Some Thoughts About Play Around the World

I have noticed that kids in Scandinavia are allowed to play in freer ways than in the United States.  For example, in one elementary school that I visited in Norway, kids were climbing trees, and they were really high up – I was very concerned for their safety.  And yet the teachers seemed perfectly at ease with this.  In Iceland I saw kids playing on these gizmos that involved hopping onto a tire and zipping along this clothes line looking apparatus.  I’m sure something like that would not be allowed in our litigious society – it would be a law suit waiting to happen.  I’m going to be presenting on September 7 and 8, 2010 at the Annaliese Schools in Laguna Beach, California, and I was glad to read on their website that they endorse “mud play” at their schools. They noted that mud play was especially helpful for kids with behavior and emotional problems.  I just want to say hip-hip-horray when I hear things like that going on in education in the United States. Messy play is good play.  I was traveling in Asia and had a layover at Narita airport in Tokyo a few years ago and while I was wandering around I happened to notice a “play room.”  Initially I thought this was a great idea – having a place to reduce the stress of traveling through play.  But when I went in all the kids were playing video games – there wasn’t anything else in there for them to do but be a high-tech zombie.  I’m afraid that’s what a lot of people have come to accept as play in our society, but it isn’t play at all – it’s crap, and it’s turning our kids into robots.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

What Full Inclusion Means for Neurodiverse Kids

I was just reading an article on the website “Disability Scoop” about inclusion of kids with intellectual disabilities in Connecticut’s public schools.  Connecticut ranks second in the country in terms of the percentage of intellectually disabled kids mainstreamed in regular classrooms.  So one might view the state’s efforts as exemplary.  However, the article indicates that many of these students sit at the back of the classroom or off to one side,  often working on different assignments than their “normal” peers.  The article also indicated that many teachers are not trained to help include these students in the classrooms, and rarely have any assistance (teachers’ aides and other resources) in helping them with inclusion. 

That’s not really inclusion in my estimation.  Full inclusion isn’t just a definition of how often a child with special needs spends in a classroom.  It’s really a question of the quality of that time.  Kids with special needs should be engaged in the same kinds of activities as every other student.  That doesn’t mean that they will be doing identical assignments.  The school work may need to be modified to meet their specific needs (e.g. a different reading level, a scaled-down project, a modification in how an assignment is carried out etc.), but it is still in the ballpark of what the other kids are doing. 

Not long ago, I visited a school in the Boston area that truly meets this criteria of being a full inclusion school.  It’s the William W. Henderson Inclusion Elementary School in Dorchester, Massachusetts. One third of the population of the Henderson school has special needs. The day that I visited, they were putting on the school musical (“Annie”).  I saw students with Down syndrome and Williams syndrome and severe autism being fully included in the activities of the program.  Similarly, in going into classrooms later in the day, the kids with special needs were often indistinguishable from the neurotypical kids.  This is probably because every child was engaged in a task tailored to their individual needs. 

This is the secret to full inclusion schools.  They treat every student as having special needs.  There isn’t a dichotomy between “normal” and “special education” instruction.  The educators there simply work to find the specific resources that each individual student needs.  This requires a school-wide commitment to creating an atmosphere where every student is treated as special.  I don’t believe you can have a “full-inclusion classroom” going on in one part of the building while traditional education goes on elsewhere in the school.  Everybody in the school needs to be involved in the principles of full-inclusion, otherwise there will be a sort of entropy working to drag the full-inclusion classroom back to the “norm.”  At the Henderson school, they’ve been working toward creating this climate of inclusion for the past ten years.  The implies a continuity of staff and an on-going commitment to the principles and practice of full inclusion.  It’s not an easy process, to be sure, but the Henderson school, and similar schools around the country, show that this is not a pie-in-the-sky ideal to shoot for, but rather a here-and-now reality that is worth pursuing.

Posted in Neurodiversity, Special Education, Uncategorized, intellectual disabilities | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Finding One’s Niche in Life

I was just reading an article in The Watertown (NY) Daily Times about a seventeen-year-old named Christopher Durgen who has ADHD and autism.  As a young child, he had trouble getting along with classmates and was frequently suspended from school.  That all changed around the end of his sophomore year in high school when he disovered electronics. He enrolled in a two-year program in electronic engineering at a local technical school.  One of his first projects was building a radio.  His teacher believes that it was being around students who shared his own interest in electronics that helped him gain confidence in himself.  Significantly, the article states:  “the hands-on electronics program provided a better outlet for his energetic personality than sitting in an English or social studies classroom.”  Now, he is a member of the National Honor Society and the National Technical Honor Society, and is competing in the computer maintenance technology contest at the SkillsUSA National Leadership Conference in Kansas City, Mo.

This student was adrift until he found something that he was good at.  This led to his establishing better relationships, a deeper sense of inner confidence, and expertise in a career directed field of study.  As I read the piece, I kept thinking of how important it is that people find their niche in life.  These days, if students have labels, they usually end up in special education programs that focus on their disability.  The adults who are responsible for them get together in IEP meetings to discuss their needs and what they require help with, and usually end up drawing up goals connected to their areas of difficulty.  But educators rarely discuss how to create a niche where the students’ abilities can be utilized and celebrated.  It seems to me that this should be the single most important focus of an IEP meeting, or any other meeting to discuss a troubled or troubling student. 

Think of it as a bird creating a nest.  Or alternatively, think of a fish out of water — this is what it’s like for many students who are failing in our schools.  Nobody has given much thought to how the environment can be restructured so that the gifts of a student are what predominate.  The first step in this process is finding out what the student is good at — educators and parents need to be “strength detectives” and make an exhaustive list of all the skills, talents, abilities, intelligences, and aptitudes of a student.  The second step is looking at the resources available in the home, school, and community for developing these positive attributes: programs, mentors, technology, strategies.  These are the twigs in the nest, or the ingredients of positive niche construction.   The big question is how to convince the schools that this is the most important thing they can do to help a struggling student. 

What’s frustrating is that this is not rocket science.  It’s incredible simple.  Yet school culture is so filled up with bureaucracy, schedules, labels, testing, procedures, paperwork, and more, that this very basic process of honoring gifts and finding resources to match those gifts, gets lost in the shuffle.  Fortunately, there are students out there like Christopher Durgen, who can point us in the right direction, and show us how dramatic the change can be when the focus is on what a student does right.

Posted in Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Neurodiversity, Special Education, Uncategorized, autism | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Neurodiversity Forever

I’ve been reading a number of blogs that have been critical of the neurodiversity movement.  Generally, they’ve characterized neurodiversity as saying “we don’t want a cure; we don’t want research; we just want to be left alone in our differentness.”  I suspect that only a small minority of neurodiversity activists take this position.  I certainly don’t.  In my book Neurodiversity:  Discovering the Extraordinary Gifts of Autism, ADHD, Dyslexia, and Other Brain Differences, I celebrate neurodiversity, but I also suggest that in order for diverse brains to survive, they need two things:  help in adapting to the world around them, and tools to change the surrounding environment to meet the needs of their unique brains. 

So I’m very interventionist when it comes to neurodiversity.  There is a lot that we could and should do to help diverse brains thrive.  For people with autism, that means help with social skills, communication, and problem-solving (adapting), and assistance in creating niches through sensory modification and interest-development among other things.  I’m fine with research into the genetic causes of autism.  We need to know more about this disorder/difference, and if there are things we can do to better the lives of people with autism, that’s great!  Where I might start getting kind of nervous, however, is when people begin talking about genetic counseling for autism and other neurodiverse conditions (I suspect we’re still a long way from this). 

 It’s when we give people choices about whether or not to allow autism to exist, that I think we’re in dangerous territory.  Because if most people choose to abort a fetus that seems like it may be autistic, just as they’re doing for Down syndrome (around 93%),  then we’re starting to make choices about what we want humanity to look like.  And, overall, I think we’re better off having a diversity of brains, than a non-diversity of brains.  What if we decided to do away with roses?  Or Italian culture?  Or people with flat noses?  Why should it be any different with brains?  I believe we should do all that we can to help a brain fulfill its potential in life, but it seems to me risky to dictate in advance whether a brain that isn’t “normal” should even see the light of day. 

What would a world of “normal” brains look like?  Would they all be, as Temple Grandin has humorously suggested, accountants?  Would they all live in tract homes and golf on the weekend?  I don’t know what kind of dystopia or utopia would come into being with a world full of normal people, but I suggest it would be less interesting, with fewer surprises, fewer extremes of emotion, fewer innovations, and fewer instances of rule-breaking.   By honoring and celebrating neurodiversity, we maximize the possibilities, and while it’s true that some of those possibilities will suck, many more will enhance life, promote joy, and instigate the kind of unpredictable changes that we really need to have around if we’re going to keep evolving as a species on this cockeyed planet.

Posted in Neurodiversity, Uncategorized, autism | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Review of Neurodiversity in Publisher’s Weekly

Publishers-weekly-cover The following review of my book Neurodiversity appeared in the April 26, 2010 edition of Publisher's Weekly: 

Neurodiversity: Discovering the Extraordinary Gifts of Autism, ADHD, Dyslexia, and Other Brain Differences Thomas Armstrong. Da Capo, $26 (288p) ISBN 978-0-7382-1354-5

"Armstrong (7 Kinds of Smart), an educational consultant turned author, argues that there is no “normal” brain or “normal” mental capability and that we are making a serious mistake in assuming that the kinds of differences we see in people with conditions like autism or dyslexia involve only deficits. People with these conditions also have strengths, he emphasizes, and by focusing on these, rather than on the “labels,” we can find the modes of learning and living that can help them thrive. Focusing primarily on seven “labels” (autism, ADHD, dyslexia, mood disorders, anxiety disorders, intellectual disabilities, and schizophrenia), He offers some good teaching tips. Yet while claiming not to romanticize, say, depression, his conclusions fall too close, as when he writes, “in some mood disorders, there may be a silver lining,” citing how Jung and Beethoven found creativity in the depths of their depression. In equating anecdote with pattern, he strains credibility. Armstrong is strongest in emphasizing that a broader understanding of neurodiversity will generate more respect and better results for people with the conditions he discusses. (June)"

Posted in Neurodiversity | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment