Jacquelyn Kestner wrote:
> The LD thing.....see below...
> the reasons this labeling occurs is
> complex. Some include:1) within many white communities being LD is "in",
> stigma is isn't attached-EMH however bears the stigma, but among so black
> communities the opposite is true-LD has a stigma attached and EMH doesn't.
I have no clue what EMH is...but! as the mom of an LD student I take a bit of
exception with this "in" thing. -- please note smiley face *|:|0) -- With the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) it is VERY hard to get your child into a
program "to begin with!" because once the child is "labeled" they cannot be
un-labeled without a LOT of red tape. If you have a labeled LD student then
you MUST provide services (expensive services) for many years. This takes a
HUGH bite out of the school budget. In the past LD meant "mentally
retarded." Now it can mean anything from the severely Developmentally Disabled
(autistic, Downs Syndrome, Cerebral Palsey) to Dyslexic (yes I know...another
catch phrase). My son has been labeled dyslexic...high IQ (over 132) and low
abilitiy...couldn't read until he was in 4th grade. Getting your kid "in" and
LD program is so much work that it "seems" like we're going for status...the
reality is different.
> 2) Many whites will actively push for their children to be labeled LD-I
> don't understand the reason for this, other than it gives an "excuse" for a
> child not to succeed.
No excuses. Many kids LD or otherwise do not do well in a regular
classroom...especially one where the teacher is teaching Learning Disabled
(under 75 IQ as well as those with IQ's over 125), regular kids who do great in
a regular classroom, kids who have English as a Second Language, Talented and
Gifted (TAG) kids, etc. Getting my kid into an LD class meant he was being
taught by "Specialists" in a classroom that had only 15 students (as opposed to
32 in his regular class). That's just good parenting.
> 3) Many minority populations are represented by lower
> incomes. Unfortunately, children in lower income homes are often deprived
> of the stimulation children from wealthier homes receive. Again, if you
> can't afford to put dinner on the table, you're not going to pay admission
> to a museum.
Ahem....been low income and middle income. Income has nothing to do with
stimulation. Taking a 5 year old to an art museum (I'm guessing that is the
type you meant) is like taking a 5 year old to a nice restaurant. Be prepared
for 5 year old behavior. There are lots of free things (OK, I'm talking about
USA...but I'm also assuming that other countries have freebie cultural art
resources also). Right now I'm doing day care for a low income family and the
kids are exceptionally bright. Mom goes out of her way to get the kids into
fun stuff that is free.
My point is that low income/minority matches don't equal uneducated or even
LD. TIME with kids can (and frequently is) the problem with low income
families of all races. Mom and Dad are simply away from home earning $$$ and
the kids are left to their own devices.
> 4) Racism still plays a large part, as does cultural
> variation. Students may not understand the language/rational of the
> questions being put to them on evaluation tests.
Because of the ADA the kids get a LOT of help with tests. This is not much of
a problem anymore.
> 5) Teaching is not really
> looked at as a profession. We would very carefully screen any architect
> designing our house and interview our doctors. But right now in some
> states you can be hired as a full-time teacher with a only high school
Haven't heard of ANY state where this is true. And ask any parent who is VERY
dissatisfied with a child's teacher and has had no luck in getting the kid in a
different class. Having an educated teacher does not mean the person can
teach...or at least teach your child. We have site councils (comprised of
parents, administrators, teachers and if there is an interest students) that
meet monthly to create and implement policy for our schools at the local school
level and, at least in our district, the teachers are treated as professionals.
> Quite simply, these folks don't have the skills to assist a child with
> learning disabilities or emotion/mental handicaps.
Well...any district that hires someone right out of High School is not doing
right by ANY of the students much less ones with needs on both ends of the
learning line (LD and TAG).
> 6) Alcohol/drug abuse
> also pays a enormous part. As do a myriad of other influences.
Give ya that one...although this goes with the "time" a parent spends
interacting with the kids.
> > poppycock. <snips> Bull.
My kid dropped out because he wanted to work full time. His choice (which he
now regrets). He's as bull-headed as I am but did admit that "...maybe this
time I should have listened to you." BTW he's not the LD kid.
> > How many that are given services are gainfully employed by an employer
> > who is NOT subsidized by the government?
I don't know of any of the LD kids that got into "employment" with a subsidized
employer. However, my TAG DAUGHTER is working for "Insert well know High Tech
Company here"...and I think that IS subsidized.
Talking about "American Schools" really touches a nerve with me...Can we drop