I once read that in a survey of doctors and patients across various backgrounds, the group that gets the best quality of service from the medical profession is... engineers. Engineers advocate successfully for the right kinds of treatments because they:
- Separate out emotions and focus on the problem as a technical issue... which is all it is to the doctor, when you get right down to it.
- Ask probing questions and examine the diagnosis for consistency: "But if the problem is X, shouldn't I also be experiencing symptoms D and E?"
- Ask for verification methods (even if it's just, "If it doesn't clear up in a few days...") and a plan for follow-up if the initial diagnosis turns out to be incorrect.
So in other words, engineers are successful because they speak the same language, approach the problem from the same angle, and already know the next steps.
Which, if my experience is any indication, also makes engineers fairly poor advocates for education. I did not speak their language (initially), understand their approach to the problem, or know what the next steps would be.
In fact... I'm not sure we both came together to solve the same problem. DW and I went into those meetings seeking a solution for a more appropriate education for our daughter. I assumed they were there for the same thing, which is why I always let them know that, while we always came with a proposed solution, I was open to any alternatives they might propose, so long as they addressed the problem at hand. Our proposals were rejected, and no alternatives were forthcoming. As time went by, it became apparent that they believed that they had already provided the most appropriate education for my daughter, so the only problem they had come to solve was... complaining parents.
Looking back on my post, it seems that the problem wasn't so much one of personality, but of recognizing and accepting that the school had placed upon us an unreasonable burden of proof to demonstrate how the classroom environment they had chosen for DD was, as we said, toxic. Since the ways she presented at home and at school were entirely contradictory, that was not a burden we could fulfill through conversation.
Eventually, we got the right solution (at least it seems like it, so far) by bypassing them altogether.
Since then (because advocating never ends), we've gotten a good deal more success by cutting through all of the fluffy nonsense and focusing the dialog on their core mission: teaching. They love to talk about the whole child, and the various other domains, like social and emotional, and what they're doing about all that. We fell into that trap originally, mainly because it was in the social and emotional domains that they were doing her so much harm, so we thought that was a good basis for discussion. I finally came to realize that an appropriate placement with peers that addresses her intellectual needs solves all the other problems in the other domains, so I need to focus entirely on that. Now, I boil it down to one simple statement: "My DD needs to be learning," and I return to that theme whenever the conversation starts wandering down the wrong path. If they try to interject about "the whole child," I remind them that we're the parents, worrying about that is our job, and we are on it.
