Then there are some children who, despite every attempt to intervene on their behalf, do not progress as adequately as they should. This year I have a student who is currently TWO years below grade level in reading. He has learned to compensate for his reading deficiencies by learning how to take tests very well, such that he is able to reason through tests and correctly identify answers. Despite his average achievement, I brought his case to a child study meeting. To me, failing to address a child's obvious disability in reading is negligent; and as his teacher it is my job to try and do whatever I can to help him.
So today we sat in the meeting about this child, and the school psychiatrist acknowledged that there was a problem, but wanted to "wait and see" how he does. They have been waiting to see how he does since he was in the first grade. He has been consistently well below grade level for years, and yet they refuse to test him for a disability. Having knowledge of the system and its shortcomings, his mother and I have already initiated testing from an outside source, because I knew that the school would choose to do nothing.
As I sat there and listened to the psychiatrist and the other special education teacher, the word negligence continued to go through my mind.
Tonight I just looked up what educational negligence is, and according to public education laws, it exists within the realm of physical harm to a student, but the definition does not include academic harm to a student. In my opinion, if a school or school district acknowledges that there is a problem with a student such as the case is with my student, to choose to do nothing is negligent. For teachers to continuously bring a student up for study, and for the teachers to be denied the right to proceed with testing is negligent. In my mind, it is unlawful and it is NOT acceptable.
When I started grad school, I had the intention of going into education policy. But once I entered the classroom and saw all that administration had to deal with, I decided against going into administration. Now, I am reconsidering the notion of going into education policy, only this time, I am looking at it from a prosecutorial standpoint, rather than a defensive standpoint.
Usually I think schools get a bad reputation unnecessarily, but in this case, I believe the blame for an adult becoming functionally illiterate falls squarely on the shoulders of the system. The system has failed that child, and I wonder if I am on the right side of things. Sure, I can teach a child to read, and I can do as much as I can, but when I am part of a system that chooses not to help a child, am I really on the right side? And, what is the right side?
The answer I continuously arrive at is that if I don't like the system, then I need to try and change the system. How can I affect change? I wish I really knew the answer. Part of me thinks I need to pursue education law, but then part of me thinks I need to keep trying with what I'm doing. On the flip side of that, I recognize a perilous pursuit when I see one.
At the end of the meeting today, the child's mom praised me for my efforts and how "awesome" I have been for her son. I smiled, but I couldn't appreciate what she said, because ultimately I am still failing him. I never went into this field for myself. I went into this field because of the kids, because I wanted to do something good for others, and in so doing, to feel fulfilled. I know I am not failing him, but it's hard to not feel that way when you keep running up against a brick wall.
When I came home tonight, I thought of whether or not I really have the energy to fight the good fight. And then I thought of people like Teddy Kennedy, who fought for most of his life for equality. After having seen his old speeches made to Congress, I understood why he was called the Lion. He had a platform to speak out, and maybe I am just not at the right place to speak out and make a difference. Maybe one day I'll figure out the answers.
No comments:
Post a Comment