The Lodestar Foundation (www.lodestarfoundation.org), founded in 1999 and based in Phoenix, Arizona, is a national and international grant making organization devoted to maximizing the growth and impact of philanthropy by leveraging philanthropic resources through alliances and collaboration. The Collaboration Prize, a cash award of $250,000 will be presented to the most successful collaboration in the nonprofit world.

As one of 30 semi-finalists, CANnect has been recognized for creating a partnership of blindness organizations throughout the country working towards developing distance learning programs for blind youth and adults. The Carroll Center has played a significant role in the CANnect development by creating a technology training curriculum for blind adults to take technology classes from their home or community. Carroll Center President, Rachel E. Rosenbaum said, “Since we have been in the forefront of accessible technology training for blind persons for the past 25 years, we look forward to sharing our experiences with blind persons throughout the country.”

Eight finalists are currently being chosen from the 30, and the prize winner will be chosen by a Final Selection Panel of leaders from the nonprofit and business worlds.

The Carroll Center’s distance learning program can be found on the web at http://www.carrolltech.org

“Literate Teachers Create Literate Students”

Criteria

TVIs who are licensed and employed in Massachusetts, and who have a minimum of four years of professional experience. The recipient of this award shall have demonstrated substantial initiative and success in advancing the literacy skills of students with visual impairment.

Nomination Protocol

Teachers may be nominated by a colleague, a parent, current or past student or by a supervisor/administrator. Teachers are also encouraged to consider self-nominating. Nomination packets should include the following information:

1. Three letters of recommendation (one each from a student/parent, supervisor/administrator and colleague)
2. Current resume
3. Description of outstanding projects, teacher-made materials or instructional strategies, developed or enhanced by the teacher, which have enriched the lives of students in accomplishing their educational and personal goals toward literacy
4. Description of professional development activities and contributions to the field through workshops, conferences, committees, volunteer efforts, etc

Send to:

Sue Malone, Educational Services Department
Carroll Center for the Blind
770 Centre Street
Newton MA 02458

Selection Committee:

All nominations/applications will be reviewed by a committee of four people who represent local, regional and national organizations, such as The Carroll Center, NAPVI, AMESVI, UMass Boston, BC, APH, AER and AFB.

Due Date: December 12, 2008

Decision Date: Mid-January, 2009

More Information

More information about this award can be found in the Awards section of our website.

Since its passage, the ADA has been weakened by Supreme Court decisions which narrowed the scope of the law and how it is to be implemented. This applies particularly to Title I of ADA, employment. In these cases, the majority of Supreme Court justices expressed their concerns regarding broad interpretation of ADA. They believe that such interpretation results in injustices ranging from violation of states rights to imposing undue burden upon private corporations. Below I shall summarize two of these cases.

1. Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001).
“ This case involved separate lawsuits, one filed by Patricia Garrett and another by Milton Ash, that were consolidated on appeal. Patricia Garrett, a registered nurse, was employed as Director of Nursing, OB/Gyn/Neonatal Services, for the University of Alabama in Birmingham Hospital. In 1994, she was diagnosed with breast cancer and subsequently underwent a lumpectomy, radiation treatment, and chemotherapy. These treatments necessitated her taking leave from work. When she returned to work in July 1995, her supervisor notified her that she would have to give up her position as director. She thereafter applied for and received a transfer to another, lower paying position as a nurse manager.

Milton Ash was a security officer with the Alabama Department of Youth Services. When he began his job, he informed the Department that he had chronic asthma and that his doctor recommended he avoid carbon monoxide and cigarette smoke. Mr. Ash requested that the Department modify his duties to minimize his exposure to these substances. Later, he was diagnosed with sleep apnea and, upon the recommendation of his doctor, asked to be reassigned to daytime shifts to accommodate his condition. The Department refused to make any of the changes Mr. Ash requested. After he filed a discrimination claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, his performance evaluations started being lower than those he had received previously.

Eventually both Ms. Garrett and Mr. Ash filed lawsuits in federal court, seeking monetary damages under ADA. In each case, the Alabama state agency employers moved for summary judgment, claiming that they were shielded by the Eleventh Amendment and that in enacting ADA Congress had exceeded its authority to abrogate states’ immunity under that Amendment. The district court decided to address both cases in a single opinion, and granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment. The cases were then formally consolidated on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The Eleventh Circuit reversed, ruling that ADA validly abrogates the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that suits by employees of a state to recover money damages from a state for violations of Title I of ADA are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice Rehnquist. Early in the opinion, he acknowledged that the wording of the Eleventh Amendment applies only to suits against a state by citizens of another state, and explained that the Court’s decisions extended the Amendment’s applicability to suits by citizens against their own states. Ultimately, the Eleventh Amendment has come to mean that states may not be sued by private individuals in federal court without the state’s consent. Prior to its Garrett decision, the Court’s most recent ruling on the Eleventh Amendment was Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (2000), in which the Court ruled that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act did not validly abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity from suits by private individuals.”

The 5 justices who concurred on this decision believed that discrimination of persons with disabilities did not rise to the level of discrimination faced by racial minorities under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 where such suits would not have been considered a violation of states’ rights. Apparently, these justices overlooked the substantial evidence produced by Congress when passing the ADA and referenced in a dissenting opinion.

2. Albertson’s, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, 527 U.S. 555 (1999).
“In August 1990, Albertson’s, Inc., a grocery-store chain, hired Hallie Kirkingburg as a truckdriver to be based at its warehouse in Portland, Oregon. Mr. Kirkingburg had more than ten years driving experience and Albertson’s’ transportation manager found that he performed well on a road test. Mr. Kirkingburg had an uncorrectable vision condition (amblyopia), that involves weakened vision in one eye—20/200 vision in the left eye in Kirkingburg’s case—so that the individual in effect sees only with the other eye. When a person uses only one eye to see, the condition is referred to as “monocular” vision. Before he started working, Albertson’s required Kirkingburg to be examined by a doctor to see if he met federal standards for commercial truckdrivers. These standards, issued by the United States Department of Transportation (DOT), include a “basic vision” requirement that corrected distant visual acuity be at least 20/40 in each eye and distant binocular (two-eye) acuity be at least 20/40. Despite Kirkingburg’s weak left eye, the doctor who examined him certified, erroneously, that he met the DOT basic vision standard.

In December 1991, Kirkingburg took a leave of absence after injuring himself on the job. Albertson’s required returning employees to undergo a physical examination, so, in November 1992, Kirkingburg went for a physical. This time, the examining physician correctly assessed Kirkingburg’s vision and found that his eyesight did not meet the basic DOT standards. Either the physician, or his nurse, told Kirkingburg that he would have to obtain a waiver of the basic vision standards. DOT had a process for giving certification to applicants who had three years of recent experience driving a commercial vehicle with a clean driving record (as defined by DOT). A waiver applicant had to agree to have his or her vision checked annually, and to submit reports regarding his or her driving experience to DOT’s Federal Highway Administration. Mr. Kirkingburg applied for a waiver, but while his application was pending, Albertson’s fired him from his job as truckdriver because he could not meet the basic DOT vision standard. Ultimately, Mr. Kirkingburg received a DOT waiver, but Albertson’s refused to rehire him. Mr. Kirkingburg brought suit alleging that Albertson’s violated ADA by firing him.

The district court granted summary judgment for Albertson’s, ruling that the company had reasonably concluded that Mr. Kirkingburg was not qualified without an accommodation because he could not meet the basic DOT vision standards, and that Albertson’s was not required, as a reasonable accommodation, to give him time to get a DOT waiver. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision. The Court of Appeals held that Albertson’s could not use the DOT vision standard as the justification for its vision requirement and yet disregard the waiver program which was a legitimate part of the DOT program. Albertson’s argued for the first time before the Ninth Circuit that it was entitled to summary judgment because Mr. Kirkingburg did not have a disability within the meaning of ADA. The Court of Appeals rejected this contention because it concluded that Mr. Kirkingburg had presented evidence that his vision was effectively monocular, and thus that the manner in which he sees differs significantly from the manner in which most people see.

The Supreme Court granted review of both the question whether Mr. Kirkingburg had a disability and whether he was qualified. In a unanimous ruling, the Court reversed the judgment of the Ninth Circuit. Because the Supreme Court decided that Kirkingburg was not “qualified” under ADA, the Court did not have to resolve the issue of whether he was an individual with a disability. The Court decided to address the issue of standards for determining the existence of disability, however, because of what it called “three missteps the Ninth Circuit made” in its discussion of the issue. 527 U.S. at 562. Although Mr. Kirkingburg had originally alleged both that he had a disability and that Albertson’s had regarded him as having a disability, the Supreme Court discussed only the issue of actual disability, because Kirkingburg did not raise the “regarded as” issue in his petition to the Supreme Court. In assessing whether Mr. Kirkingburg’s vision impairment substantially limited the major life activity of seeing, the Court considered the Ninth Circuit as having been “too quick to find a disability.” Id. at 564. The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals had accepted as sufficient to establish disability Mr. Kirkingburg’s evidence that the manner in which he sees differs significantly from the manner in which most people see. In the Supreme Court’s view, the Ninth Circuit had accepted a mere difference in manner instead of requiring a showing of significant restriction in order to establish substantial limitation.

Second, the Court found that the Ninth Circuit had not taken sufficient account of evidence that Mr. Kirkingburg had developed subconscious mechanisms for compensating and coping with his visual impairment, suggesting that the Court of Appeals believed that in gauging whether an individual has a disability a court need not consider the individual’s ability to compensate for the impairment. The Supreme Court found this approach to be inconsistent with its ruling in Sutton v. United Airlines, supra, that mitigating measures must be taken into account in judging whether an individual has a disability, and the Court saw no “basis for distinguishing between measures undertaken with artificial aids, like medications and devices, and measures undertaken, whether consciously or not, with the body’s own systems.” 527 U.S. at 565-66.

Third, the Court observed that the Ninth Circuit did not sufficiently heed the statutory obligation to determine the existence of disabilities on a case-by-case basis. While recognizing that there may be some impairments that invariably cause a substantial limitation of a major life activity, the Court did not consider monocularity to be such a condition, because people with monocularity may have variations in the degree of visual acuity in the weaker eye, in the age at which they suffered their vision loss, in the extent of their compensating adjustments in visual techniques, and in the ultimate scope of the restrictions on their visual abilities. The Court of Appeals did not identify the degree of loss suffered by Mr. Kirkingburg, and the Supreme Court could find no evidence in the record specifying the extent of his visual restrictions. The Court declared that it was not suggesting that monocular individuals have an onerous burden in trying to show that they have a disability; indeed, it recognized that “people with monocular vision ‘ordinarily’ will meet the Act’s definition of disability.” Id. at 567. But it held that, as with other persons who seek ADA’s protection, individuals with monocular vision must offer evidence that the extent of the limitation, as in loss of depth perception and visual field, is substantial in their personal situation.”

(quotes taken from a paper written by the National Council on Disability. This paper is a thorough examination of the relationship between the ADA and the US Supreme Court. IT can be found at ADA and the Supreme Court)

In my view, the Supreme Court took an overly narrow view of Title I of the ADA. I am greatly pleased that by passing the ADA Amendments Act, Congress and President Bush agreed with my views. However, the new law did not consider accessibility of the internet. Presently, only businesses with brick and mortar facilities are required to make their websites accessible to persons with disabilities. Organizations such as the American Council of the blind, the National federation of the blind and the American foundation for the Blind had advocated to get this issue included in the law. But the prevailing view in Congress was that the ADA did not speak directly to internet access. Keep in mind that the internet as it is today did not exist in 1990.

Information for this blog was taken from the following websites.

• “Congress approves landmark protections for disabled workers”: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/21/AR2008092101645.html
• EEOC Summary

1. Promote the Carroll Center at conferences, meetings. Attend and participate in events that further the promotion of the agency. Conduct presentations about the agency and its programs.
2. Develop and foster relationships with Vision Rehabilitation professionals, social workers, doctors, nurses, etc; build a referral network.
3. Interview prospective clients and gather data relevant for admission. Assess the client’s potential and appropriateness for the program selected. Help the client make a positive decision for training.
4. Process referrals of prospective clients; follow up with all referrals via phone, email, mail, etc.
5. Complete and coordinate intake case files on each client prior to entry, including authorization forms for billing.
6. Actively work with dropped/cancelled students to promote their return or start.
7. Coordinate transportation for all incoming clients.
8. Assist Marketing Department to plan and execute monthly Orientation Sessions and other marketing events.
9. Maintain an acceptable driving record.
10. Report weekly to Admissions Committee.

Required Qualifications:

• College degree in Vision Rehabilitation, health care, or human services-related field.
• Two plus years experience in the field of Vision Rehabilitation.
• Understanding of Vision Rehabilitation system.
• Self-motivation and the ability to perform without extensive direct supervision.
• Excellent recruitment, planning, and marketing skills.
• Respect for confidentiality in regards to student data.
• Strong interpersonal, communication and presentation skills.
• Exceptional organizational and problem solving skills.
• Computer literate in Microsoft Word, Outlook, Excel, and PowerPoint.
• Outstanding customer service and relationship management skills
• Independent travel required;Willingness to travel overnight.
• Available for regular evening and weekend hours, programs and activities.

To Apply: Send Resumes to

rabih.dow@carroll.org

“We’ve always operated the Carroll Center with tight controls on spending,” said Carroll Center President, Rachel Rosenbaum. “It’s been our practice for over 30 years.”

For further information on Charity navigator and its rating systems, visit charitynavigator.org.

1. You plan to take taxicabs or find rides to and from your destinations.
2. If you’re going to do some independent walking, it’s a good idea to get directions in advance from multiple sources. These may include people who either live or work in the places you’ll be visiting and local police.

My favorite directions have often come from other blind travelers. But recent developments in Global Positioning Systems, (GPS) have allowed the blind traveler a great deal more spontaneity.

The GPS system consists of 24 orbiting satellites that was developed by the United States government originally for use by the military. IN recent years, navigational aids have been developed for the consumer market. It is surely a lot easier to program a route to a given address than it is to find your way around using one of those large map books. More recently, accessible GPS systems have been developed for the blind and visually impaired. These devices can be used both for walking and for directing drivers. One of them can even be used to direct blind sailors. Below, I’ll discuss four available choices: StreetTalk, Sendero, Trekkerand Mobile Geo.

All of these systems give the blind traveler the ability to travel specified routes and provide valuable information along the way. Routes can either be calculated by the software or determined in great detail by the user. The software will calculate any route given two addresses that appear on the same map, but this route might not be the most desirable route for reasons such as number of traffic lights or complexity of walking through certain intersections. For this reason, the software allows the user to either drive or walk a preferred route which can be saved for future use. The user can determine things like location by address, nearest intersection and nearby points of interest such as restaurants, stores and bus stations. The user can also designate additional favorites and points of interest. Many users like to designate locations such as home or work as favorites because after doing so, it is much easier to calculate a route to these locations in the future from anywhere else on a map.

Sendero

The Sendero GPS system is designed to be used with either the BrailleNote or the brailleSense personal data assistant. The Sendero package includes a GPS receiver, the software and a blue tooth card which allows the GPS receiver to communicate with the personal data assistant. The Sendero is considered to be the Cadillac of GPS systems for the blind due to both price and to its outstanding array of features and functions. The cost of the Sendero is around $1500.00 but it offers by far the greatest number of features and highest level of configurability.

The Sendero provides many options to assist the blind traveler in walking, directing drivers and even sailing! Routes can be planned and explored in advance. The user can explore maps even when not on line. The user proceeds block by block as street names and cross streets are announced. One can even determine the type of intersection such as four-way or three-way. The user can determine exactly which types of information are to be spoken automatically and there are shortcut commands to instantly obtain these types of information. Types of information include points of interest, (categories can be turned on and off individually), street address, next intersection, and next action step while viewing a route. The user can select three modes: pedestrian, driving and free mode. Free mode is particularly useful for places like college campuses and large parks. The user can create routes between points of interest in free mode including points of interest inserted by the user. That feature would have come in handy when I was an under-graduate at Boston College. The user can even create routes between points of latitude and longitude down to minutes and seconds. This means that a blind sailor can independently navigate in the open ocean when the weather is good. (This does not mean that safe navigation is possible in busy harbors.) The Sendero appears to be the easiest of the three to install. There are a lot of commands to learn, but if you’re already familiar with either the brailleNote or BrailleSense this should not be an issue. To learn more about the Sendero go to www.senderogroup.com

Trekker

The Trekker software runs on the Maestro, an off-the-shelf personal data assistant that has been outfitted with screen reader software and an attachable keyboard that allows the blind user to use the tap screen. The Trekker package includes the software, a GPS receiver, an external speaker and a special strap that facilitates the portability of the Trekker. IF the strap is used, the PDA, the GPS receiver and the speaker are arranged on the strap for easy carrying. The Trekker is by far the most portable of the first three GPS systems discussed.

The Trekker costs around $1,600.00 but this price includes the PdA. The Maestro software which makes the unit a fully functioning PDA can be had for an additional $300.00. The Trekker offers many of the same features found in the Sendero. You can travel either automatically calculated routes or user-specified routes, explore both routes and maps off-line and add points of interest and favorites. But the free mode is not as versatile as that found in the Sendero. I don’t believe that the Trekker would work well in the sailing scenario mentioned above.

While the Trekker is much more portable, it does have a couple of drawbacks. Installation of the software on the PDA is not at all intuitive. I would say that the Trekker is also the hardest of the three systems to learn. The attached keyboard is not at all like that found on either the BrailleNote or the PAC Mate. Below is a link that will play an audio clip from a friend of mine who used the Trekker on a recent trip. Here, he expresses his frustrations regarding the steep learning curve involved with use of the Trekker and the inability of the Trekker to automatically recalculate a route when the user goes off-route. I must also note here that after initial frustrations, my friend was able to use the Trekker more successfully later in his trip. This friend is an accomplished information technology professional. If he became frustrated with the Trekker, I can only imagine the frustration faced by persons less skilled in the use of computers. To here his report, go to humanware am I and click on the “listen to Rick’s report” link. To learn more about the Trekker, go to the Trekker web page

StreetTalk

The StreetTalk software runs on the PAC Mate personal data assistant. The StreetTalk package includes the software, GPS receiver, Blue tooth compact flash card and a compact flash storage card. The StreetTalk is the least expensive system costing around $600.00 but it is also the bulkiest to carry around due to the size of the PAC Mate. StreetTalk also lacks some of the features found in the Trekker and the Sendero. The user can travel both automatically calculated and user pre-determined routes and ad user favorites to the database. The user can explore routes off-line, but not maps. This means that if your planning a trip for tomorrow, you can get a good idea of the distance and where to turn, but you won’t be able to determine the number of blocks to walk on each leg of your route until you actually travel the route online. Also, intersecting streets are not automatically announced. AT any time, the user can ask the unit to speak the names of streets at the current intersection.

The biggest drawback with StreetTalk is the installation which in my view is for certified geeks only! I have both the PAC Mate and StreetTalk which were purchased by the good folks at the Massachusetts Commission for the blind, (MCB) I had these very nice people do the StreetTalk install and I’m glad I did. It is a 90-step process that required many frustrating hours on the part of MCB technicians. Once installed, however, the system worked well. I found it relatively easy to use. Familiarity with the PAC Mate made the process of learning StreetTalk even easier. I have been using StreetTalk for around three years both for walking and directing drivers. I considered myself an accomplished navigator before I obtained StreetTalk and have found this system to be a wonderful enhancement. My wife used to be very reluctant to drive into cities like Boston and Cambridge, but with the StreetTalk that inhibition has fallen away. IT is a tremendous convenience to find places I didn’t know about before such as stores and restaurants along a route.

There’s one more point to consider here. When Freedom Scientific introduced the OMNI it did not introduce a compatible version of StreetTalk. FS hopes to release a new version of StreetTalk that will work with the OMNI in the near future, but it has taken far longer than anticipated. A big part of the problem here is that StreetTalk uses the destinator which is an off-the -shelf general market GPS system. FS has no control over the nature of this software. Personally, I refuse to update to the PAC Mate OMNI until FS releases a new version of StreetTalk. To learn more about StreetTalk, go to streettalk gps

Mobile Geo

Mobile Geo is a newer product which offers what might just be the best of all worlds in GPS systems for the blind. Mobile Geo runs on Smart phones equipped with the Mobile Speak screen reader and Pocket PC devices including cell phones and personal data assistants. . The Mobile Geo software costs $845.00; the Mobile Geo can be purchased along with Mobile Speak for $1,125.00. The user must also purchase a Smart phone or pocket PC device. After typical rebates, the user might pay something like $125.00 for a Smart Phone. While the Mobile Geo will work with GPS receivers that are built into some Smart Phones, the manufacturer recommends the use of a separate blue tooth GPS receiver for better location accuracy and to maximize battery charge time on the cell phone. The Mobile Geo is a Sendero product and it offers all of the advanced features found in the Sendero product discussed above. The Mobile Geo represents a tremendous advance in GPS system portability. A friend who uses the system carries his Smart phone and the GPS receiver in his shirt pocket! The Mobile Geo is the Cadillac of GPS systems for the blind in a much smaller package.

The drawbacks here are price and difficulty of installation. The price is not much of a drawback when one compares it to the other Sendero product and realizes that you’re getting the most fully-featured GPS system available. But the installation process is complex. The user must be sure to have the proper version of Mobile Speak, get the blue tooth receiver to mate with the phone and install the Mobile Jeo and any desired maps. This process can be daunting particularly if you’re purchasing the phone, Mobile Speak and Mobile Geo at the same time. For more information on the Mobile Geo go to mobile geo

Don’t feel like typing in our URL into your phone? Visit m.carroll.org on your computer and fill out the form with your cell phone number. A link will be sent to your phone via SMS (again, standard messaging charge may apply).

• Preview the mobile web site
• Preview the iPhone interface

Registration

Contact Meg Robertson Director of Orientation & Mobility Department Massachusetts Commission for the Blind:

48 Boylston St.
Boston MA 02116-4718
Email Meg Robertson
617-626-7581

Notes on completing the CAPTCHA

CAPTCHAs are a necessary evil required to prevent web forms from being filled out by automated bots. They have long provided difficulty to users of access technology. As far as CAPTCHAs go, the one required to complete this process is very simple. When prompted to enter the text displayed, simply tab once more out of the text input field. This will bring focus to a link that will provide an audio CAPTCHA. Simply press the spacebar and wait approximately 3 seconds. You will hear a series of numbers read to you. Listen carefully and remember these numbers (usually 3 or 4). Shift + TAB back to the text input field and complete the form as you normally would (enter forms processing mode, type the numbers, and submit the form. This is the typical process for most access technology).

Two renowned agencies have combined services to offer vision-impaired clients a unique residential program. Spend half a day learning adapted computers, and the other half in guide dog training.

Experience training on a suburban campus with access to public transportation; shopping and entertainment. Students will be provided private rooms and meals on campus. Evening seminars and recreation activities will be offered. Call Dina Rosenbaum, 800-852-3131, ext 238 or email: dina.rosenbaum@carroll.org for more info.

Instruction available in:

• JAWS
• ZOOMTEXT
• MAGic
• PDA’s
• BRAILLE DEVICES
• WINDOWS XP
• VISTA
• WEB BROWSING
• MICROSOFT APPLICATIONS
• BEGINNER TO ADVANCED LEVELS

The Carroll Center
770 Centre Street, Newton, MA 02458
800-852-3131
www.carroll.org

Guide Dog Foundation
371 East Jericho Turnpike, Smithtown, NY 11787
866-282-8047
www.guidedog.org