Serres, D. (2014) Think Everything's "Normal?" Then It's Time To Reconsider And Promote A New Narrative Of Disability. January 28th, 2017, http://organizingchange.org/think-everythings-normal-then-its-time-to-reconsider-and-promote-a-new-narrative-of-disability/ To start I want to say that I thought this article makes good points about somethings, however, the majority of it is so one sided and extreme that I have trouble getting onboard with the points they make. Talking about this subject, when I have no disabilities myself, makes my uncomfortable. I don’t want to dictate what other people do, especially when I’m not in their position, so voicing my feelings on this paper scares me because I don’t want to appear ablest. However, I’m going to try and do it anyway, and hopefully not come across in the wrong way. When I started reading the article I agreed when they said “Human difference is so vast that it’s impossible to say there’s only one way to live/act/be in”. I thought this was very true and could be applied to many walks of life, and many different people. However, shortly after this, on page three, I started to have some problems. The author starts talking about how Doctors and psychologists are too caught up on the idea on normalcy. When in reality they aren’t. Doctors aren’t trying to ‘fix’ people with disabilities, they’re trying to help them. Later in the paper the author talks about how people with disabilities need doctors help, however, after you say that what they’re doing is ablest you should not go back and say you need them. You can not degrade a job while simultaneously demanding their service. They use the example of a little girl who was ‘forced’ to wear a back brace. The woman describes this experience as, “my brace represented the medical establishment’s grubby hands on my body, forcing me to adhere to a standardized, able bodied norm of how bodies are supposed to be, look, act and move.”. This quote in particular really bothered me. Likely this child wasn’t being forced to for beauty reason. It was likely necessary for them to eliminate pain and future back complications. While I understand the want to not have a ‘normal’ standard of what a body should do and act like, you can’t get rid of the standard when its health related! Yes, people are different and having a disability does not change who you are, but if it causes serious complications and you could have those fixed, I don’t understand why you wouldn’t want to. It would be like a cancer patient refusing treatment because they can live a full life without it. Yes, temporarily they would be able to but in the long run, they would die. This is the same thing on a smaller scale. While at the time the back brace was not fixing any visible issues, it likely prevented more from appearing and inevitable pain later in life. They go on to say that handicapped room signs are ablest, when in fact they help identify places that are more accessible, like washrooms. One of the biggest problem I had with this article though was when they talked about not changing the curriculum for students with disabilities. Their argument is that the schools should give accommodations rather then different a curriculum. This reminded me very much of a comic I have seen. I find the argument and the comic similar because of the parallels in it. You could give a fish the accommodation of more time to climb the tree (like the longer time on tests provided as an example in the article) but it would still never be able to climb the tree. This accommodation wouldn’t change anything. The fish not being able to climb the tree also does not mean it is less then the monkey who can, it just means they are different. Providing the same standard for everyone does not consider the fact that not everyone can do the same things. I don’t think these things are ablest, but I do think ableism exists and is very strong in most societies. However, I don’t think any of the changes proposed in the article would change that. I think to get rid of ableism you have to get rid of the stigma associated with disabilities. These arguments do nothing but tell disabled people how to live their lives, when in fact that is in itself ablest. Every person is different and this article lumps everyone with a disability together under one umbrella. No one should be able to dictate how another person lives their life, because everyone is different. Therefore, we should give everyone the same chance, even if that means changing a curriculum or labeling someone.
0 Comments
The intent of this paper was to “highlight social awareness in our ensembles”. To do this the author uses an encompassing term called the “invisible student”. I was an invisible student all throughout grade school and because of this I have many different feelings towards this paper that I’m not sure how to explain in writing without potentially coming off the wrong way, so I’m just going to try my best. To start I think they hindered their argument by using an example of a student with a mental handicap but then saying that the article was for all invisible students with out without mental handicaps. I think to get their point across better they should have used examples from different students, not just one, so they could get their point across better. They then go on to recommend watching the students to get a perception on how they act, to better locate invisible students in their classrooms. Not only does this encourage judging a student just by how they act in your class, but it also doesn’t take into consideration that the student may have a better life outside of your classroom. The author then uses Jason as an example of this, but that is again assuming that every invisible student is like Jason, with no friends at school only at home. When most invisible students do have friends around the school. By doing this you essentially lump all ‘invisible students’ (as the author and teachers assume them to be) together like they all would have the same experience and thoughts, going against the argument of inclusiveness regardless of student’s differences. The author then goes on to talk about how to get the invisible student, more involved with students in the class. While I agree that these methods are useful, he suggests that teachers should use them on students in grade seven. I think that this is too old to be micromanaging how they handle their social affair. I think once a child reaches double digits (ie 10 and up) teachers shouldn’t be forcing the buddy system on them. Yes, students do need to be watched over but attempting to take control of their friendships is too much for someone of that age. They are adolescents, not children and should be treated as such. There should be a different method to get the invisible student included that doesn’t involve forcing them into a pairing nether partner wants to be in. The article is then closed with “we cannot force students to accept invisible students”, however I think that goes against everything this article has been suggesting. The author spends the whole time suggesting ways to force the class together, even if they don’t want to. Overall, I think the author comes from a good place with his wants in an ensemble setting, however, I think he goes about it in the wrong way. Not every student will get along. I think he should let the students make their own friendships, then have these groups work together.
1/21/2017 “Allowing People to Become Creative Does Not Require Genius; It Requires Humility”Read NowLesley Dawe wrote this inspiring article about music pedagogy, the risks it takes to try new things in the classroom, and the fear of leaving behind old teaching methods. I loved how this article really spoke to me, as I imagine it would for every other musician. To have someone with a position of power, who we are taught is the expert on whatever they are teaching, describing to the readers the too familiar feeling of embarrassment and fear when we can’t live up to the expectation of the teacher was very powerful. Mentioning the fear she still feels when she’s asked to improvise really resonates with me. In the article, she doesn’t build herself up and write like she knows everything and has never been in a music students position. She is honest about her experiences and her day to day struggles. This not only makes the article easier to read, but it makes her arguments sound more legitimate, because she is writing not only as a teacher, but as a student. When she talks about integrating a new teaching method into her classroom, she doesn’t just talk about the benefits. She mentions that her method of teaching doesn’t work for all student, but she has still seen a dramatic difference in most students. She talks about her feelings and fear when she’s trying these new methods. This really makes the article amazing, when she talks about her fear and hopes it really help to put in the reader’s position. To compare it to the first article we read, it shows dramatic differences. Not only does Lesley get her point across in three pages where the first article couldn’t even do that in fourteen, she writes like a real person would speak. Reading this article felt less like trying to force my way through all the intellectual jargon and more like a conversation. I love that this article doesn’t discount the previous ways of teaching, it wants to incorporate the old and new methods to make one amazing teaching method. Not only does Lesley write an amazing academic paper, but she stays human in the process and makes the reader feel included in the discussion. I would love to be able to meet with her and talk about how she goes about teaching in her classroom. One day I would love to incorporate these methods into my own teaching style, and be able keep the honesty she keeps with the reader and her students in my classroom so that my future students know that they are not alone in their learning experience.
|