Mindset is the most important aspect in the success of any child, especially one with Down syndrome (Thomas et al. 2011, p. 196). If one believes that a specific child will succeed, they will if they are treated like any other regular youngster. It is because children with Down syndrome are capable learners who are enthusiastic about learning. The only thing they require from society is to provide them with the opportunity to excel. Their learning pace may be slower, but they are unquestionably more capable of learning. They tend to be strong visual learners meaning that they comprehend what they see well than they hear (Thomas et al. 2011, p. 199).
The objective of this paper, therefore, is to assess the case of Tom as a child with Down syndrome and highlight the areas that need to be addressed to support Tom and his family as well as describing the importance of high-performance collaborative partnerships. Besides, the paper will focus on developmental challenges facing Tom and identify policies that support or exclude children from achieving their ambitions as well pointing out the barriers and benefits of building a collaborative partnership.
Areas that needs to be addressed to Support Tom
Inclusion
It is a philosophy of education that maintains that is based on the belief of every individual's right to participate fully in the society (Dolva et al. 2010, p. 287). It implies acceptance of differences and access to the educational experiences that are basic to the development of every child and student. When this ideology is implemented, it brings about academic and social benefits for all children both those who need special needs as well as the average children. Through the inclusion process, friendships develop, and students who are developing typically will be more appreciative of the students with disabilities with time (Dolva et al. 2010, p. 289).
Real acceptance of diversity will ultimately develop within the school setting, and this will translate to home, workplace and the community as a whole. Children with Down syndrome benefit from education environment only if the best practices are put in place. It means that special education should be perceived as an assemblage of provisions and services and not as a place. Similarly, barricades that are made by the dual methods should be removed and offer admittance to the expertise and resources for both inclusively (Carter et al. 2012, p. 12).
Modify Curriculum
Children who have Down syndrome have diverse abilities, skills, behavior and physical development. Their learning challenges come from different learning styles rather than learning implements (Carter et al. 2012, p. 17). Students with Down syndrome need activities that are highly structured and small portion of the information presented at a given time and better rewarding system. Teachers must maximize on the fact that students with Down syndrome are visual learners hence should deploy teaching methods that involve objects and cues.
In general, they should present information visually by using gadgets like overhead projectors, posters, pocket charts and sometimes chalkboards. Moreover, the children suffer from some degree of hearing loss and have short term memory channels. The teachers need to use simple directions by breaking down the trends into small steps and give the children adequate time to respond (Burke and Hoddapp 2014, p. 15).
I have come to this conclusion because children with Down syndrome will need more help than is commonly available from the resources offered by the school. They, therefore, need the extra care plan to ensure that they are included together with other ordinary children in the curriculum to make them gain higher self-esteem, independence with improved positive interactions with speech and communication (Burke and Hoddapp 2014, p. 19).
Characteristics and Benefits of High-performing Collaborative Partnerships
Building collaborative partnership to deal with the issue of Down syndrome has been easy to talk about but has proved difficult to accomplish. However, by bringing different partners together and working across various sectors helps the partnerships to understand the children with their needs as well as the service of the human system broadly (Bloemers et al. 2010, p. 805). The groups then will have a constructive problem-solving assertiveness hence empowering them to connect and work with applicable services and structures in a bid to meet the wishes of disabled individuals in the society. The whole process might include functioning through and around different obstacles and coming up with resourceful solutions.
The collaborative partnerships would tend to have elevated sustenance across segments and regulate small incident fund to resolve instant difficulties such as the purchase of equipment that will enable the individual to operate efficiently either from school or at home (Bloemers et al. 2010, p. 807). The service director is designated a principal link that is well associated to similar link points of other subdivisions hence assisting each other to hover around the systems. Respect of such people and partners will be paramount to work with the individuals and their autonomy and help them in self-management if possible.
The elements of the coordination roles between the collaborative partnerships are diverse and include advocating enabling the people to access services and supports hence enabling the partners to overcome the system blockages (Pickering and Busse 2010). They also have the role to partner with individuals, families and the community as a whole to ensure that they actively develop and maintain cross-sector networks. They also have an obligation to monitor and review the needs of the individual as well as facilitating the choice of the providers. Meeting such requirements calls for skills and qualities that will be essential in carrying out such roles (Burgoyne et al. 2012, p. 1049).
Such skills include knowledge and understanding of the individual such as the goals, disability and health conditions. Similarly, due to the reason that it is a collaborative partnership encompassing several groups of people in the society, thorough acquaintance and understanding of appropriate service methods is necessary. Communication and information sharing should also be focused on because they are the basis of liaison skills that enable building collaboration (Pickering and Busse 2010).
Developmental Challenges Facing Tom
Children such as Tom suffering from the own syndrome experience respiratory infections during their first five years of life (Næss et al. 2011, p. 2227). Infection of the skin, as well as bladder, also tends to be common. The increased susceptibility to infection among the children is since the immune systems have certain aberrations, though the appliances involved continue to be uncertain. Similarly, heart faults transpire to over 40 of people with Down syndrome and 10 to 15% of the children have the serious heart attack that involves clinical intercession during their initial few months of life (Næss et al. 2011, p. 2229).
The capability to overhaul main heart flaws has had the significant effect on the existence of the infants. Virtually all children with Down syndrome with serious heart defects would pass on by school age deprived of current cardiac operation. However, with first medical intrusion, 70-90% of these children live past five years old (Næss et al. 2011, p. 2231).
Youngsters with Down syndrome have 10 to 20 elevated danger of having Leukemia. The collective peril of for leukemia by the age of 5 is only 2%, but kids with Down syndrome and acute leukemia can be effectively treated when suitable cure is administered (Zwaan et al. 2010, P.21). Thyroid ailments are also more predominant amongst beings with Down syndrome. The range and appliances of the thyroid defects, efficient screening commands, and cure methodologies persist to be an area of study and dispute. However, once it has been detected, hypothyroidism can be successfully cured despite the reason that further follows up is necessary throughout the entire life of an individual (Zwaan et al. 2010, P.29).
90% of families with Down syndrome suffer from the hearing loss, and occasionally it is always serious. To some extent, the even minor hearing loss will elevate to problems in language development and speech (Stensæth 2014). The number of factors that contributes to hearing loss amongst individuals with Down syndrome entails augmented occurrence of lingering ear illnesses. It is because of functional variances and also aggravated by immune systems that are weaker. The common challenges comprise wax in the exterior ear canal, conductive loss as a result of glue in the mid ear contagions as well as sensory-neural hearing loss.
Hearing plays a critical part in the cerebral growth and the process of knowledge particularly for language and dialogue development (Stensæth 2014). Although the slight hearing loss is not always perceived severe in other kids, it may have a noteworthy outcome on knowledge for youngsters with Down syndrome. Hearing loss likewise interferes with precise insight and construction of communication sounds. It delays the acquisition of vocabulary and compromises the ability of a child to say things. Various interventions are now put in place to treat and perfect the effects of hearing loss.
Appropriate Policies and Practices
Reduction of the rate of failure in schools is beneficial to both the society and an individual. It can promote economic growth and social development through the combination of excellence with parity. Equity in schooling suggests that private situations such as sex, cultural origin or family circumstantial are not hindrances to accomplishing inherent impartiality in education and all other platforms that children need to excel in life (Griffith et al. 2010, p. 614).
Improving equity and reducing school failure should be avoided by all means because it is through the education platform that individuals can achieve their objectives and improve their living standards (Fereday et al. 2010, p. 627). People who are more educated will contribute to a autonomous culture, and supportable markets are hence making them less reliant on on civic support and less susceptible to fiscal slump downs. Individuals given the opportunity to excel through education are well ready to answer to present and potential upcoming crises. Consequently, endowing in primary education for all and most importantly children with disadvantages such as Tom is fair and economically viable to the society (Fereday et al. 2010, p. 630).
Avoiding system-level rules that are favorable to institute and scholar failure because the way schooling systems are planned can elevate the levels of inequities and have an adverse impact on the progress of a child in school. System levels must be eliminated to ensure that equity is improved to benefit the disadvantaged in the community. For instance, elimination of grade repetition can be a major policy that promotes equity given that it is costly and not efficient in giving out desirable outcomes. It can be prevented by looking into the scholarship loopholes through the institute year, embracing programmed elevation or off-putting repetition to individual sections and units collectively (Bull 2012, p. 399).
Institutions with higher scopes of underprivileged pupils are at a bigger menace of tasks that can lead to low performance due to the reason that school front-runners are not always well designated, sustained to use their roles in the institutions (Tucker and Schwartz 2013, p. 9). Strengthening institute management is the initial point of the makeover of low performing underprivileged schools as well as the students. School leadership planning programs must offer in cooperation extensive proficiency and focused knowledge to handle the problems of the school. Coaching, networks, and mentoring can be established to assist the leaders to realize a sustainable transformation. Moreover, the policies need to provide better working conditions for these leaders so as to retain and motivate them. It is because through the efforts of the leaders that the students will get the quality education and assist them to achieve their purposes in life irrespective of their health status (Fereday et al. 2010, p. 632).
Benefits, Challenges, and Barriers to Building Collaborative Partnership
Benefits
Pressures on community-based organizations increase, and the issues faced by the society become more involved. However, through coming up with partnerships that are effective, there are several benefits that the community can accrue in the process. Partners are capable of combining their efforts to achieve goals that are mutual (Griffith et al. 2010, p. 617). Through the partnerships, organizations can add value to the combined efforts of each party. Despite the fact that organizations may have different structures and approaches, they have the platform of working together towards a common objective to achieve results mutually. It is because a partnership is not a one-sided affair and it is capable of strengthening the organization for long-term collaboration and corporation.
Barriers and Challenges
There are common barriers that affect the smooth operations of the partnership with a potential partner (Tucker and Schwartz 2013, p. 5). Some partners may have limited vision and fail to inspire hence making it difficult to achieve the intended objectives. The collaborative partnership may also face the challenge of competition between the partners for the lead or sometimes domination by the one partner hence propagate different or balanced power that is unacceptable. The trend might push some key stakeholders away hence making them miss in the partnership which will, in turn, deprive the organization of quality decision-making abilities (Tucker and Schwartz 2013, p. 9).
The organizations can also fail to highlight roles and responsibilities hence leading to misunderstandings and miscommunication in the process. If this happens, then the whole objective of serving the community will not be achieved, and the children like Tom who is suffering from Down syndrome will continue facing the challenges especially after his brother who is his guardian angel has left the school.
Conclusion
It is therefore apparent that supporting the child with Down syndrome is an uphill task, but things can be made simple if there is the collaboration of various partnerships within the community (Bull 2012, p. 397). However, institutions must develop a positive attitude towards these children and include them without biases just like other typical children. Through doing this, the children gain many advantages that would be possible be it that they were secluded from others. Understanding them as well as their capabilities is the solution to their problems as they have potential to progress and excel despite the challenges that they face (Bull 2012, p. 401). Down syndrome children like Tom must, therefore, be helped to achieve their goals because this will make them less dependable to the public aid hence a benefit to the society.
References
Bull, M.J., 2011. Health supervision for children with Down syndrome. Pediatrics, 128(2), pp.393-406.
Burgoyne, K., Duff, F.J., Clarke, P.J., Buckley, S., Snowling, M.J. and Hulme, C., 2012. Efficacy of a reading and language intervention for children with Down syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 53(10), pp.1044-1053.
Bloemers, B.L., van Bleek, G.M., Kimpen, J.L. and Bont, L., 2010. Distinct abnormalities in the innate immune system of children with Down syndrome. The Journal of pediatrics, 156(5), pp.804-809.
Burke, M.M. and Hodapp, R.M., 2014. Relating stress of mothers of children with developmental disabilities to family–school partnerships. Mental Retardation, 52(1), pp.13-23.
Carter, E., Swedeen, B., Walter, M.C.M. and Moss, C.K., 2012. “I Don't Have to Do This by Myself?” Parent-Led Community Conversations to Promote Inclusion. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 37(1), pp.9-23.
Dolva, A.S., Hemmingsson, H., Gustavsson, A. and Borell, L., 2010. Children with Down syndrome in mainstream schools: peer interaction in activities. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 25(3), pp.283-294.
Fereday, J., Oster, C. and Darbyshire, P., 2010. Partnership in practice: what parents of a disabled child want from a generic health professional in Australia. Health & social care in the community, 18(6), pp.624-632.
Griffith, G.M., Hastings, R.P., Nash, S. and Hill, C., 2010. Using matched groups to explore child behavior problems and maternal well-being in children with Down syndrome and autism. Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 40(5), pp.610-619.
Næss, K.A.B., Lyster, S.A.H., Hulme, C. and Melby-Lervåg, M., 2011. Language and verbal short-term memory skills in children with Down syndrome: A meta-analytic review. Research in developmental disabilities, 32(6), pp.2225-2234.
Pickering, D. and Busse, M., 2010. Disabled children's services: how do we measure family centred care?. Journal of Child Health Care.
Stensæth, K., 2014. Potentials and challenges in interactive and musical collaborations involving children with disparate disabilities. A comparison study of how Petronella, with Down syndrome, and Dylan, with autism, interact with the musical and interactive tangible ‘WAVE’.
Thomas, K., Bourke, J., Girdler, S., Bebbington, A., Jacoby, P. and Leonard, H., 2011. Variation over time in medical conditions and health service utilization of children with Down syndrome. The Journal of pediatrics, 158(2), pp.194-200.
Tucker, V. and Schwartz, I., 2013. Parents’ perspectives of collaboration with school professionals: Barriers and facilitators to successful partnerships in planning for students with ASD. School Mental Health, 5(1), pp.3-14.
Zwaan, C.M., Reinhardt, D., Hitzler, J. and Vyas, P., 2010. Acute leukemias in children with Down syndrome. Hematology/oncology clinics of North America, 24(1), pp.19-34.
