Tell me more about the School Board election process

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, Davis isn’t a reasonable person. Just saw her nutso public comments at the board meeting.

Anyone who uses the offensive term "special needs" is not getting my vote.

Yes, we have gone full circle and are now back to disabled. That will certainly make a child with special needs feel better about themselves.

Not every child with special needs is necessarily disabled.

Is “special needs” offensive?

Yes. Nearly everyone in the disability community opposes the use of that term as it just stigmatizes the word disability. I don't say that people using the term "special needs" have malicious intent, but if a school board candidate claims to be fighting for students with disabilities, they should at least learn the correct terminology.

How are you able to speak for "nearly everyone" in the disability community?

All of the disability rights organizations oppose using that term.

Hmmm.

Political advocates often don't reflect their actual constituents. If you speak with parents, most use the term "special needs" rather than "disability community"

"Disability community" sounds very limiting and negative, in my humble opinion, compared to "special needs".

But honestly, the term used matters far less than the kindness and understanding, or in the case of fcps, the neglect of that community over pandemic. Trying to make things political by nitpicking over terminology is far worse than someone using last month's preferred terminology.

I'm a parent of three kids with disabilities and disabled myself. While many parents may use the term "special needs," their kids generally don't use the term once they become old enough to advocate for themselves. I don't say this to offend anyone, but many parents still hold some kind of stigma when talking about disabilities, even if their own kids are disabled, so while they have the best intentions, they use phrases like "special needs" to avoid stigmatized terms like disability. But disability shouldn't be a word that we're afraid to say.

Thanks for the context, but what happened here was someone trying to cancel a well-intentioned SB candidate for using a term that some rabid advocates in the “disability community” have now decided is outdated. And that’s simply absurd.

I don't think that's absurd at all. My son who has several disabilities and just started college dropped a class because a professor used the term "adjustments for special needs," in the syllabus to refer to accommodations. His position was that if the professor couldn't even use the correct terminology, they didn't actually care for disabled students. And I'm proud of him for taking that stand for himself.

Wow, this is so wrong. I don’t know how your son will manage in the world if he demands such semantic intricacies. I’m assuming this poster is still Litton Todd.

Is that the person responsible for the policy that forces teachers to empty the classroom of the rest of the students while the disrupter stays?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, what about kids with peanut allergies. Are they "disabled?" I would say they have "special needs:" A need for a peanut free classroom.[url] I think we could all agree that is okay.

They are not disabled, but they have special needs that require some accommodations at school such as access to a sink to wash hands at any time, or a flush pass to be able to go to the clinic at anytime. Other than that, they can participate in full in any academic or sport activity.

[Anonymous]

So, which kids are "disabled?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, Davis isn’t a reasonable person. Just saw her nutso public comments at the board meeting.

Anyone who uses the offensive term "special needs" is not getting my vote.

Yes, we have gone full circle and are now back to disabled. That will certainly make a child with special needs feel better about themselves.

Not every child with special needs is necessarily disabled.

Is “special needs” offensive?

Yes. Nearly everyone in the disability community opposes the use of that term as it just stigmatizes the word disability. I don't say that people using the term "special needs" have malicious intent, but if a school board candidate claims to be fighting for students with disabilities, they should at least learn the correct terminology.

How are you able to speak for "nearly everyone" in the disability community?

All of the disability rights organizations oppose using that term.

Hmmm.

Political advocates often don't reflect their actual constituents. If you speak with parents, most use the term "special needs" rather than "disability community"

"Disability community" sounds very limiting and negative, in my humble opinion, compared to "special needs".

But honestly, the term used matters far less than the kindness and understanding, or in the case of fcps, the neglect of that community over pandemic. Trying to make things political by nitpicking over terminology is far worse than someone using last month's preferred terminology.

I'm a parent of three kids with disabilities and disabled myself. While many parents may use the term "special needs," their kids generally don't use the term once they become old enough to advocate for themselves. I don't say this to offend anyone, but many parents still hold some kind of stigma when talking about disabilities, even if their own kids are disabled, so while they have the best intentions, they use phrases like "special needs" to avoid stigmatized terms like disability. But disability shouldn't be a word that we're afraid to say.

Thanks for the context, but what happened here was someone trying to cancel a well-intentioned SB candidate for using a term that some rabid advocates in the “disability community” have now decided is outdated. And that’s simply absurd.

I don't think that's absurd at all. My son who has several disabilities and just started college dropped a class because a professor used the term "adjustments for special needs," in the syllabus to refer to accommodations. His position was that if the professor couldn't even use the correct terminology, they didn't actually care for disabled students. And I'm proud of him for taking that stand for himself.

So, the professor was trying to accommodate the needs of students and your son could not appreciate the effort. Did you make the effort to teach your son anything about tolerance?

They are REQUIRED to provide accommodations to students with documented disabilities and are required to have that in the syllabus. The college even has a template of what the language about accommodations should be, but this professor decided they wanted to stigmatize their students who need accommodations. If the professor really cared about providing accommodations, they would've called them accommodations instead of "adjustments for special needs."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nothing like telling a kid he is "disabled" in order to build his self-esteem!

If the kid is disabled, they shouldn't be afraid to say that they are disabled. Stop stigmatizing our disabilities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing like telling a kid he is "disabled" in order to build his self-esteem!

If the kid is disabled, they shouldn't be afraid to say that they are disabled. Stop stigmatizing our disabilities.

This is not an intuitive viewpoint and School Board candidates should not be criticized for not knowing that’s how some in your community want to be portrayed. Others may prefer to focus on their abilities or special needs rather than to be defined by their disabilities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing like telling a kid he is "disabled" in order to build his self-esteem!

If the kid is disabled, they shouldn't be afraid to say that they are disabled. Stop stigmatizing our disabilities.

This is not an intuitive viewpoint and School Board candidates should not be criticized for not knowing that’s how some in your community want to be portrayed. Others may prefer to focus on their abilities or special needs rather than to be defined by their disabilities.

+1


I would NEVER tell my child that he is disabled. I have a different point of view.

But, again, what does "disabled" cover? Is a child who stutters disabled? One who has auditory learning issues? Dyslexia? Does this cover any learning issue and physical disabilities?

Is "learning differently" considered a disability?

What are people doing to the kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, Davis isn’t a reasonable person. Just saw her nutso public comments at the board meeting.

Anyone who uses the offensive term "special needs" is not getting my vote.

Yes, we have gone full circle and are now back to disabled. That will certainly make a child with special needs feel better about themselves.

Not every child with special needs is necessarily disabled.

Is “special needs” offensive?

Yes. Nearly everyone in the disability community opposes the use of that term as it just stigmatizes the word disability. I don't say that people using the term "special needs" have malicious intent, but if a school board candidate claims to be fighting for students with disabilities, they should at least learn the correct terminology.

How are you able to speak for "nearly everyone" in the disability community?

All of the disability rights organizations oppose using that term.

Hmmm.

Political advocates often don't reflect their actual constituents. If you speak with parents, most use the term "special needs" rather than "disability community"

"Disability community" sounds very limiting and negative, in my humble opinion, compared to "special needs".

But honestly, the term used matters far less than the kindness and understanding, or in the case of fcps, the neglect of that community over pandemic. Trying to make things political by nitpicking over terminology is far worse than someone using last month's preferred terminology.

I'm a parent of three kids with disabilities and disabled myself. While many parents may use the term "special needs," their kids generally don't use the term once they become old enough to advocate for themselves. I don't say this to offend anyone, but many parents still hold some kind of stigma when talking about disabilities, even if their own kids are disabled, so while they have the best intentions, they use phrases like "special needs" to avoid stigmatized terms like disability. But disability shouldn't be a word that we're afraid to say.

Thanks for the context, but what happened here was someone trying to cancel a well-intentioned SB candidate for using a term that some rabid advocates in the “disability community” have now decided is outdated. And that’s simply absurd.

I don't think that's absurd at all. My son who has several disabilities and just started college dropped a class because a professor used the term "adjustments for special needs," in the syllabus to refer to accommodations. His position was that if the professor couldn't even use the correct terminology, they didn't actually care for disabled students. And I'm proud of him for taking that stand for himself.

So, the professor was trying to accommodate the needs of students and your son could not appreciate the effort. Did you make the effort to teach your son anything about tolerance?

They are REQUIRED to provide accommodations to students with documented disabilities and are required to have that in the syllabus. The college even has a template of what the language about accommodations should be, but this professor decided they wanted to stigmatize their students who need accommodations. If the professor really cared about providing accommodations, they would've called them accommodations instead of "adjustments for special needs."

this is nothing but semantics. The professor said he would make accommodations. What more do you want?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, Davis isn’t a reasonable person. Just saw her nutso public comments at the board meeting.

Anyone who uses the offensive term "special needs" is not getting my vote.

Yes, we have gone full circle and are now back to disabled. That will certainly make a child with special needs feel better about themselves.

Not every child with special needs is necessarily disabled.

Is “special needs” offensive?

Yes. Nearly everyone in the disability community opposes the use of that term as it just stigmatizes the word disability. I don't say that people using the term "special needs" have malicious intent, but if a school board candidate claims to be fighting for students with disabilities, they should at least learn the correct terminology.

How are you able to speak for "nearly everyone" in the disability community?

All of the disability rights organizations oppose using that term.

Hmmm.

Political advocates often don't reflect their actual constituents. If you speak with parents, most use the term "special needs" rather than "disability community"

"Disability community" sounds very limiting and negative, in my humble opinion, compared to "special needs".

But honestly, the term used matters far less than the kindness and understanding, or in the case of fcps, the neglect of that community over pandemic. Trying to make things political by nitpicking over terminology is far worse than someone using last month's preferred terminology.

I'm a parent of three kids with disabilities and disabled myself. While many parents may use the term "special needs," their kids generally don't use the term once they become old enough to advocate for themselves. I don't say this to offend anyone, but many parents still hold some kind of stigma when talking about disabilities, even if their own kids are disabled, so while they have the best intentions, they use phrases like "special needs" to avoid stigmatized terms like disability. But disability shouldn't be a word that we're afraid to say.

Thanks for the context, but what happened here was someone trying to cancel a well-intentioned SB candidate for using a term that some rabid advocates in the “disability community” have now decided is outdated. And that’s simply absurd.

I don't think that's absurd at all. My son who has several disabilities and just started college dropped a class because a professor used the term "adjustments for special needs," in the syllabus to refer to accommodations. His position was that if the professor couldn't even use the correct terminology, they didn't actually care for disabled students. And I'm proud of him for taking that stand for himself.

So, the professor was trying to accommodate the needs of students and your son could not appreciate the effort. Did you make the effort to teach your son anything about tolerance?

They are REQUIRED to provide accommodations to students with documented disabilities and are required to have that in the syllabus. The college even has a template of what the language about accommodations should be, but this professor decided they wanted to stigmatize their students who need accommodations. If the professor really cared about providing accommodations, they would've called them accommodations instead of "adjustments for special needs."

This is missing the important thing in favor of finding things to complain or feel victimized about. Not a majority view.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, Davis isn’t a reasonable person. Just saw her nutso public comments at the board meeting.

Anyone who uses the offensive term "special needs" is not getting my vote.

Yes, we have gone full circle and are now back to disabled. That will certainly make a child with special needs feel better about themselves.

Not every child with special needs is necessarily disabled.

Is “special needs” offensive?

Yes. Nearly everyone in the disability community opposes the use of that term as it just stigmatizes the word disability. I don't say that people using the term "special needs" have malicious intent, but if a school board candidate claims to be fighting for students with disabilities, they should at least learn the correct terminology.

How are you able to speak for "nearly everyone" in the disability community?

All of the disability rights organizations oppose using that term.

Hmmm.

Political advocates often don't reflect their actual constituents. If you speak with parents, most use the term "special needs" rather than "disability community"

"Disability community" sounds very limiting and negative, in my humble opinion, compared to "special needs".

But honestly, the term used matters far less than the kindness and understanding, or in the case of fcps, the neglect of that community over pandemic. Trying to make things political by nitpicking over terminology is far worse than someone using last month's preferred terminology.

I'm a parent of three kids with disabilities and disabled myself. While many parents may use the term "special needs," their kids generally don't use the term once they become old enough to advocate for themselves. I don't say this to offend anyone, but many parents still hold some kind of stigma when talking about disabilities, even if their own kids are disabled, so while they have the best intentions, they use phrases like "special needs" to avoid stigmatized terms like disability. But disability shouldn't be a word that we're afraid to say.

Thanks for the context, but what happened here was someone trying to cancel a well-intentioned SB candidate for using a term that some rabid advocates in the “disability community” have now decided is outdated. And that’s simply absurd.

I don't think that's absurd at all. My son who has several disabilities and just started college dropped a class because a professor used the term "adjustments for special needs," in the syllabus to refer to accommodations. His position was that if the professor couldn't even use the correct terminology, they didn't actually care for disabled students. And I'm proud of him for taking that stand for himself.

There is not universal agreement on terms. As for accommodations in the UK and you will get a room in the dorm. Not everyone is going to use your preferred semantics. If the professor was going to meet you son’s requirements then s/he is being helpful.

Actions are what matters to those in need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, Davis isn’t a reasonable person. Just saw her nutso public comments at the board meeting.

Anyone who uses the offensive term "special needs" is not getting my vote.

Yes, we have gone full circle and are now back to disabled. That will certainly make a child with special needs feel better about themselves.

Not every child with special needs is necessarily disabled.

Is “special needs” offensive?

Yes. Nearly everyone in the disability community opposes the use of that term as it just stigmatizes the word disability. I don't say that people using the term "special needs" have malicious intent, but if a school board candidate claims to be fighting for students with disabilities, they should at least learn the correct terminology.

How are you able to speak for "nearly everyone" in the disability community?

All of the disability rights organizations oppose using that term.

Hmmm.

Political advocates often don't reflect their actual constituents. If you speak with parents, most use the term "special needs" rather than "disability community"

"Disability community" sounds very limiting and negative, in my humble opinion, compared to "special needs".

But honestly, the term used matters far less than the kindness and understanding, or in the case of fcps, the neglect of that community over pandemic. Trying to make things political by nitpicking over terminology is far worse than someone using last month's preferred terminology.

I'm a parent of three kids with disabilities and disabled myself. While many parents may use the term "special needs," their kids generally don't use the term once they become old enough to advocate for themselves. I don't say this to offend anyone, but many parents still hold some kind of stigma when talking about disabilities, even if their own kids are disabled, so while they have the best intentions, they use phrases like "special needs" to avoid stigmatized terms like disability. But disability shouldn't be a word that we're afraid to say.

Thanks for the context, but what happened here was someone trying to cancel a well-intentioned SB candidate for using a term that some rabid advocates in the “disability community” have now decided is outdated. And that’s simply absurd.

I don't think that's absurd at all. My son who has several disabilities and just started college dropped a class because a professor used the term "adjustments for special needs," in the syllabus to refer to accommodations. His position was that if the professor couldn't even use the correct terminology, they didn't actually care for disabled students. And I'm proud of him for taking that stand for himself.

So, the professor was trying to accommodate the needs of students and your son could not appreciate the effort. Did you make the effort to teach your son anything about tolerance?

They are REQUIRED to provide accommodations to students with documented disabilities and are required to have that in the syllabus. The college even has a template of what the language about accommodations should be, but this professor decided they wanted to stigmatize their students who need accommodations. If the professor really cared about providing accommodations, they would've called them accommodations instead of "adjustments for special needs."

Why do you assume that you know the professor’s intent? If your kid is anything like you, the professor is lucky your kid dropped. One less headache to deal with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nothing like telling a kid he is "disabled" in order to build his self-esteem!

Why should they be ashamed to be disabled? My kids know about their own disabilities and see them as a source of inspiration that they've overcome so much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing like telling a kid he is "disabled" in order to build his self-esteem!

Why should they be ashamed to be disabled? My kids know about their own disabilities and see them as a source of inspiration that they've overcome so much.

You’re just proving how this is largely a matter of semantics. Some would view disability as a binary construct while others would view disabilities as akin to characteristics. Playing language police with terms that are susceptible to different interpretations isn’t super helpful.

[Anonymous]

Merriam-Webster:
disabled
impaired or limited by a physical, mental, cognitive, or developmental condition :

I think it is great if your kids have overcome disabilities. However, telling kids that they are "impaired or limited" is not what I would choose to do.

[Anonymous]

Whoever provides better services with details on how gets my vote.