When we were children, it is likely that one of the first toys we ever played with was the “form board,” or some variant thereof. As far as our young minds were concerned, this was pure enjoyment: the triangle shape went into the triangular slot, and the circle, square, rectangle and diamond had their own corresponding places. Eventually, the form boards would become bigger and more complex, involving new shapes such as trapezoids and ovals. The basic premise of the activity, however, would always remain the same.
Little did we know that our parents had more than their child’s enjoyment in mind every time they brought home a new form board. This seemingly unremarkable plaything was an introductory tool about basic geometry, dimensional analysis, and logical observation. Clutching the various shapes in our hands and fitting them onto their silhouettes improved our fine motor skills. It is no wonder that even in this age of digital toys and high-tech educational materials, the form board still endures.
Now that we are adults (and presumably having acquired a certain level of profound introspection), perhaps we can infer a more meaningful lesson from this childhood pastime. No matter how hard we try, a circle will never fit in a square, a triangle will never fit in a rectangle, and a diamond will never fit in an oval. It would be ridiculous to conclude that one shape is better than the other based on this fact; it’s just that they are different. Indeed, if ever we forced the issue, one thing or the other would be distorted.
In the same manner, having a child with a learning disability (or a “special needs child”) attend a traditional school is like pushing a square peg into a round hole. It’s not that the regular curriculum is flawed, or that the child is inferior in any way — they are just not suited for one another. Unfortunately, there are still many narrow-minded individuals who can’t seem to grasp this concept, leading to unfair labeling and discrimination.
At present, there are literally millions of special needs children in the country. Because they have difficulty with a broad range of academic and functional skills (including the ability to speak, listen, read, write, spell, or organize information) these kids require a different method of instruction in order to achieve their full potential. While it is widely accepted that learning disabilities are not indicative of intelligence levels, they have been found to be neurological in origin. As such, these disorders cannot be “cured” or “fixed”, making them a lifelong issue. With the guidance and intervention of a qualified SPED (Special Education) teacher, however, children with learning disabilities may eventually cope with their challenges and go on to lead highly productive lives.
But how can a low-to-middle income family possibly afford to have their special needs child assessed and SPED-supervised? Are they forced to accept the “square peg in a round hole” scenario? Not if Education Secretary Jesli Lapus can help it. Under a program that is as laudable as it is ambitious, Lapus has instructed school officials across the nation to bring approximately 2.2 million special needs children to school. This is but the latest manifestation of Secretary Jesli’s “Education for All” campaign.
To carry this out, the DepEd has incorporated in its School Improvement Plan (SIP) a comprehensive education system that includes children with learning disabilities. After intensive consultation with SPED teachers, developmental pediatricians, and occupational therapists, Lapus and his team were able to design effective components on child find, assessment, program options, curriculum modification, and parental involvement.
Under the system, children with special needs are located through the family mapping survey, advocacy campaigns, or by networking with local health workers. Once identified, SPED teachers pay a visit to their homes in order to convince their parents to enroll them in a SPED Center or the nearest school. At the same time, the children are thoroughly assessed by a fully trained specialist. This helps identify their strengths and weaknesses, and lays the groundwork for any future intervention requirements.
Once they are in school, Lapus explains that there are three program options available for the special needs child. The first is a self-contained class (either mono-grade or multi-grade) for children with similar disabilities. The second option is to place the child in a regular class, under the supervision of a SPED teacher who is trained to address special needs. The third option is to have the child attend regular sessions with a SPED teacher apart from his standard schooling. Of course, each of the programs has ample flexibility based on the individual’s needs and potentials.
It is heartening to know that Secretary Lapus’ definition of the word “education” goes beyond preconceived notions. With yet another move to abolish academic prejudice, the Education Secretary has once again shown that the best way to teach is by example.
* * *
More people die from not smoking, but from being exposed to smokers. When one person in the family smokes, the whole household is affected. This fact we hardly know. More statistics on non-smokers getting lung cancer and other second-hand smoking-related afflictions in a later column.
It is heartening to know that World Lung Foundation (WLF) and the Department of Health Center for Health Development-Metro Manila have launched a visually-vivid new mass media campaign on how second-hand smoke harms nonsmokers. The nationwide campaign, called “Say No to Second-Hand Smoke,” airs nationwide on television in Tagalog until the end of August.
The “Say No to Second-Hand Smoke” featuring a wife and her children inhaling second-hand smoke from the husband/father in a public restaurant underwent rigorous focus group testing in the country and aims to inform Filipinos about the serious impact tobacco has on those who are exposed to passive smoke in public places.
The campaign is funded by WLF to support a project by CHD-MM and DoH to make Metro Manila 100 percent smoke-free. A recent survey conducted by WLF and CHD-MM showed that 74 percent of people in Metro Manila are exposed to second-hand smoke at least once per week.
Health Secretary Francisco T. Duque says, “Our government is committed to reducing the toll of tobacco and creating awareness about the hazards of its use among smokers as well as non-smokers. This campaign uses a scientific approach to developing and delivering a clear message that second-hand smoke kills non-smokers.”
* * *
My e-mail: dominimt2000@yahoo.com