I understand that getting a diagnosis may provide some level
of comfort for parents of children who appear to have learning or processing
differences; after all, pinning a name on a struggle can help an out-of-control
situation feel more manageable.
However, as John Taylor Gatto points out in his excellent,
prescient treatise, The UndergroundHistory of American Education, labels box
us in. Specifically, labeling children according to their “disorders”
tragically empowers educational and medical bureaucrats to pigeonhole them,
even to the point of forcing the most “damaged” ones aside so they might never
reach their full potential. This labeling frenzy has reached fever pitch in
recent decades. And at its worst Gatto explains the very real prospect of
turning every minor individual difference into a subtle but especially vile form
of eugenics.
Thus, I urge home educating parents to exercise great
caution with labels. For starters, read the parenting books that describe
“normal development” with a grain salt. Vet every author’s worldview
perspective, knowing that some medical and educational “experts” – even those
who are very popular or trendy - are really propagandists for twisted, collectivist
thinking. And remember that there’s actually a very broad range for “normal” in
regards to every “milestone” and behavior. For example, it’s patently false
that every child “must” read fluently by age five in order to find academic
success, and the work of anyone suggesting the validity of such thinking should
be immediately discarded.
Secondly, if you do seek and obtain a diagnosis of some
sort, avoid equating the label with your child’s entire identity. For example, decide
to say, “My child has autism,” rather than calling him “my autistic child.”
This may seem like a small distinction, but semantics really do matter. In the
latter construction, “autistic” is a descriptive adjective that locks a child
into a narrow identity. But saying that a child “has” something provides
distance between the label and the child and signifies that one characteristic
is not his entire identity. Choosing to speak in this way – and insisting that
others do as well – also redirects our interactions with the child. Whereas
equating his whole identity with a disorder or difficulty discourages both the
child and his parents, purposing to see it as only one small piece of the
glorious, intricate puzzle of his mind and heart keeps a “problem” in proper
perspective.
One of my daughters may very well have been labeled and
boxed in if she’d spent any time in an institutional school. In fact, when she
struggled to remember basic blends and digraphs, couldn’t seem to decode or
spell even simple words for the longest time, and wrestled with memorizing her
math facts, I spent quite a bit of time worrying that she might have a “problem.”
And on several occasions I wondered if I should seek a diagnosis. But every
time I came close to asking where to find the “right” people, she’d make a
noticeable improvement. So I decided to avoid labeling her even in my own mind
and, instead, we simply pressed on, diligently but gently. We tried various
strategies – for example, I discovered she could remember exponentially more
spelling words and math facts when we used picture cues – and she kept learning,
sometimes step-by-step and other times in broad leaps. Now 14, she still
doesn’t prefer math, but she understands the concepts and can manage the necessary
computations. And in terms of literacy…well, she devours books, writes deeply
reflective essays for her own blog, and is
in the process of drafting several short stories and even a novel or two. As it
turns out, it appears that she really only has two “situations,” not any sort
of disorder. First, she’s a little far-sighted. But, of course, regular eye
exams and updated prescriptions take care of that. Second, she’s probably a
right-brained learner, which is simply a way of being, not a disorder. But if
I’d allowed myself – or others – to label her instead of choosing to learn
about her and giving her time to mature, we may never have discovered her significant
literary potential.
Every child has a particular, unique set of strengths and
weaknesses. But our culture – particularly with its current penchant toward
stupefying “standardization” – seems bent on stifling individuality. So
“experts” slap labels on any “unusual” characteristic or behavior and try to convince
us as parents that any individual variation is a diagnosable sickness. Indeed,
some children really do have physical, mental, and biochemical problems that
make learning and coping difficult. However, let’s remember that our kids
are…our kids. Every one of their behaviors and characteristics exists for a
purpose and can, indeed, be used for ultimate good. Strengths can be utilized
to shore up and redirect weaknesses. And over time, each child can find his
purpose, most especially if he knows that his parents see him as an individual,
not a label.
“’For I know the plans I have for you,’
declares the LORD,
‘plans to prosper you and not to harm
you,
plans to give you hope and a future.’”
No comments:
Post a Comment