Who Should be Allowed to Marry?

Last month, the California Supreme Court ruled that banning marriage between same-sex partners was unconstitutional. The reaction was predictably emotional; supporters exuberantly cheered the decision while opponents chided the “activist liberal judges” for overturning the “will of the people.” In November, voters will voice their opinion on a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

It is my fervent prayer that common sense and a respect for the founding principles of our nation prevail, and voters deny the amendment. The judges in California got it right. Until someone can present an argument against gay marriage that is not rooted in religious dogma, the government has no right to deny that right to an entire segment of the citizenry. That argument does not exist. The government, national or state, does not possess the authority to enforce religious teachings. Nor should it. Yet, that is exactly what opponents of gay marriage are asking the government to do. Our founding fathers, who were Christians but also secularists, would be ashamed.

George Washington believed that one’s religion was extremely personal. There are few, if any texts or quotations from our First President about his own beliefs, as he kept them to himself. Thomas Jefferson is credited with the oft-recited clause “Separation of church and state.” His exact words, written in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802, were “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship . . . I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”

It saddens me to see that so many have forgotten the importance our founders placed upon that separation. They came here to escape the oppression of religious tyranny, and it was foremost in their concerns when drafting our Constitution. I believe they, too, would be greatly saddened at the erosion of that wall. It is not just for the protection of the people, but also the protection of religion that Jefferson cared:

“I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct its exercises, its discipline, or its doctrines; nor of the religious societies that the general government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them.”

If we ask our government now to enforce religious doctrine regarding marriage, we open the door to government intrusion on all religious doctrine. Perhaps the government can decide it is in the interest of national unity to enforce a national order of worship, or to deny certain forms of worship that do not adhere to beliefs of a religious majority. Opponents of gay marriage, particularly those whose particular denomination might be considered outside the mainstream of Christianity, should think carefully about whether they wish to open that door.

I can respect that there are those who view gay marriage as a sin, or immoral, if that is what their religious conviction dictates. I only ask that they apply their conviction to their own way of living and not insist that others must do the same. If you believe it wrong, then don’t do it. There are a great many things I believe to be wrong or immoral, but I would not dare ask my government to enforce *my* moral code upon the entire nation. To do so is the antithesis of everything our nation was founded upon. Our founders’ ancestors came here to escape the violence and tyranny that necessarily flows from having a government enforce religious belief. Thomas Jefferson kept the knowledge of that history always in mind, as he helped forge our nation, and he said it best on March 4, 1801 in his First Inaugural Address:

“All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression.”

So cute, your heart will explode!

Yeah, yeah - I know. All moms think their kid is The. Cutest. But none of them have my Peanut to show! Today was the dress rehearsal for his recital tomorrow, and I have to say, he and his girlfriend ROCKED THE HOUSE! And the pictures they let me take after - Ooohhhh, melt me like buttah!!!! Don't say I didn't warn you.

How Education is Failing our Kids

We now know more about what happened in the classroom of Alex, the Kindergarten student who was voted out of class (see my post below). Having a better understanding of the thought process the teacher went through, I still support her removal from the classroom, and I think her return should be contingent upon receiving some training in dealing with children with special needs, but I no longer feel as outraged as I did. The incident that happened in Florida is indicative of a much bigger problem within our school system.

Anyone who knows me can tell you there isn't a bigger or louder cheerleader for public schools. I am the public schools. I am a first grade teacher at heart. It is my passion. It was my career before children and I had never intended to take a break from doing what I loved, but I was forced to put my career on hold by the demands of having a child with Down syndrome. This year I returned to teaching part time by working as a sub. As much as I would love to work full time, it's just not an option yet, so working as a substitute is the compromise. When I pull together my experiences as a substitute teacher and combine them with my experiences as a special needs mother, I can see a clear picture of one of the biggest challenges facing our teachers, and one of the principle failings of our system. Five year old Alex wasn't a victim of a mean-hearted teacher. He was a victim of a system that has failed to prepare that teacher to meet his needs.

Let me say, the vast majority of teachers I have had the pleasure of working with, are incredibly talented, hard-working, passionate people. Teachers do the hardest work, and bear the brunt of criticism for failures that are not theirs. This is not a criticism of the teachers in our system. It is a criticism of a system that fails to give them the tools and training they need to meet the needs of children who are not neurotypical. One might counter that with "That's why we have Special Education teachers" and that, to an extent, is true. But the shortage of skilled SpEd teachers practically guarantees that no teacher with a SpEd credential will teach in a mainstream classroom. Teachers who have gone though the extra training to earn Master's degrees in SpEd will almost always end up teaching Special Day Class, rather than a mainstream class with special needs kids fully included. For the children, like my son Gabriel, who are placed in a SDC with a trained teacher, this is exactly what they need. I have no concerns at all about my son's education because he has a highly trained and very experienced teacher. He understands my son's unique learning needs, his unique behavior patterns, his triggers and his motivators, he knows how to individualize my son's education, and how to manage the individualized plans of all his very diverse group of students. My son is in extremely good hands.

So where does that leave the students who have special needs but are not in a classroom with a SpEd teacher? That depends. There are mainstream teachers who have the right personality and teaching style to adapt to a wider array of learning needs, and there are mainstream teachers who, of their own accord, have sought out learning opportunities to better understand children with special needs. But training in addressing special needs, and managing IEPs (Individualized Education Plans - all SpEd students have one) is not mandatory beyond the cursory one semester course of the credentials process. So chances are, if you have a child with Asperger's like Alex or Nick, or a child with ADHD, or any one of a number of special needs, at one point or another you will be faced with a teacher who, though skilled and successful at teaching neurotypical kids, is not a good fit for your child. An unfortunate consequence to that is that the rest of the students also suffer when a mainstream educator is asked to make special accommodations they are not trained to make.

So what can be done? It isn't reasonable to expect that all teachers should go out and get degrees in SpEd, but they should have access to some training. What I would like to see is the creation of a special education liaison/advocate to work with and train teachers as they need it. It would be the job of the liaison to manage the IEPs of kids in mainstream classrooms, and provide training and support for the teachers. Students are typically assigned their classrooms at the end of the previous year. The advocate, at the start of the new year, would meet with the teachers who will be receiving students with IEPs, and provide some "basic" training; what behaviors they are likely to see, what kind of classroom set up will best support that students' needs, what kind of discipline works and what doesn't, what kind of coping mechanisms will help the student stay on task, what kind of teaching style does the student best respond to, and what does not. For Nicholas, his teachers need to know he is easily overstimulated by sights and sounds, so the classroom should be neat and not over-decorated. He should be seated near the front and desks should be facing forward. Nick requires routine and structure, so he needs to be warned in advance of any change in schedule, and subs should be given information to help him adjust to a change in teacher. For children with ADHD, or Sensory Integration Disorder, the needs are different. A liaison would be able to support the teachers and give them the information and tools they need to meet all the different needs. Once the school year is under way, the liaison would be responsible for monitoring the progress, by observing the classrooms, and meeting regularly with the teachers to find out what they need, and meeting with the students and parents to find out what they need, and working with the teacher and the family to make sure the learning environment supports them all.

Perhaps, the next generation of educational reforms will pull back the focus on testing and start putting the focus where it needs to be: supporting the interaction between students and teacher, and providing the tools necessary to make that interaction the best it can be every single day. One can hope.

Tangential to the topic, I hope more parents will start to see the Special Education classes for what they are - a service provided by highly qualified, specially trained professionals who are passionate and hard-working and have our children's best interests at heart. I have always had a difficult time hearing from parents within the Down syndrome community who fight for full mainstreaming of their very special needs child and then scream and shout because of all the difficulties with the teacher - the teacher who does not have the training or background to meet those special needs. The problem isn't with the teachers. It is with the misplaced expectation and the misunderstanding of what SpEd is for.

I've got my flamesuit on and I fully expect to catch hell for that view, but there it is.