Today I learned something new. One of the state mandates is that when we meet to decide a course of action or education regarding a special education student, a general education teacher must be present. I would assumed that they require certain types of educators to be present to make sure students are being given the best advice and educational environment possible.
We had several of these meetings today in which a general education teacher could not attend due to some state testing of our students. I volunteered to participate in one of these meetings. The student whom we were discussing is best served in a self-contained classroom. He doesn't have a general education teacher, so I sat in on his meeting. I was very interested in the meeting because of my step-son Trenton.
Over the past year, we've been discussing the possibility of the boys coming to live with us next year in order to spend more time with their father. However, there is a lot to consider. With Trenton's special needs, it is a little more complicated for him than his younger brother.
Although letting them move here at all would be hard. I know this is a big decision for a mother. I understand how hard now that I have a child. I can't imagine her living anywhere but with me, not for a week, a day, a minute, but with the harsh reality of divorce, it happens. Their mom loves them and would struggle with missing them daily. Absolutely, the second most difficult thing a mother can go through would be to give up or share physical custody of her children. Yet, the boys' time with their dad has been so limited. We live six hours apart, which limits visits much more than it would if we lived in the same town. When you add in the number of lost visits to deployments, it is a lot of lost time.
There isn't a perfect answer for how to divide children's time between parents. It is horribly hard and so emotional, but this isn't really the subject for today's blog. I started researching what programs my district has available, which schools are best, etc. for the possibility of the boys moving here so we would be prepared to ensure that both boys have absolutely the best education possible.
This meeting being about a boy in a similar situation as Trenton let me hear about our programs and talk with the special education personnel about our district and the programs available here. I also learned that terminology in special education has changed. According to a press release from the White House on October 5, 2010, the President signed Rosa's Law which changed the legal designation from "mental retardation" to "intellectual disability."
In order to discuss this topic in an informed manner, I looked it up. I found a lot of people really upset about the change or unsure why it even mattered. In some ways maybe it doesn't really matter because people who use words to hurt or bully will eventually pick another word, but I think trying to take Retarded or the R-word out of our lexicon is a positive move. The original meaning of the word was to designated someone whose learning or ability to learn was hampered in some way, but that word has become a generic insult loosely thrown around without compunction.
I object when students say "jewed him down" or "that's a gyp" degrading the religious group Jews or the ethnic group Gypsies. I really object to the more recent addition to our insult thesaurus "douche," which is not a slur, but really gross. I object when my students equate the word gay with dumb or dorky. I don't like it when people say things that come from disgusting or hateful origins. I won't allow it in my classroom. Too many kids get bullied that I can't prevent. It isn't going to happen when I can help it.
Many people though are against this simple wording change designed to afford people who are challenged to maintain some dignity. To those who object to a wording change I ask you to consider whom does this change hurt? Because if we can afford a kindness to some of the most deserving among us, why would we hesitate to make this change?
Originally the word "nigger" just meant a black person. The word was an Americanization of the Spanish and Portuguese words for black, negro. No one is up in arms because we decided that the word, despite neutral origins, had become connected with such negativity and racism that we needed to change how we referred to people, which was then colored, then black, then African-American. At first each of these changes seemed like just another word to change and have to say differently. However, it was really about how we viewed each other, adding a tone of respect and dignity into how we referred to various groups hoping to gradually change how people thought about those groups as well.
But the words aren't really the issue. The issue is truly the power of words to hurt or heal, injure or praise. To retard something is "to make slow or prevent the development of"which is by itself not offensive, in fact probably pretty accurate for many ID children. Their learning is slowed and their development is prevented by their disabilities and challenges. But the word isn't just a word. It is full of the emotions and power we give it.
If it is just a word to you, then maybe you don't understand how using that word as a casual insult and as a loved one's mental diagnosis might be bitterly distasteful. I say from small changes today, a world can change in a generation. The racists that used the word nigger to degrade and belittle are dying out, becoming less acceptable and fewer and fewer. Someday we hope to end such hatred forever. Rosa's law is just the first step in doing that for the intellectually challenged.
Some say we can judge a society by how we treat our most vulnerable members. If that is true, then Rosa's Law is the least we should do.
We had several of these meetings today in which a general education teacher could not attend due to some state testing of our students. I volunteered to participate in one of these meetings. The student whom we were discussing is best served in a self-contained classroom. He doesn't have a general education teacher, so I sat in on his meeting. I was very interested in the meeting because of my step-son Trenton.
Over the past year, we've been discussing the possibility of the boys coming to live with us next year in order to spend more time with their father. However, there is a lot to consider. With Trenton's special needs, it is a little more complicated for him than his younger brother.
Although letting them move here at all would be hard. I know this is a big decision for a mother. I understand how hard now that I have a child. I can't imagine her living anywhere but with me, not for a week, a day, a minute, but with the harsh reality of divorce, it happens. Their mom loves them and would struggle with missing them daily. Absolutely, the second most difficult thing a mother can go through would be to give up or share physical custody of her children. Yet, the boys' time with their dad has been so limited. We live six hours apart, which limits visits much more than it would if we lived in the same town. When you add in the number of lost visits to deployments, it is a lot of lost time.
There isn't a perfect answer for how to divide children's time between parents. It is horribly hard and so emotional, but this isn't really the subject for today's blog. I started researching what programs my district has available, which schools are best, etc. for the possibility of the boys moving here so we would be prepared to ensure that both boys have absolutely the best education possible.
This meeting being about a boy in a similar situation as Trenton let me hear about our programs and talk with the special education personnel about our district and the programs available here. I also learned that terminology in special education has changed. According to a press release from the White House on October 5, 2010, the President signed Rosa's Law which changed the legal designation from "mental retardation" to "intellectual disability."
In order to discuss this topic in an informed manner, I looked it up. I found a lot of people really upset about the change or unsure why it even mattered. In some ways maybe it doesn't really matter because people who use words to hurt or bully will eventually pick another word, but I think trying to take Retarded or the R-word out of our lexicon is a positive move. The original meaning of the word was to designated someone whose learning or ability to learn was hampered in some way, but that word has become a generic insult loosely thrown around without compunction.
I object when students say "jewed him down" or "that's a gyp" degrading the religious group Jews or the ethnic group Gypsies. I really object to the more recent addition to our insult thesaurus "douche," which is not a slur, but really gross. I object when my students equate the word gay with dumb or dorky. I don't like it when people say things that come from disgusting or hateful origins. I won't allow it in my classroom. Too many kids get bullied that I can't prevent. It isn't going to happen when I can help it.
Many people though are against this simple wording change designed to afford people who are challenged to maintain some dignity. To those who object to a wording change I ask you to consider whom does this change hurt? Because if we can afford a kindness to some of the most deserving among us, why would we hesitate to make this change?
Originally the word "nigger" just meant a black person. The word was an Americanization of the Spanish and Portuguese words for black, negro. No one is up in arms because we decided that the word, despite neutral origins, had become connected with such negativity and racism that we needed to change how we referred to people, which was then colored, then black, then African-American. At first each of these changes seemed like just another word to change and have to say differently. However, it was really about how we viewed each other, adding a tone of respect and dignity into how we referred to various groups hoping to gradually change how people thought about those groups as well.
But the words aren't really the issue. The issue is truly the power of words to hurt or heal, injure or praise. To retard something is "to make slow or prevent the development of"which is by itself not offensive, in fact probably pretty accurate for many ID children. Their learning is slowed and their development is prevented by their disabilities and challenges. But the word isn't just a word. It is full of the emotions and power we give it.
If it is just a word to you, then maybe you don't understand how using that word as a casual insult and as a loved one's mental diagnosis might be bitterly distasteful. I say from small changes today, a world can change in a generation. The racists that used the word nigger to degrade and belittle are dying out, becoming less acceptable and fewer and fewer. Someday we hope to end such hatred forever. Rosa's law is just the first step in doing that for the intellectually challenged.
Some say we can judge a society by how we treat our most vulnerable members. If that is true, then Rosa's Law is the least we should do.
