Special Olympics aims at ending the derogatory use of the "r-word"

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by CobraKai

It's not just the word - it's what the word contributes to.According to Special Olympics, less than 10% of people with intellectual disabilities in the United States are employed, compared to 50% of U.S. Special Olympics athletes, compared to 92% of the general population. By using the r-word, people indirectly help ostracize those with intellectual disabilities – by increasing awareness of the issue, we can help foster a greater acceptance of those with intellectual disabilities into our community.

They are not employed because they are not functionally able to, which is why a greater proportion of Special Olympics athletes do.

Look despite my Aryan blood and great heritage filled with strong men and fertile women, we have two special ed people in the extended family. They are not capable of crushing cans (which was one of their jobs for awhile). Or working at Mazzios (which was the other one of their jobs for awhile).

And that's okay.

But dropping the use of the word retarded isn't going to improve anyone's mental ability (although it dumbs mine down from it's political correctness) or make employers more accepting. The employers who employ the mentally handicapped already deal with enough tards that don't have a doctors note.

[33girl]

Not only that, the parents/guardians/teachers who get their kids involved with Special Olympics are more likely to be instilling in these people a sense of self esteem and purpose in life that would exist even if SO didn't. I'm sure a lot of it has to do with economic level as well.

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Semantics rears it's ugly head again. Changing the name without changing the intended meaning only makes people feel better until they realize that the same thing is being said. Now "special" has an ugly sound to it.

See: Welcome To The Dollhouse and Dawn's "Special People Club."

Tangent: IMO, here is no real danger or detriment to calling a 23 year old person who's been tested throughout life and who without any question has the IQ of a 3 year old a mentally retarded individual. There IS a real danger in labeling a child at too early an age and them having to carry a label forever that doesn't apply. Some of my friends are struggling with this - their kids are getting called autistic or Asperger's and they don't think it's necessarily true. It seems we are coming at the problem from the wrong end.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by 33girl

Tangent: IMO, here is no real danger or detriment to calling a 23 year old person who's been tested throughout life and who without any question has the IQ of a 3 year old a mentally retarded individual. There IS a real danger in labeling a child at too early an age and them having to carry a label forever that doesn't apply. Some of my friends are struggling with this - their kids are getting called autistic or Asperger's and they don't think it's necessarily true. It seems we are coming at the problem from the wrong end.

But there's also a real danger in not diagnosing someone at a young age, and not giving that child/young adult the type of educational support that they need (through IDPs, etc.). I have a couple of special education professionals in my family (including one who's very well-respected in the field), and they feel pretty strongly that the ability to diagnose early has been a big positive. Now, if it's a faulty diagnosis, or it's done by someone who has no knowledge in the field, that's a whole other issue...

I'm not saying this is the case with your friends, but I'll flip your statement a little - as I see it, there is a problem with parents who don't want to admit that their child is on the spectrum, or has some learning disability, etc. Whether it's because they blame themselves, or because they don't want to see their children as anything less than "perfect," I think parental resistance is a bigger issue than early diagnosis.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by 33girl

Tangent: IMO, here is no real danger or detriment to calling a 23 year old person who's been tested throughout life and who without any question has the IQ of a 3 year old a mentally retarded individual. There IS a real danger in labeling a child at too early an age and them having to carry a label forever that doesn't apply. Some of my friends are struggling with this - their kids are getting called autistic or Asperger's and they don't think it's necessarily true. It seems we are coming at the problem from the wrong end.

Originally Posted by KSigkid

But there's also a real danger in not diagnosing someone at a young age, and not giving that child/young adult the type of educational support that they need (through IDPs, etc.). I have a couple of special education professionals in my family (including one who's very well-respected in the field), and they feel pretty strongly that the ability to diagnose early has been a big positive. Now, if it's a faulty diagnosis, or it's done by someone who has no knowledge in the field, that's a whole other issue...

I'm not saying this is the case with your friends, but I'll flip your statement a little - as I see it, there is a problem with parents who don't want to admit that their child is on the spectrum, or has some learning disability, etc. Whether it's because they blame themselves, or because they don't want to see their children as anything less than "perfect," I think parental resistance is a bigger issue than early diagnosis.

I think, in ways, you're both right. I've seen major issues with parental resistance. You're right that when you're talking about the autism spectrum, the earlier the diagnosis the better. But it doesn't help if you have random people who (1) don't really know what they're talking about or (2) aren't in a proper position (teacher, school counselor) to be offering that kind of advice.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I think, in ways, you're both right. I've seen major issues with parental resistance. You're right that when you're talking about the autism spectrum, the earlier the diagnosis the better. But it doesn't help if you have random people who (1) don't really know what they're talking about or (2) aren't in a proper position (teacher, school counselor) to be offering that kind of advice.

One of the girls who is having this issue with her daughter is a teacher herself with a Masters' degree. Part of the problem is they're in a rural area and the (small) school district, basically, wants to throw her into the learning disabled area, get the extra $$ from the state and be done with it. They don't want to keep working with her or testing her.

Also, I think that the increased awareness of autism has made parents & teachers more easily believe that children have it. Kinda like reading the Merck Manual and then thinking you have some horrid disease because you have one or two of the symptoms.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by 33girl

One of the girls who is having this issue with her daughter is a teacher herself with a Masters' degree. Part of the problem is they're in a rural area and the (small) school district, basically, wants to throw her into the learning disabled area, get the extra $$ from the state and be done with it. They don't want to keep working with her or testing her.

Also, I think that the increased awareness of autism has made parents & teachers more easily believe that children have it. Kinda like reading the Merck Manual and then thinking you have some horrid disease because you have one or two of the symptoms.

I hear people accuse schools of doing this but it doesn't make sense in my experience. If you label the kid, you create a legal obligation to deliver appropriate services. It's hard to see how a system is going to make money on that deal. Sure, some systems fight giving kids expensive services that the parents might want, but the parents can take them to court and sue using the diagnosis the system gave the kid. By testing and identifying the kid, you're creating an obligation that you wouldn't otherwise have.

I don't see how it's a good idea from the system's perspective, unless you really think the kid needs services that you can deliver.

I agree that more kids are identified today absolutely, and I suppose that can seem suspicious. However, I can't figure out why schools would do it except that they really think the kid has a disability and can benefit from services. I don't think any systems actually profit from their special ed programs bringing in more funding than they cost.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I hear people accuse schools of doing this but it doesn't make sense in my experience. If you label the kid, you create a legal obligation to deliver appropriate services.

Yes, but "appropriate services" is more elastic than Granny's underpants. Like I said, this is a rural area. They don't have the option of putting her in another school like they would if they were here in the city, unless they want to drive her an hour plus one way twice a day. They stick her in the learning disabled classes, which may or may not meet her needs or help her condition, and then don't have to deal with her anymore.

I look back at kids I was in school with and some of them most likely did have an undiagnosed disability, and wonder how much they might have achieved with early intervention. Honestly I don't know which is worse - too much or not enough.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by 33girl

One of the girls who is having this issue with her daughter is a teacher herself with a Masters' degree. Part of the problem is they're in a rural area and the (small) school district, basically, wants to throw her into the learning disabled area, get the extra $$ from the state and be done with it. They don't want to keep working with her or testing her.

I see. and yep . . . that's a problem in lots of ways.

Also, I think that the increased awareness of autism has made parents & teachers more easily believe that children have it. Kinda like reading the Merck Manual and then thinking you have some horrid disease because you have one or two of the symptoms.

It's the new ADHD -- throw a label on it and -- presto -- problem solved.

(And I say that as the dad of a kid diagnosed, by very competent diagnosticians, with both ADHD and Asperger's.)

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by 33girl

One of the girls who is having this issue with her daughter is a teacher herself with a Masters' degree. Part of the problem is they're in a rural area and the (small) school district, basically, wants to throw her into the learning disabled area, get the extra $$ from the state and be done with it. They don't want to keep working with her or testing her.

Also, I think that the increased awareness of autism has made parents & teachers more easily believe that children have it. Kinda like reading the Merck Manual and then thinking you have some horrid disease because you have one or two of the symptoms.

I could see that side of it - if the relevant people in the school district aren't educated on the subject, then definitely, early intervention can have its drawbacks. I think that just speaks to a larger issue, that school districts need qualified people to be making these assessments.