Another Perspective on Guide Dogs and Training Centers

Another Perspective on Guide Dogs and Training Centers

The Braille Monitor

January,

2004

(back)

(next) (contents)

Another Perspective

on Guide Dogs and Training Centers

by

Angie Matney

Angie

Matney and her guide dog Glaze.

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.

(back)

(next) (contents)