I think thier are certain fields that their disabilities may prevent them from being employed such as being a paramedic, doctors and possibly nursing. These fields require things to be done with a life and death urgency. They may be able to perform the functions due to technological advances but at what cost?
Randy,
I'm not big on idle flattery. I wouldn't have said it if I didn't mean it. You've learned your lesson well, and taken it to heart. It's a pleasure to "meet" you!
Dr. Jane Jarrow
Thank you for your kind words! I must come clean...I have an Aunt who has Down Syndrome and when I was in high school and college I worked with both children and adults with developmental disabilities so equal access to full societal participation of people with disabilities has been a passion of mine for many years. As it is for all people, education reamins the key.
Randy,
As I read through your posts, I am wishing that this was face-to-face instead of online. I'd like to shake your hand! You have an amazingly grounded and positive view of the potential of students with disabilities. The students you come in contact with (and the ones who will meet you in the future) are tremendously lucky to have found their way to someone so supportive. Kudos!
Dr. Jane Jarrow
Not really, no. I think that it is up to the student to determine what their limitations are....I would go even further and say that it is incumbent upon us, as educators, to perhaps even broaden their horizons and encourage our students to perhaps see themselves in a place they might not have ever considered..and then work with them to make it happen. As a starting point we need to see the "ability" not the "disability" and then build from there.
Deborah,
You walk a very thin line here. Before you make assumptions about a student's ability to be hired, you need to consider the possibility of reasonable accommodation. There are also some sticky issues surround the development of technical standards. While reference to lifting 50 lbs may be the traditional way to state this requirement, it doesn't necessarily mean it is logical. Does that mean if the student lifts something that weighs 53 pounds, and drops it, it will be considered OK? I recognize that proprietary institutions that are evaluated (by accrediting bodies) on their placement rates face special challenges in dealing with students who seem unlikely to find employment in the field -- without unnecessarily restricting them on the basis of disability. My best suggestion is that you be flexible in your thinking, be open with the student, and make the best possible assessment of how realistic the student is about their limitations. The best you can do is the best you can do!
Dr. Jane Jarrow
I think so. We offer training in building trades. If a student is unable to lift 50 pounds or climb a 22-ft ladder due to functional limitations, this student would be "unqualified." The purpose of our training institution is to find employment in the field upon completion. An employer in this industry would not consider a candidate for a job with such functional limitations.
Agreed. I don't think I used a very good example there. But, I think we are on the same page.
Nick,
Again -- I think you are mixing apples an oranges. Any time you get into practical application of skills, the determination of reasonable accommodation is mixed with a determination of necessary technical standards and prowess. Reading to a blind student (or providing an electronic version of the text) is a reasonable accommodation for the classroom. Reading to a blind student is NOT a reasonable accommodation in the pharmacy. The issue is not whether the accommodation would be a burden for the employer. The issue is whether it is a reasonable accommodation in the first place -- and it is not!
Dr. Jane Jarrow
Nick,
I think you may have misinterpreted something, somewhere along the line, Nick. The bigger issue, in the SPECIFIC scenario you describe (someone who cannot read as a pharmacy tech) is whether the individual is able to perform the essential functions of the job, with or without reasonable accommodation. If reading IS an essential function of the job, and accurate and knowledgeable reading is what is necessary for safe practice, then it would NOT be reasonable to have someone read to the disabled pharmacy tech, and that individual would not be an "otherwise qualified" person with a disability.
Dr. Jane Jarrow
Based upon the limitation, the accommodation could be provided for the classroom, but would not be reasonable for the employer.
Accommodating a student in this circumstance would be a disservice to the student. I am sure they would reason through much of the material (i.e. math, terminology, how insurance works, etc...) via classroom instruction. But because of the limitation, they would place an undue burden on their employer.
Wouldn't it be unreasonable for an employer to make those accommodations? Much of a pharmacy technicians job is not just reading, but following directions based on what they read. I can not think of a position that a pharmacy technician would have that does not rely heavily upon this. By that standard, the necessary accommodation would be to have someone read for them. Since there is no legal requirement for becoming a technician and technicians are not allowed to exercise independent judgment in relation to therapy, the employer could just have the person reading for the technician perform the tasks. It would be unreasonable for an employer to hire a blind person and an aide for a position that has no legal requirement for formal training.
Elysia,
I have a colleague who gives a presentation called, "Of blind mechanics and hemophiliac industrial arts teachers I have known!" He says that, in fact, he has only known one of each, but it is enough to teach him to never say "never." By the same token, there are certainly technical skills which are critical to the performance of some tasks that may make it impossible for someone to perform typical tasks in the typical way. Here's an example for you. I once met a surgical nurse who was absolutely the BEST at what she did. She had been working in the operating room for more than 20 years, and was recognized as the top nurse in her field. She had a congenital condition that had slowly caused her hearing to degenerate. At first, she could manage with hearing aids, but then the conditioned worsened again. The doctors she worked with at the hospital decided she was much too valuable an asset to lose. They worked out a system that allowed them to flash real time captions on an LCD display on the wall opposite of where the nurse stood, and the microphone was on the doctor performing the surgery. She worked very successfully and very safely in the operating room for several years after her hearing was, essentially, gone. She was an exceptional nurse. The system wouldn't have worked for everyone. But it might work for someone! Never say never!!!
Dr. Jane Jarrow
This poses interesting questions to which I am seeking specific examples. To me a blind person could not effectively be an opthamologist because they actually have to look into the equipment to view the patient's eye. If there were in fact some robotic way to substitute the actual process of "looking", then perhaps, that disability would not disqualify them from opthamology. And while I was thinking of that example, I was thinking of Beethoven who managed to compose symphonies while fully deaf. He seemingly heard the music in his head without using his actual ears. If I had not heard of Beethoven's amazing musical abilities in this way, I would have said the deaf can not be musicians or composers. I would believe there are only very specific career fields in which the disabled can not participate. Clearly, an individual in a wheelchair can not be a football player, however, he could be a coach. Quite an interesting topic.
Nick,
I'm with you -- to a point! The issue, as I understand it, is that a pharmacy technician must be able to read standard print, poor handwriting, computer screens, and much more. That doesn't mean that BLIND PEOPLE cannot be pharmacy techs. It means that people who cannot read in those ways (who have that functional limitation) cannot be successful as pharmacy techs. Blind people have that functional limitation. Some individuals who are dyslexic have that same functional limitation and may be similarly prohibited from being successful in the field. As an extension of that thinking, then, the blind or deaf person could not be successful in TRADITIONAL law enforcement positions (field work) because of their functional limitations. It may sound like semantics (the difference between attributing limits to disability versus attributing limits to functional limitations), but it is important to remind folks that people with disabilities have *A*bilities, as well!
Dr. Jane Jarrow
I do think that technology is having an increasing effect on enhancing the lives of students with disabilities. In terms of limiting a disabled person from an entire field, I would look to my field (pharmacy technician). I can not think of a way(even with accommodations) that a blind person would make a successful pharmacy technician.
However, a student with just about any other disability that I can think of, could perform successfully as a pharmacy technician.
Using the same logic, it would be functionally i,possible for a blind or deaf person to work as police officers. They could complete a law enforcement program or work as security consultants. However, working in the field as a traditional law enforcement officer would not be practical.
Charles,
I would take it one step further, Charles. It is the marketplace or the regulatory body that decides whether the individual is qualified for a given opportunity. For example... someone who is deaf cannot be qualified to fly a commercial airliner... but there is a Deaf Pilots Association out there made up of deaf folks who are fully qualified (by the FAA) to fly planes of a certain (limited) type into less highly trafficked (is that a word?) airports. As the technology gets better, the limitations get fewer!
Dr. Jane Jarrow
