainers trying to be content creaters and I just wonder how we can up our
> quality as trainers. I am trying to get my CATIS and I don't see as much
> support from CATIS holders either. These are some  the thoughts that
> floated around in my mind when I read this article.
> Thanks again for your response.
>
> Showe
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Apr 28, 2026, at 12:27 PM, Curtis Chong via Trainer-Talk <
> trainer-talk at nfbnet.org> wrote:
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/myshowe86%40
> > gmail.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/willwalsh%40blindmast.com
> _______________________________________________
> 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/b.schulz%40sbcglobal.net
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/myshowe86%40gmail.com
>