<p>Singersmom07 - ^^very well said - and I agree.</p>
<p>Good to hear about your succusful guy too :)</p>
<p>Singersmom, thanks for posting that. </p>
<p>I can’t believe how many times a family shares their experiences, and someone who knows a lot about special ed law in theory and nothing about it in practice tries to cast doubt on their story saying, “That couldn’t have happened, there are laws against it.” </p>
<p>[This isn’t directed at anyone here, but it’s a common meme.]</p>
<p>I always ask if it’s true that no one speeds because the law forbids it.</p>
<p>Cheers, misdiagnosis of autism or autistic spectrum disorders is very common – the problem is that there are a lot of childhood conditions that don’t quite fit anything – but doctors are under some pressure to assign a diagnostic category of some sort— so they are going to tend to come up with the closest fit label as opposed to saying, “something is really wrong with this kid but we don’t know what it is”.</p>
<p>Herb Lovett used to joke that you could be greatly rehabilitated just by crossing a state line. (In some states, the law says that a person is diagnosed with mental retardation at an IQ of 75, in other states it’s 70).</p>
<p>I just reread my post and lest someone think I am just a neurotic suburban Mom, prior to the discovery of a very odd LD, we were dealing with depression and violent outbursts. Neither the depression mentioned off hand by a teacher nor the violent outbursts caused the school to consider him as needing anything. He wasn’t failing and he didn’t fit the “standard” LD profiles. He was considered lazy since he did not perform to his testing level. Diagnosis, accommodation and special assistance while he learned to deal and manage around the LD were critical to him becoming a successful adult. I shudder to think what he might have been capable of had the frustration and anger not been able to be addressed at a relatively young age.</p>
<p>doubleplay (and others),
Whether Cho’s diagnosis was simple or complex, accurate or not (and of course we don’t know definitively; we’re just weighing in on possbilities, which is o.k by me) – the fact is that mainstreaming <em>one</em> (or very few) special cases in an otherwise highly functioning classroom is one thing. (And in a district or school with good resources, a willing, capable teacher, aware parents, etc.) Trying to do so in a poorly functioning classroom, under/with a teacher who is barely coping with multi-faceted & enormous classroom challenges, and which may include <em>several</em> aberrational situations, is something else entirely. I do not know the various factors at play in any of Cho’s classrooms, except for the quite unprofessional example of the teacher <em>forcing</em> him to read aloud in one case, which I do not find excusable.</p>
<p>Healthy continuity for these variations from the norm, is another aspect that is essential to high functioning within <em>consecutive</em> mainstreamed classrooms. If the quality of his teachers and the circumstances of his classmates varied greatly from year to year, and the confusion of the parents went unabated, it would be difficult for me to envision that mainstreaming would have been a positive experience for him, let alone therapeutic (and whether or not he were receiving supplemental treatment on the side – another very important factor that is an unknown). So far, from his high school peers’ comments, college peers’ comments, and from various comments relatives have made, it hardly sounds as if his school experiences were just a barrel of fun.</p>
<p>The academic success of a non-normative student (relatively, i.e., the positive reinforcment of efforts, progress that is visible to the student, etc.) is important to that student, every bit as much as being accepted, being treated kindly, being included, not being ridiculed, etc. The student may “feel o.k.” about being respected but nevertheless feel internally quite humiliated & frustrated about an inability to match his peers’ progress, not to mention a sibling’s academic success. </p>
<p>Add all these factors together, possibly within a complex diagnosis which if ever completed might have included a number of conditions in dynamic relationship, and it’s difficult for me to believe that mainstreaming, particularly indefinitely, was the best option for <em>him</em>. More specific to this last point, mainstreaming is only done successfully when the diagnosis is clear, communication abundant, training available, the teacher is not distracted with dissimilar competing challenges, and parents are working in tandem with the school. I seriously question whether all the factors in that last sentence were present, given statements made by Cho’s relatives and peers prior to college.</p>
<p>You don’t sound the least bit neurotic, Singer. You sound amazingly clear-eyed. Congratulations for successfully navigating around a difficult learning issue for your son. If your clear-eyed understanding could only be bottled…</p>
<p>All of us are indeed guessing about Cho…with minimal information. Even with diagnosis, it is difficult to fathom the depravity of his actions. Imagining a severely autistic or even schizophrenic child in a mainstream classroom does begin to explain his so-called ‘odd’ behavior.</p>
<p>I don’t think he could have been “severely autistic” and functioning at all in a mainstream classroom – it is high-functioning autistics who are mainstreamed, not “severely autistic” children. The fact that the kid qualified for admission to VT means that he must have been able to produce acceptable written work.</p>
<p>Regarding the “diagnosis” of autism reported by the aunt. I don’t know how many sources there are for this information. Upon reading the link originally posted by cheers re the aunt interview - full of expletives from said 85-year old and other distasteful elements - I tend to discount anything and everything she has been quoted as saying. Perhaps there are kernels of truth from that interview. Perhaps not.</p>
<p>Post 948:
True, calmom, but he could have been severely something-else, managed to do the work, etc. It would seem that his quiet/silent behavior was something that promoted continual mainstreaming, as he was not a disruption concern. But clearly mainstreaming did not in itself address his emotional needs. Although the task-responsibility of teachers is limited to academics, the observation responsibility is not. We’re supposed to notice when students are not emotionally & socially functioning; we’re charged with persistently bringing that to the attention of professionals (as opposed to treating clinical cases ourselves –> a major source of confusion, by the way). With Cho, we know of at least one case where any informed, ethical teacher should have brought his reticence to the attention of those others – and clearly at least 2 members of college faculty had the right professional spirit to do so. The student was exhibiting a pattern – must have early on, which is when the intervention should have taken place, and didn’t.</p>
<p>Today’s Post has an article about how difficult it can be to get help for mentally ill people. Apparently, even after the court order mandating outpatient treatment for Cho, there was no enforcement mechanism or followup to make sure that he actually got it.</p>
<p>The story points out many holes in our mental health system. Here is a poignant anecdote:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/19/AR2007041902582.html[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/19/AR2007041902582.html</a></p>
<p>true, wisteria. We need a national conversation about mental health resources, facilities, intervention, legal ramifications (regarding schooling, regarding gun purchases, etc.), and public/private means to pay for that, if such national tragedies are to be reduced. The nation lost much promising talent in VA. And more than half of K-12 schooling is still public, with more than half of those feeding into higher institutions, including the privates. These are national questions, affecting all of us & our children, grandchildren.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have to agree. I used to be a Cub Scout leader, and we had a boy in the den with severe ADD and emotional issues. He was able to keep up with the badge work because he was accompanied to Scout events by a family member who helped him with the difficult stuff and because the den leaders worked with him individually, but he was never accepted or included by the other boys. They weren’t rude to him during Scout activities; we wouldn’t have allowed that. But they couldn’t relate to him; he was too different. So for all practical purposes, he wasn’t really in a mainstream environment.</p>
<p>I knew a family with a child who used a wheelchair. One thing they said was that when they lived in Israel, their child was a lot better accepted and had more friends, because a child using a wheelchair was not a rare sight there; kids were used to the idea.</p>
<p>One reason that kids with exceptionalities have a hard time getting acceptance is because of the historic segregation. One hopes that as they become more visible in society, attitudes will change.</p>
<p>goddammit, can somebody explain why the Israeli Defense Force which consists of HIGHLY TRAINED SOLDIERS have stricter rules regarding carrying firearms than the US?</p>
<p>A kid in a wheelchair is NO comparison to kids with mental health issues or severe learning disabilities. A kid in a wheelchair SHOULD be mainstreamed. Some learning disabilities when they include some special services, also do OK being mainstreamed. More severe cases likely would be better off in a more specialized environment that can meet their needs, and be better off for the general classroom as well. A wheelchair bound student is no different than a “normal” student other than not being able to walk! I can’t imagine even thinking about that in the same way as what we are talking about here. </p>
<p>My child is in a highly selective college program (7% admit rate) that also requires an audition to be admitted. One of her very good friends in the program is wheelchair bound (having been paralyzed from a drunk driver when a child). Not only is this girl very popular and talented (and I just saw her as a lead in a show at the school), but I am delighted to see a college program accept someone in a wheelchair for musical theater, and in fact, she has been cast professionally. I can’t even begin to see any connection with people with a physical disability to what we are talking about here.</p>
<p>I’m sure you didn’t quite literally mean that, soozie. If the person is in a wheelchair due to injury, with no other spinal cord limitations affecting brain function & bodily functions, then no, there should be nothing preventing full integration into normal classroom activities, K through college & grad school. Other than that, I agree with your statement & your taking exception to the previous comparison. I do indeed.</p>
<p>Also, there are in fact mainstreamed wheelchair-bound kids with serious limitations who have personal attendants brought into the classroom, and others who have separately “shadowed” assistants who are paid to accompany these students. This is also perfectly acceptable. But for anyone to suggest that teachers with a normal classroom size are in a position to attend to the specialized needs of a significant mentally ill person, while not jeopardizing the full education of the “normal” kids, is being unrealistic. In such a case, neither segment is served.</p>
<p>epiphany, believe me, I totally agree with you and have read your posts up until now about the whole mainstreaming thing and just didn’t get engaged in the conversation but am with ya on it. I just had a knee jerk reaction to the wheelchair statement because a physical disability is not at all in the same category as serious mental illnesses or severe learning issues. </p>
<p>Mainstreaming works for some learning disabilities and some other issues but it is not the best for certain cases, particularly the more severe ones. I feel this way particularly with middle and high school, though overall as well. Here, kids are mainstreamed. I find the other kids accept those kids and get exposure to differences. But for the more extreme cases of mental and learning disabilities, the interests of the student are not often best met in the regular classroom. </p>
<p>These kids have one on one aides the entire time and often cannot do any of the regular classroom activities/lessons. Usually, their aide is a paraprofessional (who can be great, of course) but not a licensed teacher. Their learning needs are so specialized, that they’d be better met in a program that teaches what they need to learn. Further, in terms of socialization, once they get to middle and high school, the other kids are not really socializing with these kids or inviting them over and so forth. I know parents of kids with Downs Syndrome and other serious disabilities and their kids don’t get to have the joy of friends at that age. If they were in a school that was geared to not only their learning needs, but with others like themselves who wanted to be social friends, they would benefit. </p>
<p>At our elementary schools here, sometimes there are a lot of adults in the classroom because of all these kids with one on one aides. And these kids have to be pulled out for so much time too. In some cases, it works and best meets their needs. But in other cases, of the more extreme sort, the kids would be better off in a specialized program that could best meet their OWN needs, let alone be better for the entire classroom. But I have to see it on a case by case basis, but I do think that for those with significant disabilities, they often are NOT best served in a mainstreamed classroom.</p>
<p>I actually saw a TV interview with the auntie. She is not from a highly educated class–and she does not speak English. I’m not sure what the translation was from the Mirror–but the TV translation did not include western swear words. Good point about her veracity or the veracity of the translation. However, his speech difficulties, his inability to make eye-contact, his speech delays as confirmed by his US uncles and his grandfather–all of that makes sense in the context of an autism diagnosis.</p>
<p>In fact, jmmom, if you read translations from Korean newspapers, you may be left scratching your head–as I am. In direct translation, the Korean language appears very very flowery, poetic and indirect to a fault. Regarding her disgust with her great nephew, the Korean newspapers talk about the shame that is brought upon the enitre clan–a concept that is foreign to westerners. I wouldn’t judge her harshness too severely without knowing the cultural context. I can tell you that at 85, she has lived through 40 or 50 years of extreme poverty and brutality. Who knows what that heart has had to endure.</p>
<p>Korean radio apparently reported that both parents attempted suicide–and the father was successful. That has never been confirmed but it might explain the delay in the family statement. Severe mental disabilities are a massive burden to families. Parents remain full-on parents until they go to their graves.</p>
<p>No matter what the diagnosis of Cho, it is clear that he should not have been mainstreamed for so long. It is clear that the social costs–both individual and society-wide–outweighed any academic success. It is clear that once Virginia Tech accepted him with his unknown mental disability, their community was stuck living cheek to cheek with a psychotic time bomb.</p>
<p>I have watched the brave parents of the murdered children talking so eloquently to reporters about the light their stunning children emitted–and my heart is shattered. The loss of those amazing lives is too much for me to accept, yet there they are, speaking to their children’s memories. </p>
<p>If anyone hears about efforts to change the legislation that allowed this disgusting crime–please start a thread. I want to participate in those efforts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I hate to get back to my ex-Cub Scouts, but one of them had a sister who used a wheelchair because of spina bifida. She was completely and routinely accepted by the kids in her mainstream classes and always had been. She was normal in the ways that matter to kids. In fact, she was a popular, very socially successful kid. This is totally different from the ADD/emotionally disturbed kid who couldn’t carry on a conversation with the other Cub Scouts.</p>