Posts by Hilary Stace
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Up Front: Another Brick in the Wall, in reply to BenWilson,
Your aunt does provide an economic good for New Zealand - an employment opportunity for the carers, and a business opportunity for the residential care provider. So she's very valuable economically,as well as human-ly.
-
Up Front: Another Brick in the Wall, in reply to Russell Brown,
Same story in secondary schools.
But I heard one positive story last week about a local secondary school (although not about assessment support) from a parent. They had been at schools in many countries and the local one was the only one where the student had actually been taught by the teacher, not the teacher aide.
-
Up Front: Another Brick in the Wall, in reply to giovanni tiso,
I'm taking a long historical view and things are a lot better now for children with Downs than they were when the IHC mothers (and fathers but mainly the mothers) founded that organisation in 1949.
Let's be positive and hope that every school will eventually follow the 1989 legal requirement that they (willingly) enrol all local children between the ages of 5 and 19.
-
Up Front: Another Brick in the Wall, in reply to Jodi W,
Have you been in touch with the Down Syndrome Assn? (Zandra in Palmerston North). They will probably be able to give you the correct information but I suspect that Downs does not require reassessment after the first medical certificate on their files. Don't be so concerned about school at this point. Things are slowly getting better nationwide and there are more and more welcoming schools with inclusive practices. The government's requirements for schools to be able to demonstrate inclusive practices by 2014 has seen many training programmes rolled out around the country by the MoEd. Also, other parents will willingly share information about where to go and where to avoid. The Saving Downs facebook group seems to have a lot of NZ Downs related information too.
-
Up Front: Another Brick in the Wall, in reply to Sacha,
No, I observe that most of the people who do lifelong advocacy on behalf of their disabled children, young people and adults, are mothers. I'm not talking about desired characteristics or essentialism or saying this is how it should be. Just stating my observation of 2013 NZ (mainly informed by my experience in the autism and ID sectors and to a lesser extent impairment generally).
And that it is an issue of gender politics. Because if, as the social model and the NZ Disability Strategy have it, people have impairments but society disables, by extension that means society also risks disabling those who are the front line carers and advocates. And they are predominantly the mothers.
-
Up Front: Another Brick in the Wall, in reply to Sacha,
I suggest gendered labelling of desired characteristics will not help with that.
I am not suggesting that 'desired' characteristics are gender labelled. Just that there are gender labels and roles now. These should be challenged in all sorts of ways. But that is not to deny the current situation.
-
I agree. But this is not about essentialism (ie women are naturally better at caring), but about gender politics, which is why I keep framing it as such.
To change it also requires an increase of status of 'disability' itself. At the moment when you look at the hierarchy of status and expertise around disability, those who spend most time in caring roles are likely to be women, unpaid or poorly paid. Whereas the more 'expert' the person is (eg a clinical specialist) the less time they will spend with the child but the more they are paid, the more likely they are to be male, and the greater status in society they have.
I also have fears about the new disability services mantra of increasing 'natural ' ie free supports. That also means more unpaid work for women.
-
I'm sorry,Sacha, but disability care and blame (eg anything by Michael Laws) is very gendered.
I would love for it not to be. But until we have gender equality in the care industry, in disability education (eg teacher aides) and throughout the disability support sector, in single parenting of disabled children, and when disability parents' meetings and conferences have better gender representation than 90:10 women/men, then I might reconsider.
How do you suggest we move it in a more useful direction?
-
Up Front: Another Brick in the Wall, in reply to Sacha,
Yes but in my experience that person is most likely to be the mother - hence I call it the mother factor. Some lucky children have two activist parents and they share the advocacy, but I would say that most disabled children, for a variety of reasons, only have one - their mother. This might offend those activist fathers and friends on this thread and those who I know personally, but I fear they are not representative.
-
Up Front: Another Brick in the Wall, in reply to Sacha,
I'm not talking about fathering. I'm just saying that in my experience those disabled children who have an activist 'mother' tend to do better throughout life. In reality it is usually the biological mother. But that one person could also be a father, grandparent or some other person who is prepared to fight on the front line for that person's rights for as long as it takes, which could be a life time. That mother of the two autistic men in Christchurch is a very good illustration of this theory.