[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