Nate had his check-up recently. He’s exactly 1.5 years old.
His pediatrician tracks him on the “typical” charts because as he puts it, “Nate continues to blow the doors off of every stereotype we have for Ds.” So he doesn’t even bother using the Ds growth chart because he is over the 100th percentile. Currently Nate runs in the mid-range of the “typical chart” like most “typical” kids.
So that got me thinking again about this word, “typical” and why we use it in the place of “average” or “normal” when discussing these types of things. I look at his gorgeous face, so round and chubby with his sparkling eyes that dance and play and I think, gee…his eyes are perfectly symmetrical. His ears are placed just right. His little head is round and his hair is blond and grows just so to the nape of his neck. I love to look at his little fingers…so wonderfully shaped just like his dad’s. He has awesome feet and toes that graduate down in size just like they’re supposed to….what exactly does it mean that he is not “typical?”
Does the medical expression of this word mean not meeting the expectation of most children in whatever age range the child is placed in? And is that measured in physical terms like height and weight? Scholastic terms? Physical ability terms?
My eldest son would be considered typical. He’s athletic, handsome, smart, not an ounce overweight…he’s just right. But….he takes medicine to help him focus in school. Does that make him not typical? What about my nephew’s friend that does great academically, but has no limbs? Which one of these boys is typical…the one who does well academically without the help of medicine or the one who does well physically? Neither? Both?
What about the child who does really well in school, but fails to meet the athletic abilities of children her age (in the absence of a handicap?) Is she still typical? I have a friend whose daughter never crawled…just scooted around on her bum until she walked. So if typical is crawling by 8 months, walking by 10 months... then she wouldn’t be typical of that, but she’s still typical….it’s so confusing!
Of the children who are grossly overweight and can’t run or play on the playground, or who need speech therapy….and we’ve all seen those kids that are so adorably tiny for their age-for no apparent reason, just small structured…what about them? Not very typically-typical, I guess. Maybe it just means these kids don’t have a diagnosis so that makes them typical.
I have a blogger friend who posts pictures of her lovely daughter who is only 9 months old and she is nearly standing on her own! That is not only NOT typical of children who are typical, it’s incredible for a child with Ds! (Way to go, Ruby!) So what does it mean? Because Nate does not stand on his own yet, and he is 9 months older than Ruby, what does that mean for his lack of typical-ness? Even less typical? But physically Ruby tracks on the Ds charts and is in the 50% at the most...and Nate is off the charts….never was on the Ds chart to begin with. Does that make Nate more typical?
Do we really know anybody who is typical? Why can’t we all just be who we are…the incredibly wonderful creation of a loving God, instead of charting, graphing and averaging everyone. We all make a lot of noise about the “r” word. I suggest we all boycott the “t” word!
Saturday, May 02, 2009
typically confused
Nate had his check-up recently. He’s exactly 1.5 years old.
His pediatrician tracks him on the “typical” charts because as he puts it, “Nate continues to blow the doors off of every stereotype we have for Ds.” So he doesn’t even bother using the Ds growth chart because he is over the 100th percentile. Currently Nate runs in the mid-range of the “typical chart” like most “typical” kids.
So that got me thinking again about this word, “typical” and why we use it in the place of “average” or “normal” when discussing these types of things. I look at his gorgeous face, so round and chubby with his sparkling eyes that dance and play and I think, gee…his eyes are perfectly symmetrical. His ears are placed just right. His little head is round and his hair is blond and grows just so to the nape of his neck. I love to look at his little fingers…so wonderfully shaped just like his dad’s. He has awesome feet and toes that graduate down in size just like they’re supposed to….what exactly does it mean that he is not “typical?”
Does the medical expression of this word mean not meeting the expectation of most children in whatever age range the child is placed in? And is that measured in physical terms like height and weight? Scholastic terms? Physical ability terms?
My eldest son would be considered typical. He’s athletic, handsome, smart, not an ounce overweight…he’s just right. But….he takes medicine to help him focus in school. Does that make him not typical? What about my nephew’s friend that does great academically, but has no limbs? Which one of these boys is typical…the one who does well academically without the help of medicine or the one who does well physically? Neither? Both?
What about the child who does really well in school, but fails to meet the athletic abilities of children her age (in the absence of a handicap?) Is she still typical? I have a friend whose daughter never crawled…just scooted around on her bum until she walked. So if typical is crawling by 8 months, walking by 10 months... then she wouldn’t be typical of that, but she’s still typical….it’s so confusing!
Of the children who are grossly overweight and can’t run or play on the playground, or who need speech therapy….and we’ve all seen those kids that are so adorably tiny for their age-for no apparent reason, just small structured…what about them? Not very typically-typical, I guess. Maybe it just means these kids don’t have a diagnosis so that makes them typical.
I have a blogger friend who posts pictures of her lovely daughter who is only 9 months old and she is nearly standing on her own! That is not only NOT typical of children who are typical, it’s incredible for a child with Ds! (Way to go, Ruby!) So what does it mean? Because Nate does not stand on his own yet, and he is 9 months older than Ruby, what does that mean for his lack of typical-ness? Even less typical? But physically Ruby tracks on the Ds charts and is in the 50% at the most...and Nate is off the charts….never was on the Ds chart to begin with. Does that make Nate more typical?
Do we really know anybody who is typical? Why can’t we all just be who we are…the incredibly wonderful creation of a loving God, instead of charting, graphing and averaging everyone. We all make a lot of noise about the “r” word. I suggest we all boycott the “t” word!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
That was so awsedome Jill. Our boy in anything but typical - extraordinary, incredible, perfect!
ReplyDeleteWho on earth wants to be average anyway?
I hope I am never a "typical" pastor of a "typical" church with a "typical" congregation. God grant that we see ourselves as He sees us: peculiar; that is: special, called, but most of all, chosen as His very own possession. (1Peter 2) Great post, Jill!
ReplyDelete"typical"? You're right who's "typical" anyway. If we're really being ourselves then none of us are "typical" because God the creator doesn't make any two people the same. It's too bad that so many try to conform to what's considered "normal" when God wants us to be what he's created us to be...ourselves. Besides Nate is outstanding...not even close to "typical"
ReplyDeleteI have often wondered about Adam and Eve, where they created exactly the same? One of them must have had a higher IQ than the other. Did that make one typical, average, or normal by todays standards; and one of them abnormal, below average, or disabled? If there was a difference in them, then what we call disability today, has been with us since the garden. I believe God made us different on purpose, I believe God made Nate on on purpose, I believe God made me on purpose, I believe God has a plan. We can try to measure ourselves in earthly ways, But Gods ways are not ours. Typical certainly has never meant better in Gods eyes. We love you Nate and all the Kocian family, we thank God you are not the typical family.
ReplyDeleteLittle Tony
Great post. Every one of us is totally "atypical" or else we'd be cloned. What about the "typical" child who then develops autism. Is he/she no longer typical. I guess that trophy word gets stripped from them as well. The only thing I can think is that it's the best way not to say "normal" when referring to our non-Ds kids. While I'm at it... I was thinking that John Michael isn't "dis"abled, either.
ReplyDeleteLoved reading this! I laughed a bit and had to think as well. From a nurse's standpoint I get why we have to track these things. If a child is way off on something, it alerts the caretaker of things that might need extra help before it gets too difficult (or life-threatening). When Josh was about 8 months old his head was measuring way too big. My ped referred us to a neurologist to rule out some pretty serious stuff. I complied and appreciated her meticulousness but I wasn't worried -- I knew big heads were "typical" for our family!
ReplyDeleteHi. Thanks for visiting my blog. I like this post. I never analyzed the word "typical" like this before and now, I'm so with you on boycotting the "t" word. When Matthew was born, they noticed his eyes as a "typical characteristic" of Down syndrome. I thought that he had my slanted Asian eyes. Go figure!
ReplyDeleteMy blog: Bill and Ria
Jill,
ReplyDeleteThanks for this view of the descriptor "typical". Now let's go after and bring down "low/high- functioning" Terms like these are necessary only for making comparisons... but really why do we (or our Peds) need to do that?
You have given me a lot to think about... why do we compare? Is it ever a necessary thing, good thing? Is it just a way of framing our understanding of our childrens' development?