I chose the topic of
Ableism because, although I had heard it used, I did not have an understanding
of its meaning, and going into special Ed, I thought it appropriate to learn
more about the concept. When reading Herir’s article “Confronting Ableism”, the
first thing that struck (and surprised me) was that he labels ableism as a bad
thing, and not a good thing. I guess my initial assumption was that ableism
meant helping students to be more “able” at something – to help them to
overcome a disability in order to function. This is indeed the meaning, but
Herir places it in a negative light, not a positive one. To me, the author’s
assumption is that it is just as fine for a student to spend their life
confined to a wheelchair as it would be to have them up and walking. It is just
as fine for a student to struggle their whole life being unable to hear, as it
is providing them cochlear implants in order to allow them to navigate society
and communicate easier. He states in the article that “from an early age many
people with disabilities encounter the view that disability is negative…and
that overcoming disability is the only valued result”. I think this is an
unfair statement, as it leaves no room for middle ground. Is having a
disability a negative? Yes, probably it is. If you’re unable to walk, its going
to limit your ability to participate in certain activities, work in certain
fields etc. If you are born with eyesight or hearing limitations, you will
never have the opportunity to pilot a plane, or joined the armed forces – does
this mean that the person with the disability is any less valuable? No of
course it doesn’t. And does this mean that the only valued result of someone’s
life is overcoming the disability? Absolutely not! But none of this takes away
from the fact that a disability is, as the root of the word states, disabling,
and as such is indeed a negative thing. Herir appears to be speaking to society
as a whole and judging those of us who do not have a disability due to our
desire to help those who do. As an example, Herir discusses in his article child who was born with cerebral Palsey. The
child states that her mother was concerned that the way in which she walked,
which was very awkward, often times caused her to fall, and might lead to
ridicule by other children. She goes on to admit that this was indeed the case,
and that she did often fall and was made fun of. Yet to Herir, the mother’s
attempts at sending the girl to physical therapy in order to learn to walk
better is an example of “ableism” and is a bad thing, because, according the
Herir, learning how to walk straight may have taken away time better spent on
academics. My question would be, what is the point of academics if this poor
girl falls and cracks her head open due to her inability to walk properly. What
good is building her handrails at school if she refuses to go to school because
she is being picked on by other students? Where is the harm in trying to help
this young girl to walk properly and in doing so eliminating so many of the
boundaries and blockades she will likely encounter as a result of her
disability? Lets build the hand rails and at the same time try and teach her to
walk well enough that she doesn’t need them! What is the harm in that?
Herir goes onto say
that in Special Education, it should be our goal to “minimize the impact of a
disability and maximize the opportunities for students with disabilities to
participate in schooling and the community”. In this statement, I see Herir as
contradicting himself. How is providing a student with CP physical therapy or a
deaf student with cochlear implants not “minimalizing the impact” of the
disability while enhancing that student’s opportunity to interact with his or her
school and community? Herir’s argument appears to be a moral judgment call, and
he appears to consider himself on some moral pedestal. Herir states that
“minimizing” does not equate to making “misguided” attempts to cure a
disability? What exactly differentiates a “misguided” attempt and a “guided”
attempt? Are we to ignore cures or interdictions which might make the life of a
child easier? Why on earth would we do
that? He states that schools should spend less time attempting to find cures,
and more time attempting to find ways to include children with disabilities not
only in academic programs, but also in “sports teams, choruses, clubs and field
trips. How exactly is a child wheelchair
going to make the football team? He isn’t. Could we include him in other ways,
such as helping out in the locker room, or having him involved in pep rallies?
Yes of course, and so we should, but if there is a possibility of allowing this
student a way out of the wheel chair and onto the field, where we can run and
catch and actually play football, why would that not be our number one goal?
Herir goes on to
discuss students with both learning and emotional disabilities. He plays out
theoretical scenarios where students with these disabilities are placed in
separate classrooms with students with similar disabilities and with a teacher
who is not trained to work with a special needs population. If this does indeed
occur then I would have to agree that it is a terrible approach to special
education, but I am lothe to believe that this does occur. Maybe 30 years ago,
but today, I’m fairly certain that a special education classroom will have a
special education teacher sitting at the desk. Another point Herir makes which
I take issue with is that schools should not attempt to deliver mainstream
material / education if at all possible.
This to be is ludicrous. Its all well and good to provide taped audio books to
students who are struggling to read due to a disability, but should this be done
if there is a possibility of the student learning to use a normal book?
Absolutely not, and I’ll tell you why. A high school may give a student a test
on tape and allow him or her to respond in a different manner than the rest of
the students and as a result receive the same grade, but in the real world,
when that student walks into an interview at IBM or ExonMobile, these
accommodations will not necessarily be available, and not making every possible
attempt to teach the student in a “mainstream” manner will rob him or her of
opportunities later in life. Education does not occur in a vacuum and for its
own self-worth. We receive an education in order to quality for jobs in the
workforce, and it would be immoral in my opinion not to prepare students for
the real world if there is any chance whatsoever of doing so.
Lastly, I did not
find a single mention of Ableism in our Ormond text. It is my opinion that this
is not a mistake. From what I have read (and I am now going to read some of the
other articles since this one has me fairly worked up) Ableism is a politically
correct term for wanting the best for students – for wanting them to succeed.
Ableism appears to want us to pretend that blindness, or deafness, or Cerebal
Palsy, or dyslexia is NOT a problem – it wants us to accept these conditions
and pretend as if that student is just fine, and that disability is not
something to be cured, but rather embraced. If this is the current pervasive
basis of special education today, then maybe I’m going into the wrong field,
because this touchy-feely notion that all is good is foolish. As a special
educator I will make every accommodation in order to help my students succeed
to their fullest possible ability, but I will not ignore the fact that their
disability is undesirable, and if it can be corrected or “cured” that it should
be, because that’s just not the way the world works.
No comments:
Post a Comment