Miss-Delectable
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2004
- Messages
- 17,160
- Reaction score
- 7
http://www.in-forum.com/articles/index.cfm?id=153763§ion=Opinion&forumcomm_check_return&freebie_check&CFID=16404337&CFTOKEN=89081607&jsessionid=8830fd16510b28352c2d
I commend Sen. John Andrist, R-Crosby, N.D., and Sen. Aaron Krauter, D-Regent, N.D., for their recognition of a problem and taking steps to address the problem. The problem being the per-pupil cost of $119,000 at the School for the Deaf. I do not think that it should be done on the back of the School for the Blind. I believe that the deaf and the blind are like apples and oranges. Their needs are totally different. There is nothing in this bill that would enhance the School for the Blind.
I believe there are two insurmountable problems with the combination of the two schools.
First, there is a working relationship with the University of North Dakota. The School for the Blind is located on or near UND’s campus. There are very few schools that offer the necessary certification to teach the blind. UND is one of them. The closest other school, I believe, is in Colorado. UND can offer that program because of the school for the blind. It is difficult to learn to teach blind people with no blind people. UND also uses a lot of the equipment of the school of the blind. UND also has an intern program that is done at the School for the Blind.
Second, one of the things that they teach at the School for the Blind is the use of bus transportation. Transportation is the major problem for a blind person. They need to be taught how to use public transportation. Devils Lake does not have a bus system.
Another problem is that there are few people certified to teach the blind. Many of the professional staff in Grand Forks would not make the move to Devils Lake. They have families and spouses who have jobs also. With the limited number of people that are certified to teach the blind, securing a professional staff probably would be a major problem.
I would like to see the School for the Blind services expanded in the adult services area. With blindness from diabetes and macro degeneration increasing due to our aging population, I believe this is going to become more important as time goes on. Currently, our blind people must go out of state to learn how to live with their blindness.
The fact that the School for the Deaf is in the Constitution is the real problem. The proposed study should consider that in the year 2007, a deaf person would not be able to be “mainstreamed” (provided for by local school districts). The
$6.8 million could be used to subsidize local school districts to help with the transition. I would think that it would benefit the deaf person if they could live with their families and be taught locally. There is a lot of technology available that may make that possible.
If I were to do a study, it would not be on how to combine the schools but to see how services can be best provided for both schools.
I commend Sen. John Andrist, R-Crosby, N.D., and Sen. Aaron Krauter, D-Regent, N.D., for their recognition of a problem and taking steps to address the problem. The problem being the per-pupil cost of $119,000 at the School for the Deaf. I do not think that it should be done on the back of the School for the Blind. I believe that the deaf and the blind are like apples and oranges. Their needs are totally different. There is nothing in this bill that would enhance the School for the Blind.
I believe there are two insurmountable problems with the combination of the two schools.
First, there is a working relationship with the University of North Dakota. The School for the Blind is located on or near UND’s campus. There are very few schools that offer the necessary certification to teach the blind. UND is one of them. The closest other school, I believe, is in Colorado. UND can offer that program because of the school for the blind. It is difficult to learn to teach blind people with no blind people. UND also uses a lot of the equipment of the school of the blind. UND also has an intern program that is done at the School for the Blind.
Second, one of the things that they teach at the School for the Blind is the use of bus transportation. Transportation is the major problem for a blind person. They need to be taught how to use public transportation. Devils Lake does not have a bus system.
Another problem is that there are few people certified to teach the blind. Many of the professional staff in Grand Forks would not make the move to Devils Lake. They have families and spouses who have jobs also. With the limited number of people that are certified to teach the blind, securing a professional staff probably would be a major problem.
I would like to see the School for the Blind services expanded in the adult services area. With blindness from diabetes and macro degeneration increasing due to our aging population, I believe this is going to become more important as time goes on. Currently, our blind people must go out of state to learn how to live with their blindness.
The fact that the School for the Deaf is in the Constitution is the real problem. The proposed study should consider that in the year 2007, a deaf person would not be able to be “mainstreamed” (provided for by local school districts). The
$6.8 million could be used to subsidize local school districts to help with the transition. I would think that it would benefit the deaf person if they could live with their families and be taught locally. There is a lot of technology available that may make that possible.
If I were to do a study, it would not be on how to combine the schools but to see how services can be best provided for both schools.