Wish They All Could Be California Guides
[Sorry 'bout that title. But it's late, and why am I awake? Also, squonk, should "All" be capitalized up there?]
The California State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind has posted an open letter to out-of-state schools, suggesting they need to make sure their instructors who train in California are licensed: ...California law requires guide dog instructors to be licensed. An instructor "means a person who instructs blind persons in the use of guide dogs or who engages in the business of training, selling, hiring, or supplying guide dogs for the blind."
It followed this up with a fact sheet on out-of-state instruction, which says that an unlicensed instructor can conduct follow-up, as long as no "instruction" occurs: "...a home interview or verbal assessment of the day-to-day activities of a guide dog team would not be prohibited."
What's wrong with this? Well, first, the statute doesn't actually *define* "training." It does provide a minimal list of what a trained guide dog should be able to do. I suppose they are relying on the definition of "instructor," which refers to guide dogs and instruction in their use. But is follow-up instruction in the use of a dog? Other key terms seem not to be defined with the precision my 1L summer employer would have expected of me.
A friend suggested that the Board's action might not be a bad thing, since it could lead to common training standards. To which I say, I don't want Gov. Schwarzenegger (or any single governor, for that matter) and his appointees having anything to do with setting standards for guide-dog schools.
But surely the members of this board are carefully chosen, right?
According to the Board's web site:
The Guide Dog Board has seven members. One member represents the Director of the Department of Rehabilitation. The other six are Governor appointees, two of whom must be blind persons who use guide dogs.
The statute authorizing the Board says:
The board shall consist of seven members appointed by the Governor. One member shall be the Director of Rehabilitation or his or her designated representative. The remaining members shall be persons who have shown a particular interest in dealing with the problems of the blind, and at least two of them shall be blind persons who use guide dogs.
The emphasis is mine.
Strategic deletion there. Which might explain this.
When asked about naming his Nanny to the Board, Gov. Schwarzenegger didn't mention that she had "a particular interest in dealing with the problems of the blind" (how about problematic blind people?):
"She expressed an interest in serving the people of California like many other Californians do," said Schwarzenegger's spokesman, Aaron McLear. "The governor wants those interested in serving to have that opportunity."
Apologies if you're on the CA Guide Dog Board and you found this through Google. It's nothing personal. It's just...you are probably not as qualified as the people at my school, or the International Guide Dog Federation, to regulate the standards by which I was trained.
Perhaps we could all feel better about this if we had more information. If you really are on the California State Board, feel free to comment here (or, if you choose, in a more public forum).
The California State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind has posted an open letter to out-of-state schools, suggesting they need to make sure their instructors who train in California are licensed: ...California law requires guide dog instructors to be licensed. An instructor "means a person who instructs blind persons in the use of guide dogs or who engages in the business of training, selling, hiring, or supplying guide dogs for the blind."
It followed this up with a fact sheet on out-of-state instruction, which says that an unlicensed instructor can conduct follow-up, as long as no "instruction" occurs: "...a home interview or verbal assessment of the day-to-day activities of a guide dog team would not be prohibited."
What's wrong with this? Well, first, the statute doesn't actually *define* "training." It does provide a minimal list of what a trained guide dog should be able to do. I suppose they are relying on the definition of "instructor," which refers to guide dogs and instruction in their use. But is follow-up instruction in the use of a dog? Other key terms seem not to be defined with the precision my 1L summer employer would have expected of me.
A friend suggested that the Board's action might not be a bad thing, since it could lead to common training standards. To which I say, I don't want Gov. Schwarzenegger (or any single governor, for that matter) and his appointees having anything to do with setting standards for guide-dog schools.
But surely the members of this board are carefully chosen, right?
According to the Board's web site:
The Guide Dog Board has seven members. One member represents the Director of the Department of Rehabilitation. The other six are Governor appointees, two of whom must be blind persons who use guide dogs.
The statute authorizing the Board says:
The board shall consist of seven members appointed by the Governor. One member shall be the Director of Rehabilitation or his or her designated representative. The remaining members shall be persons who have shown a particular interest in dealing with the problems of the blind, and at least two of them shall be blind persons who use guide dogs.
The emphasis is mine.
Strategic deletion there. Which might explain this.
When asked about naming his Nanny to the Board, Gov. Schwarzenegger didn't mention that she had "a particular interest in dealing with the problems of the blind" (how about problematic blind people?):
"She expressed an interest in serving the people of California like many other Californians do," said Schwarzenegger's spokesman, Aaron McLear. "The governor wants those interested in serving to have that opportunity."
Apologies if you're on the CA Guide Dog Board and you found this through Google. It's nothing personal. It's just...you are probably not as qualified as the people at my school, or the International Guide Dog Federation, to regulate the standards by which I was trained.
Perhaps we could all feel better about this if we had more information. If you really are on the California State Board, feel free to comment here (or, if you choose, in a more public forum).