Politics.

As a US citizen currently living in Canada, I’ve watched this years’ presidential campaign back home very closely. I’ve also started learning more about the electoral process here in Canada, thanks in part to helping my boys with their schoolwork! I made a promise to my mother-in-law that I would never make my blog about my politics because good people on both sides of the political spectrum have common ground when it comes to raising children, especially when those children have disabilities.

Having said that, political activism does play a role in the future health and well-being of our families and our kids. If we as parents and/or advocates didn’t make our voices heard and if we didn’t speak for those who may have no voice, I’m pretty sure the unique needs of our community would go unmet and the funds currently made available for our important issues (research, services, outreach) would be put to other use.

It’s difficult to compare the US and Canada on issues of funding for special needs. The level of services in both countries appears to be highly dependent upon where you live. For example, states such as Pennsylvania and New Jersey reportedly offer excellent schools and programs for children with autism while states like Florida and Ohio do not. In Canada, the province of Alberta provides nearly three times the amount of funding as British Columbia. It frustrates me a lot to know there is such wide variability of services because I always wonder whether it wouldn’t serve our children better to move somewhere ‘else’, whether that ‘else’ is another state, another province or another country.

Speaking of upcoming elections, I’ve continued to follow the plan of BC Premier Gordon Campbell’s government to restrict Community Living Services funding to those with an IQ under 70. Part of me is surprised the government didn’t come out with a mea culpa after groups began challenging the validity and fairness of this policy. It is, after all, nonsensical. But so far they have not, despite the now 3,750+ signatures on the online petition urging them to reconsider. My son has a book with non-fiction news items and stories of interest, and the other day I came across the true story of how the IQ test was invented.

I won’t get too detailed here, but I was surprised at some of the things I learned. The IQ test originated in 1904 when the minister of public instruction in Paris, France became concerned that some children were not receiving an appropriate education. To quote the story, “He feared that teachers were dumping disruptive children into ‘retarded’ classes – not because they were ‘retarded’, but because they were distracting other children.” He hired Alfred Binet, head of the Sorbonne’s psychology laboratory, to come up with some type of testing to ensure appropriate services for those with mental challenges.  (Not, it should be noted by Premier Campbell, to restrict services).

Initial IQ tests were comprised of tasks or “stunts” given to children in varying age groups. They did not distinguish between causes for low scores, such as lack of education or learning disabilities. Binet believed strongly that a person’s “intelligence” was not set in stone and, as such, designed his test to identify children who needed help learning. In 1916, Binet’s test was adapted by Lewis Terman, a psychologist at Stanford University. Terman’s theories were counter to Binet’s – Terman believed intelligence is “innate” and unchangeable. He believed it was useless trying to teach children with low test scores since their intelligence could never be changed. He also was a supporter of the eugenics movement which encouraged ’selective breeding’ of intelligent people with one another to increase the intelligence of the human race. Wow.

The IQ test has undergone many changes over the past 100 years based on the ever-accumulating evidence about the brain and the capacity of human beings to learn. I think it’s safe to say that the belief we are all born with an “innate” intelligence that cannot be fostered with the right kind of learning is hogwash. Is this really the kind of measure we need to be using when determining who in our society will be supported and who will not? I believe it goes without saying that a lot of the adults who would be refused Community Living Services funding were probably failed by the public education system, too. When will we make it right for them?

Peace.