2.I having been there as well as advocated, care planned and taught other children who learn differently have treated all children the same way. As intelligent Human beings.

3.All those involved with children who learn differently have the challenge of finding what works for each one.

4. I do not know any student who mirror each other in method, memory techniques, study techniques. We all are unique.

5.As A adult who has had many disabilities as a child without support of special techers or parents even I have made it. My disabilities are still there and show often. Remain to perplex others at times. I understand me very well and all of my great friends and my daughter as well. I seek guidence to deal with the ignorant out there.

I being a fish and maybe every one of those animals at one time or another have never seen any offense to anything within the original tape. Only with those who watched it… sorry if I offend anyone…I do not mean to. But this is how I feel. patricia

I really appreciate all of your heartfelt comments. Some of you wrote true words of wisdom, and a lot of you have a good sense of humor!!

In the beginning I had thought it was pure politically correct madness that stirred people up regarding the fish slide.

Then, I started to think more, and I wondered, why should the fish be excluded from the regular classroom? Sometimes it is appropriate and other times it is not appropriate, so it is not necessary to have a generalization which is not always applicable.

After lots of thought, here is the new fish slide.

Some of you will like it, some of you won’t. While I wish I could please everyone, I know that’s impossible!

“The fish is a child who requires full special education and cannot shine a regular class environment.”

If any of you have purchased the movie at this link www.raisingsmallsouls.com/download-animal-school-movie.html please contact me for a fresh download link to the updated movie.

To our children’s success,

Ellen

I just felt that the fish being one “noone had seen before” and then being a 100% placement didnt fit together well.

I’m not sure how I would fix it…both are good points (those who fall through the cracks, and those who dont conform to the PC way of inclusive thinking) because both types of children exist. I think animal school got blurry on this point of who was who and how to write an analogy about it…. other than that - animal school is WONDERFUL. My agency has downloaded to use at our community, child care, and teacher trainings.

Nancy

The fish is a child who is easily overlooked and who needs special attention in and out of the classroom.

The fish is a child who requires special attention and accomodations. He can only be happy in a school where his needs are understood and addressed.

P.S I love the video. Hatzlachah Rabbah in all your endeavours.
P.P.S I have a fish, and she’s taught us alot about the ocean.

if you do change it I liked Sunny’s post best

“The fish is a child who requires a classroom environment that encourages different learning styles.

My problem is with the speed that the text goes by. It’s just too fast for those whose verbal skills may leave something to be desired, and it’s way too fast to be read out loud (try it!).

The fish is a child who lives in water when others live on land. He needs assistance from someone who can scubadive.

My first perception of fish that quit because they were bored was that “fish” are children that are catagorized as being talented and gifted (TAG). If your message is to address those children that have unique learning abilities then maybe the wording can be changed to better paint that picture. I didn’t “get it” and was somewhat confused by the fish introduction and conclusion. That is obviously the case with enough of us to show that it is a matter of perception.

As for the last part, I feel as strongly as many of those who have commented that it is harshly worded. I realize that many people believe it is fine the way it is and I respect that but I truly feel that it causes an emotional response in many of us that gets in the way of the real point you are trying to make. I agree with those who have said it is negatively worded. It also brings up uncomfortable feelings of rejection. If you want widespread use of this movie, I feel the issue of the special needs child should be addressed in a realistic way that fits with the way our current school system works. Now, I’m absolutely not talking about being PC; I’m simply encouraging a realistic and sensitive approach to getting the real point delivered effectively. “Messaging” is what it’s called for those that are not familiar with it. My favorite examples from the responses of others are those that give the message that “fish” need an appropriate, nurturing and supportive learning environment that addresses their unique needs and promotes positive growth (wherever that may be). The current message tells me that they need special help and don’t “belong” in a regular classroom.

You have been given many suggestions but the bottom line is that this is ultimately your project and you obviously have the talent to choose the words that portray the message and awareness you want to get out. Whether you change them or not is completely up to you.

I like the concept of using animals to represent diversity in children. After all, children are not adults in small bodies and I think it’s an excellent approach to helping them relate.

I am especially impressed that welcoming feedback and asking for all of our opinions has created so much thought and conversation. It is enriching to all of us to share thoughts and experiences. It is clear that this is still the controversial issue it was when I was in grade school so many moons ago.

I am an active parent leader in a family strengthening organization and I’m glad to have found your website. I think it is a very valuable resource for many parents and, in turn, has a positive impact on children. Thank you!

The video merely provides a presentation to help a wide range of people understand the struggle. Mainly those who do not have special needs children. We parents, relatives, teachers, & the rest of the overly sensitve & personally effected by/of special needs children should remember that when we put on our politically correct sensitivity caps on. We are not the target audience, “the great uninformed” is. This video is an awareness. Leave our personal experiences out of it.

I have never commented on this video for when it first
was posted I had to wait a day or two until I got on
DSL in order to view it and by then the listserv had
moved on. When it resurfaced I decided to visit the
comment blog. Something about Ellen’s opening
statement troubled me, then I literally became ill and
angered at many of the comments that were posted, so I
had to let myself settle.

However yesterday as I was observing and documenting
the interactions and the work in the classroom I just
drank in the relationships that were occurring. I
watched as “typical” children joined with their
friends with special rights in this beautiful dialogue
and work, a dialogue that I couldn’t understand a word
of but these children involved had created a language
that each child knew what the other meant. I watched
as hugs were exchanged over small celebrations.

I rejoiced as two of the children who sat with me
during lunch and observed as I worked with Jacob a
child with autism recognized and became excited when
suddenly Jacob uttered new words and even put two
words together, I listened as the children instantly
turned to each other “Jacob said a new word, it was a
brand new word I never heard him say” “Teacher he said
a new word!”

It was a day full of small celebrations!

At the end of the day and with the joy of the day
still spilling over, I began to re-think about this
video again. As I thought more about our day and the
video I logged on to open my email only to find a
newsletter from a company, in this weeks issue it
features a video of a child’s learning.

The article goes to great lengths to share with its
reader and the viewer the learning that this child is
showing to us, the child that is featured, is Chaislyn
a child with Down syndrome, a child from my classroom.
The description of the video clip describes Chaislyn
as “a self-directed and animated four-year-old” not a
word is ever mentioned that she is a child with Down’s
syndrome, for that isn’t what is important, what the
does focus on is Chaislyn the child, and it isn’t
about her “disability’, it shows of this child’s
competence not what she can’t do. A child whose work
is showing teachers across the globe what children
know. She is a child who has gone on into public
Kindergarten and is doing wonderful, a child who
played t-ball with her friends….a child who wasn’t
segregated out of the regular classroom but who
instead the regular classroom enlarged their circle to
allow Chaislyn to be part of and supported in.

So it was this mindset that I began to sort out my
feelings…

First this movie goes against everything I believe in.
Starting with my image of children, why do want to
reduce the rich powerful and competent child to be
represented as animals? It is like putting a cutesy
graphic on a piece of documentation-it devalues the
work and the image of children.

“’The fish is a child who really requires full
special education and should not be in the regular
classroom.’

This statement goes against the rights of ALL those
with special needs/rights. Why should we want to
advocate something that goes against the federal
law-IDEA! I hardly think this wording is in
conjunction with what IDEA advocates as least
restrictive environment. The word SHOULD NOT is
disturbing. So I ask who is going to be the judge of
which children requires full special education- what
does this mean- is it a child in a wheelchair, a CP
child, a child with autism- what is the criteria and
who will decide the criteria of the full special
education child? Who wants to be the one to point the
finger or create the list of who stays and who goes?

So that brings me to the next question when should we
begin to exclude?!! Although this perhaps is aiming at
children who are school age K+, however if this is to
be the rule of our land then what is to stop centers
from separating infants with special rights, or do we
begin in preschool? Do we begin at birth?

The other piece that troubles me is that the animal
school video has a ‘religious connotation” this feels
so wrong with my own beliefs, where all are welcomed,
now we are saying only those with certain criteria are
welcomed?

This statement brings me to tears as it goes against
everything-the families and the children whom I
advocate for each and everyday.
Yes you can say this isn’t an ideal world and this is
the reality of life but I ask do we then just go with
the flow of the current and let things be for it is
always easier to follow the crowd? Tell this to those
who have had the courage to take a stand, Martin
Luther King or Rosa Park, and the many others who
dared to swim against the current and make a
difference in the lives of others.

What was it about the Reggio approach that took your
breath away, wasn’t it the images, the images of
children, children who are just awesome? It goes back
to our dialogue of the image of the child- do we feel
that all children are born rich and competent? Or are
they vessels to be filled? Whichever we believe speaks
of our image of the child…

This video isn’t the image of the child that I share,
for me I will stick with the video images of real
children, children whose stories and work I am
capturing and documenting each day in sharing the true
competence of children.

My suggestion is:
The fish was confused
To him, all four subjects were the same,
But nobody understood that because they had never seen a fish.

The fish is a child who needs a teacher that understands what it is to be a fish.
Like all the animals, he wants to be included and nurtured with everyone else.

I didn’t have a problem with the fish slide, but since others clearly did, perhaps you can see what they suggest and make the changes so that there are no hurt feelings.

I was planning on forwarding the movie to my email list, so if you are going to change that slide, let me know when you have updated it, and I’ll wait to send the movie out until you do.

Again cudos on your wonderful and inspiring work!

The fish is the child who might need to be recognized in the environment best suited for his needs, some of which could be integrated.

How about: “The fish is a child who really requires direct one-on-one instruction and should not just be dumped into the regular education classroom.”

I would suggest “The fish tuned out in school because he was bored. To him, three of the subjects had no meaning, but nobody understood that because they had never seen a fish.

Children with disabilities who INDEED do require full special education are not the ones quitting school. They are the ones whose parents battle with the school on a continual basis to try to see that the child’s needs are met and these kids are in school until they are 21 because that’s when IDEA says the school system has fulfilled its duty. And most of these kids don’t think the subjects are all the same, they are just not taught in a way that’s meaningful to the child.

And each child under the law deserves an opportunity to be a regular classroom, but with APPROPRIATE supports, services and modified curriculum.

It’s not just a matter of being P.C., it’s a matter of law. IDEA says special education is service, NOT A PLACE, and the longer we continue to view it as that classroom down the hall or a separate school, the harder it is for families who want their child, who has special needs, to have a chance to be in the regular classroom.

‘The fish is a child who really requires full special education and
should not be in the regular classroom.’

“The fish is a child who really requires specialized instruction, and too few teachers truly understand how to provide that.

Or “The fish is a child who really requires special education and needs individualized instruction.

The fish really requires the full support of an adaptive curriculum in three of the subjects. He should have been the showing the class how to make swimming fun, but nobody noticed.

The fish is a child that learns differently and needs to be be taught differently through special education.

But, I would definitely take the placement out. It just isn’t necessary. If the fish is a child with a disability, he just needs an IEP - that’s it. You don’t need to go into where those services should be delivered.

The fish quit school because he was bored. To him, all four subjects were the same, but nobody understood that because they had didn’t know many fish.

And at the end of the movie:

The fish is a child who has unique educational needs and should have an Individualized Education Plan that addresses them.

Tamara

The fish is a child who really requires full special education and
is simply lost in a regular classroom.

OR just change the wording a little like this…

at beginning of the movie:

The fish quit school because he was bored. To him all four subjects were the same but nobody understood that because they had never WORKED WITH a fish.

And at the end of the movie:

The fish is a child who really requires full special education and CANT NECISSARILY REACH HIS FULL (bes, highest, etc..) POTENTIAL IN A TYPICAL(or mainstream) classroom.

the idea is to show that a special educations child should get a speacial education to learn how to utalize his own abilities just like the others can, but in a better setting for his needs… ppl have to see that somethings that may be seen as disabilities are really gifts that we were each given, and to use them rather than to deny us of our gifts and push them away in order to blend… but never really fit in, in the way the mainstream student does…. some ppl just have the opposite way of looking at thing than the “regular” teachers so although they reach the correct answers they cant do it without using a different road only shown to them with personalized attn…..

that last paragraph was a little something i learned from a “fishy” friend of mine!

ill stop writing here.. thanks!

If I’d change it I’d say something like, “The Fish is a child who really requires more individualized attention so that he can excell at the things that come naturally to him.”

Suggestion:
The fish quit school because he was bored. To him all four subjects were like a foreign language, but nobody took the time to change the language to fish language!

(I agree with someone else’s comment we have all “seen a fish.”)

Original:
The fish is a child who really requires full special education and should not be in the regular classroom.

I love what #52 Maureen suggested:

Please do nothing that encourages segregation of children with disabilities.

How about:
The fish is a child who really requires educaton built on his strengths and designed for who he is rather than what he is not.

Thoughts: Someone mentioned children who are gifted. They too have special needs. Don’t we all really have special needs in one way or another? As a mother of two both with diverse abilities I feel what Maureen wrote is exactly what we want education to focus on, what our children/students can do, and then build upon those attributes. Individualized education is what we need for all student to thrive and we can’t clump groups of children together based on a label. We need to look at their differential learning styles.

Ellen, thanks for opening this up for suggestions!

And by the way - there is nothing “PC” about being sensitive to others experiences. We need to make this world a more kind place for everyone.

‘The fish is a child who needs to learn differently so a regular classroom
won’t work for him.

# 31 is really good!!!

or maybe something like

The fish who requires special education in the least restricive enviroment.

Maybe it should read….”The fish is like all children needing an an eduation ……the fish needs his own water….and so does each child!”

And at the end of the movie:

‘The fish is a child who really requires full specialized education and
should be in a smaller classroom.

And at the end of the movie:

‘The fish is a child who really requires full specialized education and
should be in a smaller, more attentive classroom.

As to PC - it’s not PC to take into consideration other’s feelings! I’m not particularly PC, the statements in the movie were not unPC so much to me as harsh. I always look for ways to put things in the most positive way - I find it helps me in the long run…the “fish” needs full special education while allowing for socialization. Everyone benefits.

The fish is a child who would really benefit from special accomodations and understanding teachers to allow that child to “make it” in the regular classroom.

No one sees how unique the fish is; he breathes different than anyone else. If that was acknowledged, the fish would then be interested in other’s differences.