Most people know someone with special needs. The person may have a handicap that affects the mind, sight, voice, or even how a person walks. We have all seem ableism in action also at some point I believe. the use of the word retard is an example. We expect those who are handicapped in one way or another or have special needs to not be a good of a contributing member of society as the student who has zero flaws. In a way we give up on these students when we don't expect them to accomplish anything substantial in their lifetime except to be a human pin cushion for doctors. It is a disservice for all those who are deemed handicap in some form because we do not give them a chance to show us what they can do. Instead they live up for the self fulfilling prophecy given to them by doctors and old fashioned school teachers.
We expect less of those students, and thus do not always give them work or concepts that could potentially open their minds. In expecting less of those students, we do not take time to discover their own personal intelligence.; Like the article said, their are an infinite possibilities for types of intelligences. With no goals, or push to find and enhance these intelligences, the handicapped students become lethargic from under stimulation.
There are some handicaps that are not handicaps at all. When a student is deaf, or mute, the student has every chance to be able to succeed if they are advocates for themselves. According to Hehir, ablelism in the classroom happens to these students because of the teacher's teaching style. Oral teaching is an ancient and well respected way to learn. If the teacher does not speak American Sign Language, (ASL) the teacher will rely on lip reading for the student to understand the content of the program. The teacher then forces the student to learn lip reading over American Sign language. In a way is it silently telling the student their way of learning and communicating is not good enough.
Students who have IEPs for their learning disorders have certain parameters and rules for the teacher to follow. Yet, could there be instances of teachers making modified lessons, class work, or evaluations too easy? I think so if certain teachers don't believe their students can and are able to accomplish harder tasks. It is kind of like the ableism students who are physically handicapped face. Those who have the ability to help them grow up into a productive member of society.
Monday, May 14, 2012
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Sexuality and Sex education week
Maybe it is because I grew up in a liberal family, who stopped attending church when I was 10, and have sisters and a mother who work in the medical field, but it seems common sense to teach sexual education in schools these days. I mean REAL sex ed. and not the abstinence only program that seems to be running amuck in the school systems.
As a woman, it feels like a war on my gender because the saddest result of not teaching teens about safe sex is teen pregnancy. The father of the child can walk away at any point and never have to change a single dirty diaper, stay awake at all hours of the night, not worry about balancing school, a job, and paying for day care. A mother can do that also if she gives her child up for adoption, but that itself leaves emotional wounds that never really heal and for some it is an impossible choice.
Society still treats young mothers like they carry ebola, or the next black plague. Yet, in fact it is partially their fault by not equipping them with the right sexual education that could have prevented a teen pregnancy. The fact is teens will have sex whether their parents, teachers, or society want them to. It is their choice, and their bodies. It is a part of human nature and we are biologically driven to it. That is not to say that we are all stark raving mad cave men and women dying to get at each other, but not everyone has the sense, will, or want to deny their hormones. Historically, teens have never made bright decisions, so how can we expect them to make healthy sexual choices when they have little or no information or education?
It seems that the abstinence only program has religious undertones also. I thought there was supposed to be a separation of church and state? Apparently not since christian views on marriage, sex, and heterosexual relationships are deeply rooted in the program. " Researchers have noted that these curricula often include scare tactics such as the video titled No Second Chance, in which a student asks a school nurse, “What if I want to have sex before I get married?” to which the nurse replies, “Well, I guess you’ll just have to be prepared to die” Yes, that could have been true before the invention of condoms, and the pill. In the past, someone could die from a sexually transmitted disease, but most often the killer of women was the birthing process. Those who died from giving birth were not discriminated against if they were married. Death during labor was a risk for ALL women.
The results of the abstinence only programs is saddening. They clearly show no positive results, and instead more harmful and negative aspects. "In a follow up, however, Brückner and Bear- man (2005) found that 88 percent of the middle and high school students who had sworn to abstain did, in fact, have premarital sex — and, important- ly, often had unprotected sex. Pledgers were 30 percent less likely than non- pledgers to use contraception once they became sexually active, and also less likely to use condoms and seek medical testing and treatment." How is this okay? It seems like we are setting our children up for failure right for the beginning. Without the use of contraception, like condoms, these student better prepare themselves for HIV, AIDS, Chlamydia , or herpes. What is more okay? Students promising to not have sex, and then breaking those promises and having unprotected sex, or teaching our students to protect themselves and be responsible for their own bodies and when they choose to have sex, use contraceptives?
Do you want your children to feel extreme guilt when they talk about the subject of sex? Personally, I would want children who know how their bodies function, how to protect themselves, and know when they make that choice, it is theirs alone, and not the government's.
As a woman, it feels like a war on my gender because the saddest result of not teaching teens about safe sex is teen pregnancy. The father of the child can walk away at any point and never have to change a single dirty diaper, stay awake at all hours of the night, not worry about balancing school, a job, and paying for day care. A mother can do that also if she gives her child up for adoption, but that itself leaves emotional wounds that never really heal and for some it is an impossible choice.
Society still treats young mothers like they carry ebola, or the next black plague. Yet, in fact it is partially their fault by not equipping them with the right sexual education that could have prevented a teen pregnancy. The fact is teens will have sex whether their parents, teachers, or society want them to. It is their choice, and their bodies. It is a part of human nature and we are biologically driven to it. That is not to say that we are all stark raving mad cave men and women dying to get at each other, but not everyone has the sense, will, or want to deny their hormones. Historically, teens have never made bright decisions, so how can we expect them to make healthy sexual choices when they have little or no information or education?
It seems that the abstinence only program has religious undertones also. I thought there was supposed to be a separation of church and state? Apparently not since christian views on marriage, sex, and heterosexual relationships are deeply rooted in the program. " Researchers have noted that these curricula often include scare tactics such as the video titled No Second Chance, in which a student asks a school nurse, “What if I want to have sex before I get married?” to which the nurse replies, “Well, I guess you’ll just have to be prepared to die” Yes, that could have been true before the invention of condoms, and the pill. In the past, someone could die from a sexually transmitted disease, but most often the killer of women was the birthing process. Those who died from giving birth were not discriminated against if they were married. Death during labor was a risk for ALL women.
The results of the abstinence only programs is saddening. They clearly show no positive results, and instead more harmful and negative aspects. "In a follow up, however, Brückner and Bear- man (2005) found that 88 percent of the middle and high school students who had sworn to abstain did, in fact, have premarital sex — and, important- ly, often had unprotected sex. Pledgers were 30 percent less likely than non- pledgers to use contraception once they became sexually active, and also less likely to use condoms and seek medical testing and treatment." How is this okay? It seems like we are setting our children up for failure right for the beginning. Without the use of contraception, like condoms, these student better prepare themselves for HIV, AIDS, Chlamydia , or herpes. What is more okay? Students promising to not have sex, and then breaking those promises and having unprotected sex, or teaching our students to protect themselves and be responsible for their own bodies and when they choose to have sex, use contraceptives?
Do you want your children to feel extreme guilt when they talk about the subject of sex? Personally, I would want children who know how their bodies function, how to protect themselves, and know when they make that choice, it is theirs alone, and not the government's.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)