Better Late Than Never: Buddy Walk '08!

I promised to put up pictures from the Buddy Walk 3 months ago, but my camera got dropped and met its maker, somehow in the process corrupting a file on the card, so we couldn't download them. No reader could find the pics. My awesome super genius hunny figured out a way to get them onto his work computer, so now we finally have them YAYYY! To recap - this year's Buddy Walk was a success in terms of turnout, despite the downpours of rain - which I actually quite enjoyed, as opposed to the heat of years past. Fundraising was down, but that was to be expected. The best part was having Sharkie , the San Jose Sharks mascot there! Gabriel and Nicholas even made it onto the local news!!! (Not sure if the link is still good, but if it is, you can see the segment here. Gabriel and Robert are at 1:42, and Nick is at 2:20 into the video.)Sharkie helped our team lead off the walk, and both Nick and Gabe loved him! Elijah was a bit timid, what with him being terrified of his own shadow and all. So, I'll stop blathering now, as I know all you really care about are the pictures. Enjoy!

Here is Gabriel with Sharkie:

Getting ready to start the walk, with storm clouds looming in the not-so-distant distance:

The Firefighters came and brought an engine for the kids to explore. The kids loved this more than the bounce houses!

He make look like he's all cuteness and light, but behind the precocious smile lies the heart of a true troublemaker. I can't fathom where he gets it!

My Sweet Peanut. Dontcha just want to eat him up? This kid melts my heart daily.This is my amazing wonder woman friend, Marcie, and her beautiful daughter Maddie. We're hoping to be related by marriage someday. =)

Life with Boys

I get asked every so often what's it like to live with all boys. I think daily life is best described by these handful of words that constitute 90% of my daily conversation:

NO! Get your hands out of your pants! Get your finger out of your nose! Don't put that there! Get off your brother's head! I said NO! Why is your (jacket/shirt/shoes/jammies) on the floor and what are you going to do about it? Ewwww. If you'd listened the first three times, I wouldn't be yelling. Your shirt is not a napkin. Don't pester your brother. Don't hit your brother. Don't bite your brother. Don't touch. Give that back. Share or I'll take it away. Don't put that in your mouth! Don't put that in your ear! Dont' use that tone of voice with me. Get off the table. Get off the counter. Get off me! Stop running. Stop yelling. Just stop. Be nice to your brother. Go to your room. Go outside. Go jump on Dad. Go to bed. I love you. I love you more. I love to the end of the universe and back. Sweet dreams, I'll see you in the morning.

Another Christmas Has Come and Gone

It came so suddenly this year, it seems. Here we are in January, and I still have Christmas cards I haven't mailed. Or maybe I'm just that disorganized.

Nick was sick so we started Christmas Eve rather slowly, just hanging out in our PJs, and tracking Santa on NORAD. I LOVE that site! I also love that my 8 year old still wholeheartedly believes in Santa. I'm not sure how many years of that magic we have left, but thanks to NORAD, I think we can make it last a wee bit longer. We had to scrap our plans to attend church together, because Nick' fever hit 103 in the afternoon. I told him we'd have to stay home, and he was quite distressed at the thought of not going to Grammy and Papa's, which is our tradition. We gave him some medicine and told him to sleep. His fever came down so we decided to go. This is a picture of them getting ready to go, in their matching outfits. I'm thinking I won't have too many more opportunities to do that either. At some point Nick is bound to balk at the thought of dressing just like his two pesty little brothers. I couldn't get them to all smile so I said "Say Santa!" and this is what I got:






Here they are patiently (or in Gabey's case, NOT so patiently) waiting for their one Christmas Eve gift before bed. Could Gabe possibly look more disinterested? Had to throw in a pic of Robert and me. I don't ever get any good pictures of me, not that I would say this is a "good" picture, but at least it is photographic evidence of my presence at Christmas.

Gabey in his Troy Bolton shirt. I am quite disappointed to report that I didn't get any good pictures of Gabey's Winter Recital this year. He was amazing. Seriously. The kid kicked ass and took names. He had memorized the entire dance from the end of High School Musical to the song "We're All In This Together", but then got up there and decided to just improvise - he was AWESOME! He was throwing together moves from Grease, HSM, Wiggles, and then he struck a couple of poses. He was just so exuberate and happy! Several parents stopped us afterward to tell us they thought he stole the show. He does so love to perform, and it shows. Maybe he's got a future in it? Who knows.

I'll post more photos later. I am having all manner of issue with the upload on this, so you'll just have to suffer with these few. Merry Belated Christmas and Happy New Year!

Snow Day!

Last week, like most of the country, we experienced some extreme weather. It was much much colder than is usual for our area, and there was snow in the low foothills around the valley, a rare occurrence indeed. So one day after school, I took the boys for a drive up to Skyline and had a play day in the snow! Nick was thrilled! When we were getting ready to come home for some hot chocolate, he told me "Oh mom! This was a dream come true!" I just love how the simplest things make him SO happy. Elijah threw one of his monster tantrums when we first got there, but he finally took a moment to look around and notice everyone else was having fun, and caved to the pressure. The boys don't know yet as we want to surprise them, but we are planning to drive to Washington for New Year's Eve, where they can really enjoy the snow!

New Family Portraits

Finally got around to getting new pictures done with the whole family. What do you think? I look at Elijah and think "One of these things is not like the other . . ." I can't believe we managed to get all of them smiling at the same time, and more than once! Miracles never cease! If the grandparents see these, I know what you're thinking . . . your hard copies are coming via eight reindeer and a jolly fat man!

Election 2008: A study in Contradiction

Like a great many Americans, I wept tears of utter joy this week. The election of Barack Obama was such a monumental moment in our history, and something I am so proud to say I helped make happen. Yet, the next morning, my joy was tempered by a profound sadness over the passage of Proposition 8 here in my state. How is it possible that my state, that boasts of such diversity and openness, could possibly amend our constitution to enforce discrimination? I just don't understand it. Our nation can be proud, and celebrate that it has, at last, broken the barrier of color, and elected a man to the Presidency, because of his immense qualifications and in spite of his skin. The profound irony is that as we celebrate that accomplishment, we simultaneously, at the state level at least, chose to uphold discrimination and bigotry in our laws.

For those who don't know or are confused about Proposition 8, the text was quite simple. Proposition 8 asked voters to amend the state constitution to read: Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. That's it. Proponents of Proposition 8 wanted to change the constitution to strip marital rights from gay couples. The constitution is supposed to protect civil rights, not take them away.

Marriage predates religion. Marriage existed as a social contract in ancient civilizations, and in the case of the Greeks, same sex marriage was considered equal. In fact, the Christian Church did not outlaw same sex marriage until sometime in the early 4th century. So to claim that marriage is a religious institution first is incorrect. In our country, marriage is in all cases a civil right granted by the government. Couples are free to also have their marriage sanctioned/blessed by their particular religion, be it Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, etc. but it is not a requirement in our society for marriage, because we are a nation that recognizes many religions, as well as the right to not have a religion. If we hold to the concept that marriage is only a religious institution, you necessarily exclude all heterosexual couples who do not participate in a religion. We don't do that, because marriage is first a civil right bestowed by the government. That is to say, you can be married by the state without being married by the church, and it is still a marriage like any other, but you cannot have a marriage by the church without it also being recognized and approved by the state. Each of those marriages, the one sanctioned in a church, and the one not, is equal.

In the case of Prop 8, and other similar legislation, people of deeply held religious conviction are asking the state, the secular government, to apply a religious litmus to the marriage contract. They are in essence asking for the state to apply religious belief to all who seek marriage, regardless of whether all who seek marriage share that religious belief. This clearly oversteps the separation of church and state, and the proponents of this legislation know that, which is why they hide their intent behind fear and lies. This brings forth the next great irony of this election. The "Yes on 8" campaign was funded mostly by the Mormon Church in Utah. (Don't get me started on another state getting into my state's business, that's a whole other can o'worms). How ironic that the a church whose foundations were forged in the fires of discrimination would now turn and exert that very same discrimination upon another group of people. I'm not even sure irony is the right word. Perhaps hypocrisy is the more apt term. Adding to the hypocrisy is that a "christian" movement couldn't even be bothered to run an honest campaign. They swayed voters with lies and misinformation. One of the arguments they made is that churches would be forced to conduct gay marriage ceremonies or else lose their tax-exempt status. It is ridiculous on its face, or course, but that is the argument they made. The court decision last May that said gay marriage was protected under our constitution specifically addressed the religious freedom of churches and assured them that they will not be compelled to conduct any acts antithetical to their teaching. In the short time that marriage has been recognized as a basic right afforded to all, not a single instance of churches being forced to accept something against their teachings has materialized. The government does not and will not have the authority to tell churches who they can and cannot marry within their walls. If it could, Catholics who marry non-Catholics would have had a field day in the courts many times over. No, churches are not in any way having their doctrine dictated to them. They are still free to say no to whomever they deem unworthy of their blessing.

Worse than the false charge about government intrusion into religion, the Yes on 8 campaign lied about what children learn in school. California curriculum has not changed since marriage was recognized as a right for all. It will not change when it is once again recognized as a right for all. Sadly, these tactics of lies are typical in any election, but what does it say that a group of Christians feels compelled to engage in this kind of deceit? I am reminded of Mohandas Gandhi, when he said "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. "


Eventually, I have faith that the rights of all people to marry the one they love will be recognized legally, if not accepted by all. In the meantime, this Christian will be happy to know that at the National level, we have overcome at least one barrier. Bigotry is not dead, but it has been stricken a blow. I can take some joy in that, and continue to have faith that the rights of all people to love and marry who they choose will be the next barrier overcome.

Comparing the Economic Plans of McCain and Obama

There has been much accusation flying back and forth between presidential campaigns regarding economic plans. I'm hearing a lot about how the other guy will raise your taxes. Who to believe? I don't put much stock in ads, so best go to the source, I say. The Urban Institute Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center has taken a hard look at the plans put forth by Senators McCain and Obama, and offered a detailed analysis of how each. If you want to read the whole thing, click here for pdf, or here for html version. It's kind of a dry read, so I'll just share a few tidbits, that I feel are important:

The two candidates’ plans would have sharply different distributional effects. Senator McCain’s tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes, almost all of whom would receive large tax cuts that would, on average, raise their after-tax incomes by more than twice the average for all households. Many fewer households at the bottom of the income distribution would get tax cuts and those whose taxes fall would, on average, see their after-tax income rise much less. In marked contrast, Senator Obama offers much larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income taxpayers and would increase taxes on high-income taxpayers. The largest tax cuts, as a
share of income, would go to those at the bottom of the income distribution, while taxpayers with the highest income would see their taxes rise.

Being as my family would fall into the "middle-income" bracket, you can probably guess whose plan I find more attractive.

There is some common ground between the two plans. Both candidates agree that the elements of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts primarily affecting those with incomes below $250,000 should be extended, that the estate tax should be substantially reduced but not repealed, and that the research credit should be made permanent (though Senator McCain would change the formula by which it is calculated). Both candidates would continue to limit the number of taxpayers affected by the AMT but would not repeal it.

However, the differences between the candidates’ plans are large. For one thing, both have a back-to-the-future look to them—McCain continues major themes of the Bush administration (lower marginal tax rates, low taxes on capital) while Obama follows the Clinton administration approach of expanding targeted tax breaks for social policy objectives and introducing new tax breaks. Their distributional impacts differ greatly as well: Senator McCain’s plan gives the largest tax cuts taxes to high-income taxpayers, while Senator Obama’s plan directs the largest cuts toward lower-income taxpayers.

What I find disconcerting is that according to their analysis, both plans will see an increase in the deficit, and I hope that there will be some re-tooling to make deficit reduction a bigger priority.
Something to consider when you go to the voting booth. In researching all of this, I discovered a new blog I'm adding to my favorites called Economistmom. Check it out!

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.