Hi Matt, Thank you for your lengthy response. I understood some of it and plan to sit down and parce it out later when it’s not getting close to bedtime. I have been out of Louisiana tech for 25 years and I’ve lost a lot of my ivory tower speak. I guess because I don’t have to write 25 page papers anymore. I Know there’s something valuable in all of this so when I have time, I’m going to sit down and take it apart and put it back together. No offense, but Metler’s cognitive learning theory isn’t as chewy as this email. Thanks for the attempt and I’m sure I’ll get a few good nuggets out of it. I’ll just keep trying. You have to remember that old timers think more slowly. Jane Lansaw NOMC Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 30, 2025, at 3:42 PM, matt.hackert@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure if all of this is relevant or helpful, but just some thoughts. Take whatever you feel might be of use: Short take: this is weird. It sounds like scope-creep from “blindness rehab” into “retail sunglasses concierge,” with a side order of liability (especially when driving is involved). I feel like you’ve got solid ethical ground to push back, even if the NBPCB manual doesn’t spell out “no sunglasses for sighted drivers.”
Here’s a clean way to frame it.
What’s off here (in plain English)
Role confusion: A blindness rehab specialist being tasked to kit out non-legally blind folks with sunglasses—often for driving—is outside the core Structured Discovery remit (nonvisual skills, attitudes, expectations).
Competence & safety: Recommending filters that may affect visual performance while driving is closer to optometry/low-vision clinical practice than to SD instruction. If something goes wrong, your name is in the record.
Resource stewardship: Public VR resources intended for people with significant vision loss are being spent on post-cataract or otherwise sighted drivers who could buy sunglasses at Walmart. That’s inequitable and dilutes mission.
Informed consent & risk: If a state employee hands someone “better contrast” lenses, a reasonable person might infer professional clearance for driving. That’s dangerous signaling.
Ethical hooks you can cite (without needing chapter-and-verse)
Even if the NBPCB code doesn’t have a line item for “filters for drivers,” these generic, cross-disciplinary principles are widely accepted in rehab/education codes and agency policies:
Do no harm / Nonmaleficence: Don’t provide interventions likely to increase risk (e.g., emboldening a marginal driver).
Competence: Operate within your training and role. You’re not practicing optometry, doing glare/contrast clinical assessments, or prescribing driving aids.
Role fidelity / Scope of practice: SD pros teach nonvisual skills and adjustment to blindness—not performance aids for sighted drivers.
Informed consent & accurate representation: Avoid implying that state-issued filters are evaluated or approved for driving safety.
Justice / Resource allocation: Use limited public funds for those with qualifying, substantial impairments; avoid “junk referrals.”
Documentation & accountability: If the policy is silent, that’s a risk—your agency should not be improvising clinical-ish services in that silence.
What to ask for (concretely, with your manager)
Make it procedural—not ideological.
Written scope clarification: “Please provide written guidance clarifying whether Services for the Blind is authorized to provide filters to non-legally-blind individuals, and whether use for driving is contemplated.”
Eligibility screen: Require documentation of significant visual impairment (not just recent cataract surgery) before any blindness-program service.
Clinical sign-off: If the agency insists on filters for drivers, require a low-vision/optometry evaluation specifying tint, transmission %, use-case, and that it’s not a driving aid unless expressly cleared in writing by the clinician.
Driving disclaimer: Standardize a written disclaimer: “This device has not been evaluated by this agency for driving. Consult your eye-care professional. Do not rely on this device to improve driving safety.”
Referral pathway: Direct non-legally-blind, post-op glare cases to community optics/low-vision clinics (and provide a handout of options).
Data & safety: Add a simple screening form (diagnosis, acuity, VF, photophobia complaint, current license status) and document refusal where outside scope.
Escalation: Ask for an ethics or risk-management review. If none exists, request one specifically on “filter provision to non-legally-blind drivers.”
If they force you to do some of it (minimize your exposure)
Limit to non-driving use cases (outdoor glare for mobility, outdoor chores).
Use neutral language (“general outdoor comfort”), never “better contrast for driving.”
Provide off-the-shelf options and a referral list; avoid selecting specific driving tints.
Always give the written disclaimer and document that you advised against using for driving without clinician guidance.
A concise, professional reply you could post (or send to your manager)
Feel free to copy/paste and tweak tone.
Thanks for raising this—there are two issues here: eligibility and scope. Structured Discovery professionals teach nonvisual skills and adjustment to blindness; we are not clinicians and we don’t prescribe or evaluate devices for driving.
Providing filters to individuals who are not legally blind—particularly when the stated goal is better driving contrast—creates (1) role-confusion with optometry/low-vision practice, (2) potential safety and liability if recipients infer state approval for driving, and (3) resource-allocation concerns within a blindness program.
I’m requesting written guidance that:
Clarifies eligibility (documentation of significant visual impairment),
Requires a clinician’s specification if filters are considered for any task with safety implications (including driving), and
Standardizes a written disclaimer that our agency does not evaluate or approve filters for driving.
In the meantime, I will refer non-legally-blind, post-cataract glare cases to community optometry/low-vision clinics and provide general information about commercially available options, while avoiding recommendations framed around driving performance.
This approach aligns with basic ethics—nonmaleficence, competence, role fidelity, informed consent, and just stewardship of limited blindness-program resources—without foreclosing access to appropriate clinical care for those individuals.
Extra “ammunition” talking points (quick hits)
Driving is a regulated activity. Any aid framed as improving driving should come with clinical assessment and, where appropriate, DMV/OT-driver-rehab context—not a field visit from a blindness instructor.
Filters change luminance/contrast in non-linear ways. Wrong tint can reduce hazard detection. That’s a clinical call.
Mission drift hurts your actual clientele. Every hour spent matching tints for sighted drivers is an hour not spent on cane travel, nonvisual problem-solving, braille, etc.
Documentation protects everyone. If the policy is silent, you shouldn’t be improvising medical-ish recommendations.
-----Original Message----- From: Jane Lansaw via NOMC <members@lists.nbpcb.org> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2025 12:32 PM To: admin@nbpcb.org Cc: members@lists.nbpcb.org Subject: [NOMC] Help me build my ethics argument
Hi Listers, As many of you know, I work for Oklahoma Department of rehabilitation services, an agency not exactly known for supporting the structured discovery Learning philosophy. Fortunately, I’m itinerant and when I’m out in the field, there is nobody to criticize my use of structured discovery with my clients. Here’s my ethical problem. They want to send me out into the field to give sunglasses to people who are not legally blind. Yes I know our people don’t generally handle filters because we are trying to help people optimize vision instead of maximize vision but in my job I have to do filters. OK, I can do that. Problem is now they are giving me referrals for people who are not even legally blind. It started with people who just had cataracts removed and needed filters to deal with bright light and sunlight. I thought I had my managers persuaded that this is not a blindness issue and these people should go to vision clinics or even just to Walmart to pick up some filters on their own to satisfy their needs. After all, I’m a highly trained Blindness Professional. Later they started sending people who are not just post cataract, but have other pathologies which allow them to drive with the blessing of the doctor and vocational counselor and just want sunglasses for better contrast. My problem is I don’t want to help anybody drive better. I’m not teaching driver’s ed in high school. I also think it’s not ethical for a blindness specialist to help a sighted person drive better. My manager sent me the policy manual and said there was nothing in it to help me stop these referrals of people are not legally blind. Guys I need some ammunition. Is there anything I can use in our code of ethics to help me stop getting these “Junk referrals “? I’m really getting tired of this, and I also think somebody could get hurt by taking my word for a pair of sunglasses. They have some kind of pathology that makes them eligible to be a client at Services for the blind and visually impaired in the first place. My giving them sunglasses for better contrast could just get them into more trouble.
Jane Lansaw NOMC Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 23, 2025, at 2:50 PM, NBPCB Office via NOMC <members@lists.nbpcb.org> wrote:
National Blindness Professional Certification Board
The Authority on Structured Discovery Instruction
Over the past few months, the National Blindness Professional Certification Board has received numerous inquiries on what the term Structured Discovery, certified Structured Discovery Training Center, and Structured Discovery Instructor/Professional mean. The NBPCB believes and advocates that Structured Discovery is the best form of instruction and methodology to empower blind people when learning non-visual skills for independence. In celebration of blindness achievement month and white cane awareness day that passed on October 15th, the NBPCB is publishing a white paper/position paper on what defines Structured Discovery, which is attached here and can be freely distributed. For individuals who have graduated from a certified Structured Discovery Training Center or who have worked with a Structured Discovery certified instructor, one can be confident that they have had the best form of instruction possible and have achieved a significant accomplishment; as Structured Discovery Training is both challenging and rewarding due to the new pathways, expectations, skills, and philosophy on blindness that they have developed throughout their training.
At present, NBPCB oversees three certifications which are based on Structured Discovery Training -- the National Orientation and Mobility Certification (NOMC), National Certification in Rehabilitation Teaching for the Blind (NCRTB), and the National Certification in Access Technology for the Blind (NCATB). Additionally, the board oversees one credential that measures braille proficiency -- the National Certification in Unified English Braille (NCUEB). NBPCB also credentials Community-based Rehabilitation training Programs which conduct immersion and training of Structured Discovery Professionals and provide adjustment training for those experiencing significant sight loss - Certified Structured Discovery Training Centers (CSDTC)
The National Blindness Professional Certification Board wants to thank all the professionals, instructors, and educators who have obtained their NOMC, NCRTB, NCATB, and NCUEB. These instructors have been certified to teach using the Structured Discovery model and continue to uphold the high expectations that the NBPCB expects out of their certified instructors. To find out if someone is certified by the NBPCB, go to this link.
https://nbpcb.org/pages/lookup.php
In addition, we want to thank our certified Structured Discovery Training Centers for providing an environment and culture that embodies and represents the teachings of Structured Discovery. Structured Discovery Training Centers transform lives, redefines expectations for blind people, and are the epitome of quality blindness training across the world. To see the7 certified Structured Discovery Training Centers who have met the rigor, quality, and standards set by the NBPCB, follow the below link.
https://nbpcb.org/pages/NBPCBcenterapproval.php
To learn more about what defines Structured Discovery, please read the attached white paper/position statement or visit our website.
If you are looking for a career in changing the lives of blind people, please reach out to the NBPCB as obtaining a certification is the first step to a fulfilling career in blindness.
Happy blindness achievement month and white cane awareness day,
National Blindness Professional Certification Board
NBPCB Office
PO Box 2373
Ruston LA 71273
318 299-7340
<mailto:admin@nbpcb.org> admin@nbpcb.org
<http://www.nbpcb.org/> www.nbpcb.org
<https://www.nbpcb.org/pages/lookup.php> Click here to verify the status of NBPCB certified professionals
Sign up for the Structured Discovery Announcement mailing list <https://lists.nbpcb.org/mailman3/lists/sdteaching.lists.nbpcb.org/> here.
<2025 NBPCB Position Statement on Structured Discovery.pdf> _______________________________________________ NOMC mailing list -- members@lists.nbpcb.org To unsubscribe send an email to members-leave@lists.nbpcb.org
NOMC mailing list -- members@lists.nbpcb.org To unsubscribe send an email to members-leave@lists.nbpcb.org