[my Ashford MAIN page]  [^^^PNS home page]

Otherly Challenged

All, of this find talk assumes that every child is on the same field. According to (Solomon, Allen and Resta, Pp. 29-30) It certainly would be simple and cost- effective if *one* assistive device or tool [emphasis mine] could meet [all of] the needs of all individuals with disabilites, however, that is not the case. ... Thirteen exceptionalities have been identified and they include: Autism Deaf Hearing Impaired, Multiple Disabilites, Speech/Language Imparied, [that would be 'me'] Deaf-blind, Disturbed, Mental Retardation, Emotionally Disturbed, Retdration, Specific Learning Disability Traumatic Brain Injury [their ref: "Individuals with Diabilities Act, 1997] Pp. 29-30. (LocCit, Pp. 29-30) Somehow, i think that *those* people as opposed to us "normals" aren't ever even going to be given the chancse. And then what about: Culture, Social Position, Skin colour, Tribe/Race/or other "other-ness-es" Social-Skills challenged, Above-normal-IQ, Over-activism, etc, etc. I think that with half a chanse and at least a little support from the other teachers, the principal (all pretty much "on board" with the program, and then of course: The state/province's monitary committmentt, community support, and of course the ability (some how) of the parents) to NOT give up hope. I found some other neat refs in a book written by Sonia Nieto: "Affirming Diversity: The socio-polititcal context of multicultural Education", she writes: Another practice that impedes, equity in our schools is the un-critical use of NORM-REFERERNCE [empahsis mine] and standardized testing. [LocCit, P. 97] That is (in my oppinon) Stardardized tests allow every one to stand aside and say, "Yes, buth they [ie, the student(s)] only scored X% on the STANDAREDIZED test. That's when the "rubber meets the road" (nascar-speek for THE real time-trial), and then we get rung thru the ringer defending those people who are "other-needed" against the machine (standardized testing, the CURRICULUM, and the previous history of all of those other students).... As if this orange (actually a tangerine) can be compared equally and fairly to all of the other apples that "made the cut". That whole idea of "performance tracking" stinks. Just because XYZ student does poorly in maths, doesn't mean that they are *really* good in poetry/rap/verbal expression, etc. And likewise, what do you do with the geek/nerd types for whom algebra is just plain boring, because they caught site of a book on calculus in the library and are wizzing thru it, but failing English 101? The one thing that technology gives us (if we can just find out WHERE it is on the inter-net and thence to a site/community of people dedicated to solving this "missing piece of the puzzle) - there's a billion (thousand million) great sites, papers, and things out there that we need. The one thing that id DOES give us, is connectivity with others who may be having the same problem we are (almost a dead-on certainty). The *only* way that i see out of this is the use of on-line communities and finding them. Encourage the kids to do that (after all the to them "google" is the most powerful verb in the universe). And we can always do better by spending the time (yes, a lot of it IS wasted) searching the web for "the good stuff," etc. And then telling others about what we found. References... Nieto, S. (2004). Affirming Diversity: etc. ISBN: 0.205.3869.2-X LCCN LC 1099.3'N54'2004. A. & Quinn, J. (2007). The ID Casebook: Case Studies in Instructional Design. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall. ISBN: 0131717057 Solomon, G., Allen N. J., & Resta P. (2003). Toward Digital Equity: Bridging the Divide in Education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. ISBN: 0205360556