Persons with Disabilities

Dear LASN:

Your magazine is very informative and, although I am ?EUR??,,????'??retired?EUR??,,????'??, I enjoy reading about new developments in the landscape architectural profession. My public practice as Chief Landscape Architect in the US Army Corps of Engineers ended in July 1979 when I became a victim of Guillain-Barre Syndrome. Now, after a period of hospitalization and extensive therapy, I am an advocate for barrier-free design. I have experienced the frustrations that persons with disabilities face when they try to operate in the mainstream.

Accessibility in both public and private spaces is the key word. When I read about new projects, I read it to judge its accessibility for those 1 in 6 people that are impaired – mobility, visually, hearing or mentally. In this issue the Landscape of the Month, BCS, had photos showing steps. Careful reading indicates that accessibility for persons with disabilities has been provided by ?EUR??,,????'??handicapped ramps?EUR??,,????'??. Please, those are ramps for people with disabilities (and the elderly). I refer you to an excellent publication of the National Easter Seal Society titled ?EUR??,,????'??Portraying Persons with Disabilities in Print?EUR??,,????'??, pamphlet A290. It should be must reading for your authors...

...When I was half-way though your accuracy exercise, I realized how really clever you are to get me to read carefully every word. The article on Brian Kubota was very interesting. I have worked with Brian on several ASLA committees and currently serve as a member of the ASLA Committee on Policy. I agree with your writer, Kay Tiller, that our organization will have a very, dynamic year.

I was Chairman of ASLA Constitution and Bylaws Committee for many years, as well as a Trustee, which honed my proof reading on a variety of papers and documents.

(Please donate any monies owed from the accuracy competition) to the LA Foundation to help them in their efforts. It was fun!

Cariton T. Dodge, FASLA

Dear LASN:

I’ve found errors and have listed them below. It is not my intention to rub it in, therefore if these have not previously been discovered and subsequently rewarded, please apply any money due me to the Class Fund.

The magazine is getting better.

Steve Evans

Dear LASN:

I am writing in response to LASN’s interesting and generous challenge to find misspellings or errors in your November/December issue. Unable to resist, I set to work with my red pen and generated quite a list. Forty items are attached for your review. If I am lucky enough to be the first to spot them, you owe me $200.

It is brave and good-hearted of LASN to set such standards for itself, and I heartily endorse the impulse that led to your offer. I suggest, though, that a competent copy editor/proofreader would be a valuable addition to your staff.

Since most of these errors are not very interesting, I absolve you of your promise to call further attention to them by correcting them in a future edition.

Karen Niles

Dear LASN:

Thank you for the copy of LASN delivered to my room yesterday. I commend your efforts to produce a thoroughly proofed publication. I enclose herewith a copy of your LATE Show ad showing the word ?EUR??,,????'??architectural?EUR??,,????'??? misspelled.

Sandra Strieby

Dear LASN,

I received LASN and noticed your invitation to spot errors in your publication. Well, I’m taking you up on your offer. I was able to find a few misspelled words and a possible grammatical error. The following is a list of my discoveries…

I hope this is not an embarrassment to your editorial skills. I would like to comment that I think your publication is excellent. The articles are informative, straight-forward and timely. Keep up the good work.

Roger Drayer

Dear LASN:

I really enjoy the Landscape Architect and Specifier News. It’s an outstanding publication with informative articles. By the way, I found a spelling error on the first page of Brian Kubota’s article (see enclosure).

Sorry about that.

Michael A. Morelli, ASLA

Dear LASN:

In response to your reward for finding errors in the LASN, I am sending you a clipping cut from the issue received today. Please see attached page with error highlighted in yellow and under lined. You have printed the same sentence twice. Please remit. Thanks. I enjoy the magazine, by the way, and read it from cover to cover.

David J. Driapsa, ASLA

Dear LASN: Happy New Year.

Enjoy LASN – makes for good reading and lots of info.

Sorry but a quick glance through exposed four spelling errors. See attached.

Please donate my $20.00 to LAF with my compliments.

John Collier

In Response From CLARB

Dear LASN:

The chairperson of CLARB’s UNE Committee requested that I respond to the letter in your September, 1988 issue regarding the UNE. There are several comments which should be addressed by CLARB since it and the state boards are directly involved in the exam process. It should be pointed out that while ASLA and the university programs may be a forum for discussion with other LA’s, they have no responsibility for any aspect of the UNE, other than perhaps sponsoring, or administering review sessions.

Perhaps a quick review of responsibilities will help clarify the exam process and those involved.

CLARB:

Through a UNE Committee of five people and a subcommittee of an additional 20 people, an exam is authored according to the UNE Subject Outline (exam specification). CLARB provides an exam annually to the states with licensure opportunities (currently 39) along with specific requirements and guidelines for administering the exam.

STATE BOARD:

Using the CLARB provided requirements and guidelines, the state board administers the exam. After the exams have been administered, the results of all objective exams are sent to CLARB. The state has an option to evaluate the performance problems (graphic problems) in one of three ways. They can do it themselves but must send a member of their evaluation team to an evaluator training session conducted by the CLARB UNE Committee. They can also choose to participate in a regional evaluation session consisting of several states combining to evaluate their candidate solutions in one regional location. Again, at least one member of this evaluation team must attend the CLARB evaluation training session. The third alternative is to participate in national evaluation. As in the case of the other two alternatives, the national evaluators are also required to send two representatives to the evaluation training session.

ASLA and UNIVERSITIES:

Some chapters of ASLA and some universities or groups of university faculty do administer UNE review sessions. These sessions are not sponsored by CLARB or any state board.

1. would like to address the specific comments Mr. Burke made in his letter.


2. Distribution of materials – While this is, of course, done by state board proctors, there are specific instructions and it appears that they were not followed where Mr. Burke sat for the exam.


3. CLARB representation at exam sites – This is not possible since the exam is administered at a minimum of 39 sites simultaneously.


4. Expand the appeals form – This apparently is a state board form. CLARB currently does not become involved in appeals.


5. Improve the graphic quality of objective questions – The committee continually attempts to upgrade all aspects of the exam. However, occasionally a question does have a problem, as in the case of the 1988 UNE, where a printers ink blob occurred in a location which could have been determined to be a decimal point. After reviewing the question and analyzing the results, a decision was made by the UNE Committee to consider all answers to the question correct.

Test Scoring and Review:

1. Shorten the time to return scores – This certainly would be possible if the entire exam were objective. The time necessary to evaluate the performance problems is the major time restraint.


2. Allow review of objective questions – The UNE Committee spends a great deal of time developing good objective questions. They are pretested and reviewed at least four times prior to appearing on an exam. Therefore, the Committee does not wish to take any security risks with these questions. However, CLARB does now supply, to the state boards, a candidate performance report which provides more detail for candidates. Specifically, it will address the candidate’s performance on individual exam matrix areas. This, we believe, will assist a candidate to study in the specific areas where he/she did poorly.


3. CLARB should work to lower cost for comprehensive review sessions – CLARB believes it should not be involved with review sessions since it prepares the exam. Therefore, the comment should probably be addressed directly to those responsible for the review session Mr. Burke attended.


4. Prorate a portion of the exam fee – This is a state board matter. However, one must realize that hundreds of thousand of dollars are expended annually to produce the UNE and maintain, and hopefully update, our current practice of landscape architecture.

Finally, I’d like to thank Mr. Burke for his willingness to speak out on these issues. Should there be additional questions about the UNE process, please address them to the UNE Committee at CLARB headquarters. Another contact point for persons with questions is their state board. These people are in government service to assist the public, and are always willing to do what they can.

Sincerely,
Douglas R. Brackett
UNE Consultant

CLARB address
309 S. Franklin Street
Syracuse, NY 13202