Free-Speech...just not for teachers?!

Most of us have completed our American Heritage requirement and perhaps still remember a few things, if nothing else, some of our "Constitutional rights and freedoms" in being American citizens. The First Amendment is supposed to protect the freedom of religion, speech, and the press, as well as the right to assemble and petition the government. However, in a recent court case, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal of a Michigan special education teacher who argued she was fired for her complaints that the size of her teaching caseload kept her from providing the proper amount of instruction to each of her students. The teacher was suing that she couldn't be fired for such complaints, on First Amendment free-speech grounds, however the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled against her (following a previous court decision that ruled on-the-job speech by public employees is not protected by the First Amendment.) (See: Article 1) Where does that leave us, as potential special educators, knowing that we are limited in what we are allowed to voice our opinion or raise concern for? In this case, the teacher was taking issue with her class size and her ability to meet the needs of her students. Did voicing such concerns warrant her termination? Are we not supposed to be advocates for our students? Can we successfully do so if we have to "clear" our arguments before voicing them? On the other hand, in another recent court case (this time parents of special education students in Stamford schools) are threatening to file a civil rights complaint against the district if the proposed cuts to program funding are passed. It was proposed to cut more than a dozen special services providers (teachers, speech therapists, social workers), which in turn, would increase the class sizes for the remaining teachers.(The exact same argument that got the teacher fired!) The argument was made that "every student with a disability gets an IEP. They get what they need, not what happens to be available," which is what angers parents. (See: Article 2) It is necessary for parents to have an active role in planning the IEP, however, if their constitutional rights allow them to fight against certain conditions (such as class sizes and proper funding), and yet teachers have limitations in what they can "fight" for, how will the student's needs be met? By limiting teachers' free-speech rights, are teachers limited in what they can actually advocate for a student? Should teachers have the same rights as parents? How do you feel knowing that there are potential limitations in what you (as a future educator) are allowed to say in promoting student's rights and needs? What can and should be done about this?

Testing for Disabilities

With today's technology, the option is available for women to have their fetus tested for different disabilities during the early stages of pregnancy. As discussed in Article 1, testing can be done on the mother's blood or on cells from the placenta to detect a variety of different disabilities. Many women choose to have this testing done and, as the article states, logically decide to have an abortion if the child has a disability. The article raises the issue that there can be false positives to a test or false negatives, meaning that some children aborted would have otherwise been healthy and some children born will be born with a disability. Some women refused to have an abortion and continued to receive pressure from their doctors to abort the baby. Article 2 discusses one man's perspective on testing for disabilities. He states that testing is not always accurate, especially people who test for autism. Testing does not account for disabilities that are not proven to be genetic such as Autism. He argues that tests should not be done because not all disabilities will show through the tests. I doubt that anyone in this class would choose to have the testing to decide whether an abortion is appropriate or not. The question we pose is this: would you consider having the tests done to see if your child has a disability? Is it important to know whether or not the child will have a disability before the child is born? What is your opinion of testing for disabilities in a fetus during the first few months of pregnancy?

Medicating Children

In the article We are over-medicating children Andrew Browning makes the solid statement that we as Americans are over-medicating our children. He references the episode of Frontline on PBS called “The Medicated Child” saying that in the last 10 year period there was overwhelming 4,000 percent increase in the number of diagnosed cases of bipolar disorder in children. He goes on to say that with all the side effects and interaction of all the different drugs for the different disorders, we do not know what the long term affects will be for our children. One the other side of the argument of medicating children the article Pros of Medicating Children with ADHD lists many benefits to medicating children. According to this article, there are many ways medication will help children with ADHD. It states that [the drugs] ability to control these negative symptoms of ADHD could dramatically change the child's daily life. After read these two articles and with your previous knowledge, what do you think? We all know children who are on medication and who aren’t on medication. I know a little boy right now whose teacher said that he needs something, because his inability to focus is messing with his school, so his parents are trying to figure out what is the best thing for him. Is medicating our children really the answer, or do the risks outweigh the benefits? When we are teaching in classrooms, do we want our students to be medicated so they are “easier” to handle or do we want them medicated so it helps them learn. I know that personally, I think it depends on the child. With some children there are ways to help them without medicating them whereas some kids really need the help that the medication provides them. What are your thoughts?

Is full inclusion Desirable?

http://www.ehow.com/about_5332138_full-inclusion-disabled-students-desirable.html

http://www.ncmsa.net/ressum14.htm

Is Full Inclusion Desirable?

We have learned a lot about LRE (least restrictive environment) and it's importance in education student with disabilities. However, is most the schools we go to the students are confined in their own classroom just for students with severe disabilities? Is this the best environment for them? What are the implications of including student in a regular education classroom? Article 1 and Article 2 talk about some of the implications that full inclusion can have on teachers, and students with or without disabilities. As a future teacher would you prefer to teach your students in your own classroom or send them to mainstream classrooms? I know we all want the best for our future students, but we also have to think about all the individuals impacted by the decision of inclusion.

What Should Teachers be Informed About?

This last week in our PETE class we discussed the topic of HIV and AIDS and if teachers and physical educators should be informed whether or not students have this disease. We thought it would be an interesting topic to present to the class seeing as we are all going to be future teachers and we should form our own opinions. As a group we don't necessarily agree or disagree and we are not trying to persuade you all to agree with what has previously been discussed. We are just genuinely curious as to your opinion on the matter. The articles we have included are just information on AIDS and an article discussing whether or not the information should be disclosed. So let us know! Do you think teachers should be informed whether or not students have HIV or AIDS. Or do you think that it is more important to keep the matter private for the child's sake?

Sheltered Workshops? Yay or Nay?

During the 1950s sheltered workshops became very popular because they housed those with disabilities and placed them minimally in job situations.Before then those with disabilities were either left at home with nothing to do or were placed in institutions. This concept arose for disabled persons to get out in the world and gain some experience working. But with modern changes should they still be placed in these environments? Do they help the workplace (Article 1)? Or are there better options in which everyone involved will benefit more (Article 2)?

The "R" Word

In our Adaptive PE class we were speaking about the “R” word. Many of us had strong opinions about its usage. I know from my own experience that I do not like the word because of its offensive nature, but I feel like whether you say the R-word, challenged, disabled or special, it means the same thing.

Special Olympics began a campaign to eliminate the words “retard” and “retarded” back in 2004, and this article shows the NBA players also backing the campaign. A strong argument to eradicate the word is that words matter! They can be very offensive and hurtful and using the R-word is a prime example of narrow mindedness. Another blog article shows that legislation in some states is now starting to eradicate the R-word. So on the one hand there is the argument that words matter and we should not use or include offensive language in our vocabulary. The “n” word for example would never be associated with organisations and legislation nowadays so the “r” word should not be either. On the other hand, the cost of changing old legislation to eradicate the R-word would be extremely high and many organisations would not be in favour of this. Also changing the word does not necessarily change the attitude. People will find new ways to say the same hateful things so some could argue will changing the word eradicate the problem?

So our questions to you are what is your opinion on the use of the R-word? And do you think changing the word will help change peoples’ attitude?