(So... the next time you see three kids together, think, hmmm - the AAP considers one of these kids sub-functional in some way)
"sub-functional"? I must strenuously disagree with that characterization of disability.
Sorry, DeeDee, that's not what I meant (I may have worded it badly). I agree with you that just because a child has a disability that doesn't make him/her sub-functional.
What I meant was relating to my comment about pathologizing variations in typical childhood behaviour (Vs. a legitimate disability).
My interpretation of the paragraph that I cut and pasted was that unless a child is a perfect round peg that fits into society's perfect round holes (ie does not deviate from being totally typical), this could be considered by the AAP to be an "impairment in function."
Maybe I took it a little too personally (having two square peg kids and having been one myself).
For example... my DD10 is extremely sensitive. Today two student teachers who have been with her class for several weeks said goodbye to the class (I guess they're finished their practicums or something). My daughter has been crying on and off for over an hour, and will continue to have the blues about it for the next several days. Is that typical for her age? Likely not. (Square peg, yes.) But impairment in function? I'm so sorry my kid isn't "typically sensitized."
Again, maybe I'm over reacting (my cafeteria fringe scars are showing, lol). It would have helped if the term "impairment in functioning" was clarified.
