|
KMAN wrote:
Um, is this true? I find that extremely hard to believe, particularly in Canada, because even here in the USA, it's illegal to discriminate on the basis of physical disability. I sort of imagined it as being a hanging offense in Canada. Actually, Scott, you'll be happy to know (I assume) that in many ways the US is well ahead of Canada in terms of the rights of people with disabilities. I'm not sure, but BCITORGB might be talking about intellectual disabilities, rather than physical disabilities. ============== Correct, I was. =============== frtzw906 |
KMAN picks up something I missed. Thanks:
As to the other daughter, being gifted, she is unlikely to have as many problems with socialization Are you nuts? That's one of the groups that has the most problems with socialization! Worse than software engineers! (Although sometimes one in the same). ========================= Exactly! As I mentioned, one of my daughters fits into the gifted category. One of the most heart-wrenching experiences for me (I can't even imagine how it must have been for her!) was picking her up from school with a couple hundred kids playing on the playground and she, always, by herself with no friends. High school was a relief. University has been a godsend for her. ==================== and will experience socialization at her new school as well, and will receive a better education. Keeping her in public school would be unfair to her, particularly so if its done *because* she has a disabled sister. Explain again. The child who is gifted is better off in a specialized environment with other people who are gifted, but the child who has a disability is not better off in a specialized environment with other people who are disabled. Why? ================= Excellent question. Gifted minds need to know. =============================== frtzw906 |
|
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Scott wonders: =========== Um, is this true? I find that extremely hard to believe, particularly in Canada, because even here in the USA, it's illegal to discriminate on the basis of physical disability. I sort of imagined it as being a hanging offense in Canada. ============== Well, Scott, you've admonished others more than once for not reading carefully. Now I get to return the favor. At no point did I indicate that the girl in question was "physically" disabled. She was, but that's wasn't the issue. She was also severely mentally disabled. As such, she would have been denied entrance to the private school on academic grounds. Well, I wonder if this is necessarily true of all private schools. Perhaps for special private schools for the gifted, but I imagine that many private schools would be happy to admit the disabled, because they understand that being disabled is not the same thing as being worthless. Scott asks: ============== "ESL" meaning "handicapped" I presume? =========== Not in my opinion. But the parents in this anecdote clearly felt that the ESL numbers in the school constituted a "debit" (to use your terminology) insofar as the overall learning environment in the school/classroom was concerned. Interestingly, several of the ESL students from Korea and China were the top students in math/arithmetic and music. Again, I don't know what "ESL" stands for, so I'm assuming it means "handicapped or disabled." And when you say the parents "clearly felt that the ESL numbers constituted a debit," is that a presumption you made based on their putting their gifted daughter in private school, or did they make quotable statements to that effect? I suspect the former, and I question your assumptions. It could just as easily be that they simply felt a private school for their gifted daughter would provide a much better education than a public school, without actually denigrating the public school at all, much less based on the population of "ESL" students. Evidently they thought the public school good enough to serve one of their daughters, so I don't see how your conclusions are justified, unless you have some specific statements that can be attributed to specific individuals (names please) that support your claim. Scotts asserts: ================ I see rational judgment and a concern both for their children and other disabled children, because they evidently genuinely feel that the public school environment provides a SUPERIOR educational AND SOCIAL environment for their disabled daughter. I happen to agree with them. ============ Yet somehow you are unable to see that by taking their brighter daughter (not gifted, just bright) out of the public school, they diminished the very environment they felt it was important for their disabled daughter to be exposed to. Well, that's probably because you appear to be the only one who believes this to be the case. Once again you demonstrate a willingness to use children as political pawns in your "leveling out" of education in Canada. No parent should give even a moment's consideration to your sort of complaint because it denigrates the students who remain in the public school system by implying that they are somehow inferior and without the presence of "bright" or "gifted" children the "environment" of the school will be diminished. Most importantly, no parent should consider your complaints because no child should be subject to the sort of politically-correct academic slavery you suggest. Children must be treated as INDIVIDUALS, and their INDIVIDUAL best interests should be served by their parents, to the best of their ability, without regard for other students, whose educations are the responsibility of their parents. No child should be lumped into some generalized classification for the purposes of egalitarianism and socialist proletarianism. Sorry, that's hypocritical. No, it's entirely proper for them to put THEIR children's interests first. It's their job. It's their most important job, in fact. Scott, again displaying uncharacteristic, left-wing, concern for the societal underdog, argues: ================== "Mainstreaming" is specifically intended to get disabled children out of isolation and get them involved in the community and society, where they can both learn to cope with their disabilities in the real world as well as learn to make friends and dispel prejudices and preconceptions that are often part and parcel of "normal" childhood experience when "normal" children are isolated from the disabled. ============== Yes. And mainstreaming also places an undue and, at times, unfair burden on teachers and classmates. Only if you believe that providing a proper educational and social environment for someone who is already facing an enormous uphill battle just to survive is an "undue burden." Most people, and certainly most socialist egalitarianists, believe that helping the disabled is not an "undue burden" but is rather a mitzvah and a gift, and an opportunity to show charity and love and empathy and concern for those less fortunate, and a teachable moment particularly for children (as well as ignorant, bigoted adults) wherein the intrinsic value of every human being can be demonstrated and the rewards of altruistic service to others taught to impressionable youth. The whole reason that "mainstreaming" is being mandated in many places is precisely BECAUSE of the sort of attitude that you demonstrate that the disabled are a "burden" on society, which is the same thing as saying they are worthless, unworthy and ought to be hidden away someplace where we don't have to look at them and don't have to deal with them, and don't have to expose our children to them. The disabled are only a "burden" to the selfish. Where does that leave you? If a "non-disabled" child were to exhibit behaviors shown by many of the disabled children, they would be immediately removed from the classroom and, eventualy expelled from the school. Not in any sane educational system. In any place where there are *real* teachers; qualified, dedicated and understanding, even "difficult" children are not ejected from the system merely because they have emotional or cognitive difficulties to overcome. Teaching difficult, damaged students is hard, but it's immensely rewarding too when a child who was about to be given up as lost suddenly finds his or her way out of the darkness, with the help of a TEACHER. Problem is, that in many public schools, we don't have teachers, we have overpaid, under-qualified, unmotivated hacks who are uninterested in actually being educators, but merely want to put in time for 8 months a year so they can party in the summer. These kind of "teachers" ruin children and schools. In many other public school, however, we have highly-qualified, dedicated, motivated educators whose sole interest is to teach the young. Unfortunately, they are both overworked and underpaid, and there are too few of them. In both cases, the problem is the public school system itself. This is where private schools can again excel by hiring and properly compensating the best and brightest teachers we have. I've often wondered why it is that we will pay doctors hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to prescribe Valium and cough syrup, but we won't pay the people who have the most influence on our children's lives, other than the parents, a decent, living wage. As a teacher-school-society we need to find accommodation for pupils of all capabilities. However, it is an axiom of teaching that, if a pupil consistently undermines the learning environment of the majority of pupils, then that pupil must be removed. Funny, I always thought that the goal was to figure out why the student was being disruptive, solve that problem and find ways to motivate the student so he becomes a scholar. In the case of the disabled child in the anecdote (and many, many others), the learning environment was compromised by loud, random, unintelligible utterances that bore no relationship to the matter being taught. This was complemented by random physical outbursts of the child rattling her wheelchair and otherwise thrashing about. Do you know what the cure for "Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder" used to be? SMACK! "Now shut up, sit down and study, or you'll get another, and worse!" Seemed to work pretty well for most students for, oh, a couple of hundred years. Note that this corporal punishment is not to be meeted out to the disabled student who is incapable of control, but to the OTHER students who are allowing themselves to be distracted by what ought to be ignored. It's a great pity that neither parents nor teachers will ignore all the liberal touchy-feely crap the "experts" are handing out decrying the practice of corporal punishment. Kids need to be *taught* to pay attention and ignore distractions, and sometimes that means refocusing their attention with a bit of discomfort and embarrassment. Children today are so grossly over-stimulated, nearly every waking moment of their young lives, what with TV, video games, ipods and soccer practice that they never have time to simply learn to sit and think or read a book. There's rarely any quiet time at home, and there's precious little study time in school, now that schools are forcing more and more rote learning on kids so they can pass the state standardized tests. Schools are unwilling to waste a second with quiet study time, and parents don't enforce it either. This makes actively teaching them to concentrate and exclude distraction all the more important, and having a disabled child in your class is an excellent way to learn this vital study skill. This over-stimulation extends clear down to the cradle, where the drive to make "baby geniuses" results in hour after hour of stimulation and instant coddling and response to every whimper and cry. Some child rearing experts warn that this constant attention and stimulation is extremely harmful, particularly to very young children, who, being distracted all the time, "never discover their toes," as one writer puts it. I'm a firm believer in letting young children and babies cry for a good, long time, rather than running to them every time they burp or whine. This causes them to learn to amuse and control themselves, which is a valuable lesson indeed. It also has the beneficial effect of teaching children that their parents are not at the child's beck and call. I've seen many examples of spoiled children who expect instant service no matter how petty the complaint, and it causes nothing but trouble as they grow up. Kids need to learn early that they are NOT in charge, and that the world does NOT revolve around them and their desires. The sooner they learn this, the better off they, and society as a whole, will be. Unfortunately, it appears that discipline is a thing of the past in most homes and virtually every public school. This is yet another benefit of private schools...they can use discipline properly without having to be afraid that some twit of a permissive parent will sue them for motivating their child to proper behavior in the classroom. So, as regards your complaint about disabled students being a distraction in the classroom, I'm un-persuaded that your concern is legitimate. The solution for other students exposed to this distraction is to be taught to ignore it and get on with their studies, however that needs to be accomplished. There can be no doubt that, notwithstanding the positive attributes of mainstreaming, there are many "debits" (your word) that can be attributed to it. Not a one I can think of. Again, disable students are only a "debit" if you choose view them as such. Open minded people understand that a challenge is not a debit, it's an opportunity. In this case, it's a golden opportunity to teach the other children in the class many good and necessary lessons: Altruism, concentration, tolerance, acceptance, understanding, accommodation, charity, love, and inclusiveness. All of those lessons are easier to teach *because* the disabled girl is in their class, presenting them with various dilemmas and challenges to overcome and things to learn about being a good citizen and a good person. If you look at "mainstreamed" disabled children in that light, it would be best if *every* class had such people as members. And then there's the benefits to the disabled child... So, back to the parents in question: of course it is hypocritical to expect others' children to try to learn in an environment compromised by their disabled daughter's outbursts while taking their brighter daughter to a private school simply because they have the money to be able to do so. Sheer hypocrisy! Nope, not at all. Her presence creates a wealth of opportunities to teach children how to be better students, better citizens and better people. Not everything you need to learn in school is covered by the Three R's. I judge that the parents were being good parents and were demonstrating a strong degree of altruism and commitment to the well-rounded education of all of the children in the class, who stand to benefit enormously from learning to understand others and cope with challenges posed by those not as fortunate at they. They were served up a heaping helping of lemons, so they made up a vat of lemonade. Good for them! -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself frtzw906 wrote:
KMAN in making the case that an exodus of "wealthy" families from the public school system will eventually leave it impoverished: There will be less and less money. It will become like your plan for health care for the poor...unless a charity provides it, there won't be any. Absolutely correct. Only if they are allowed to by the government. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself frtzw906 wrote:
KMAN picks up something I missed. Thanks: As to the other daughter, being gifted, she is unlikely to have as many problems with socialization Are you nuts? That's one of the groups that has the most problems with socialization! Worse than software engineers! (Although sometimes one in the same). It's not the kids who have problems, it's the parents and schools which create problems. ========================= Exactly! As I mentioned, one of my daughters fits into the gifted category. One of the most heart-wrenching experiences for me (I can't even imagine how it must have been for her!) was picking her up from school with a couple hundred kids playing on the playground and she, always, by herself with no friends. High school was a relief. University has been a godsend for her. ==================== This is why it's imperative that children be carefully socialized very early, beginning when they are babies and toddlers, so that no matter how bright they are, they are still well able to communicate and interact with their peers. The problem with "gifted" children tends to be that their parents, in their zeal to advance their child's intellect, unconsciously isolate their gifted children from their peers, usually by focusing on academics to the exclusion of socialization. Kids simply do not grow up to be socially isolated all by themselves, it takes parental complicity. and will experience socialization at her new school as well, and will receive a better education. Keeping her in public school would be unfair to her, particularly so if its done *because* she has a disabled sister. Explain again. The child who is gifted is better off in a specialized environment with other people who are gifted, but the child who has a disability is not better off in a specialized environment with other people who are disabled. Why? ================= Excellent question. Gifted minds need to know. =============================== Because gifted students need specialized teaching and stimulation to fully realize their *intellectual* potential. If they are unchallenged by ordinary educational curricula, they become bored and often disruptive and their intellect suffers. At the same time, gifted children also need socialization time with "ordinary" children, so that they can also learn how to come to grips with their intellect and learn how to integrate into a society that may try to exclude them out of jealousy or merely because they are the "green monkey." Gifted children must learn how to put on social camouflage so that they can associate successfully with those who may not be as intellectually advanced. But these lessons are much easier for gifted students to learn, in part because of their intellect, but also because they can learn to "hide" their intellect when necessary. It's not like being in a motorized wheelchair or having some physical deformity. Disabled children also need specialized instruction to help compensate for their disabilities, but most of all they need socialization with others to learn the skills of living in the world that they cannot receive in special, disabled-only classes. In such classes, what socialization they learn is how to interact socially with other disabled children, not with everybody else. This leaves them with a deficit that can cripple them for life, not just physically or mentally, but socially. It leads to feelings of exclusion and isolation because they never have the opportunity to meet and make friends with non-disabled children. Hiding the disabled away is also harmful to non-disabled children. It only exacerbates the "green monkey" syndrome and makes it much harder for non-disabled children to accept those who are different. It is to everyone's benefit that children be required to associate with and create relationships with disabled children as early as possible. The earlier the better, before prejudices, bigotry and bias rear their ugly heads. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on for all children friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
On 3-Apr-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
OK, let's look at the Westernworld: Finland. Canada. ============ Both socialist states. Socialism = bad. Both higher than the US on every measure of quality of life, human development index etc. Mike |
On 3-Apr-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: What makes you think that your opinions are either important or determinative? Look who's talking - Mr Irrelevant himself. You can't even form an opinion that's consistent with the facts. Mike |
On 3-Apr-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: Self-evidently, you cannot. I just point out your lies and stupidity. Mike |
KMAN contributes:
=============== You might want to learn more about what goes on when students with intellectual disabilities are placed in the mainstream classes, and see if the results are as you expect. What most students with intellectual disabilities need more than anything is a peer group, just like the rest of us sought out in high school. They want peers they can relate to and they want friends - real friends - who spend time with them on weekends and during the summer. They also need a curriculum that meets their needs.... None of that is taught in a Grade 12 chemistry class... What is happening is the kid with the disabilitiy is picking his nose and playing with his pecker, which is in my view a toally appropriate response to being in an environment that has absolutely no relevance, and an environment where everyone else there can see that you are totally out of place and is reaching all sorts of disparaging conclusions about you. ================= WOW! KMAN, your insights are bang-on. frtzw906 |
Scott wonders about admission standards for most private schools:
================ Well, I wonder if this is necessarily true of all private schools. Perhaps for special private schools for the gifted, but I imagine that many private schools would be happy to admit the disabled, because they understand that being disabled is not the same thing as being worthless ============== I don't know about the nature of private schools in the USA, but the vast majority of the non-religious ones around here are modelled on the British "public" (hence private) school model. Academic standards are a significant part of the admission requirements (perhaps waived if mommy and daddy have plenty of money or hoity-toity positions in the community). So you'll not see many (any) pupils with mental disabilities on those campuses. frtzw906 |
Scott has a query about my anecdote:
============== And when you say the parents "clearly felt that the ESL numbers constituted a debit," is that a presumption you made based on their putting their gifted daughter in private school, or did they make quotable statements to that effect? I suspect the former, and I question your assumptions. ============== You suspect incorrectly: they made public statements regarding their displeasure with the large number of ESL (English as Second Language) students in the school. frtzw906 |
Scott correctly observes:
=============== Children must be treated as INDIVIDUALS, and their INDIVIDUAL best interests should be served by their parents, to the best of their ability, without regard for other students, whose educations are the responsibility of their parents. ============== You are correct -- partially. Whereas the school system is mandated to serve the individualized needs of pupils, it is also required to protect the entire student body (the system) from the negative actions of students who hinder the advancement of others. Just as in any society, the INDIVIDUAL'S freedoms and rights stop where those rights and freedoms interfere with the rights and freedoms of others. So it is in schools as well. frtzw906 |
"BCITORGB" wrote in message oups.com... KMAN contributes: =============== You might want to learn more about what goes on when students with intellectual disabilities are placed in the mainstream classes, and see if the results are as you expect. What most students with intellectual disabilities need more than anything is a peer group, just like the rest of us sought out in high school. They want peers they can relate to and they want friends - real friends - who spend time with them on weekends and during the summer. They also need a curriculum that meets their needs.... None of that is taught in a Grade 12 chemistry class... What is happening is the kid with the disabilitiy is picking his nose and playing with his pecker, which is in my view a toally appropriate response to being in an environment that has absolutely no relevance, and an environment where everyone else there can see that you are totally out of place and is reaching all sorts of disparaging conclusions about you. ================= WOW! KMAN, your insights are bang-on. frtzw906 Only because I have been involved with people with intellectual disabilities and their families for almost twenty years in a variety of capacities - particularly...listening. |
"BCITORGB" wrote in message oups.com... Scott has a query about my anecdote: ============== And when you say the parents "clearly felt that the ESL numbers constituted a debit," is that a presumption you made based on their putting their gifted daughter in private school, or did they make quotable statements to that effect? I suspect the former, and I question your assumptions. ============== You suspect incorrectly: they made public statements regarding their displeasure with the large number of ESL (English as Second Language) students in the school. frtzw906 To be fair, Scott may not realize that "blame it on ESL" is at the core of our public school apologistics (at least here in Ottawa). |
Scott demonstrates that he's never spent any time in a school classroom
as an adult: ==================== And mainstreaming also places an undue and, at times, unfair burden on teachers and classmates. Only if you believe that providing a proper educational and social environment for someone who is already facing an enormous uphill battle just to survive is an "undue burden." Most people, and certainly most socialist egalitarianists, believe that helping the disabled is not an "undue burden" but is rather a mitzvah and a gift, and an opportunity to show charity and love and empathy and concern for those less fortunate, and a teachable moment particularly for children (as well as ignorant, bigoted adults) wherein the intrinsic value of every human being can be demonstrated and the rewards of altruistic service to others taught to impressionable youth. ==================== Scott, if you're trying to teach a lesson in arithmetic to a class of Grade 3 pupils and are repeatedly disrupted by random vocal and physical outbursts the, yes, that's an undue burden. A burden on the teachers and the majority of the pupils, who, I might add, also have a right to an education individualized so as to maximize THEIR learning. You pose an interesting dilemma. You veer away from the line taken by most right-wing critics of the educational system. Most such critics make the case that far too much time is taken up with mamby-pamby, soft stuff like socialization, and that not enough hard-core maths, science, reading et al are taught. So, we need to decide, during math class, should the primary focus be on the teaching of maths or should we repeatedly take time out for "socializing" whenever we get a random, irrelevant outburst? I'm sympathetic to the socialization argument. To a point. Once the socialzation becomes an undue burden to the teachers and other pupils (when their freedoms are being violated), then, I think, we've had enough. frtzw908 |
KMAN says:
========= To be fair, Scott may not realize that "blame it on ESL" is at the core of our public school apologistics (at least here in Ottawa). ========= KMAN, I was referring to Scott assuming I had made up this bit about ESL; he suggested that perhaps the parents hadn't actually said it. They had. As to your comment: not just in Ottawa. frtzw906 |
KMAN... off-thread comment: did you ever sort out the "time" issue on
your computer and 4 of your posts which still don't appear on google because they were "sent" some time later today (but actually two days ago)...??? frtzw906 |
"BCITORGB" wrote in message oups.com... Scott demonstrates that he's never spent any time in a school classroom as an adult: ==================== And mainstreaming also places an undue and, at times, unfair burden on teachers and classmates. Only if you believe that providing a proper educational and social environment for someone who is already facing an enormous uphill battle just to survive is an "undue burden." Most people, and certainly most socialist egalitarianists, believe that helping the disabled is not an "undue burden" but is rather a mitzvah and a gift, and an opportunity to show charity and love and empathy and concern for those less fortunate, and a teachable moment particularly for children (as well as ignorant, bigoted adults) wherein the intrinsic value of every human being can be demonstrated and the rewards of altruistic service to others taught to impressionable youth. ==================== Scott, if you're trying to teach a lesson in arithmetic to a class of Grade 3 pupils and are repeatedly disrupted by random vocal and physical outbursts the, yes, that's an undue burden. A burden on the teachers and the majority of the pupils, who, I might add, also have a right to an education individualized so as to maximize THEIR learning. You pose an interesting dilemma. You veer away from the line taken by most right-wing critics of the educational system. Most such critics make the case that far too much time is taken up with mamby-pamby, soft stuff like socialization, and that not enough hard-core maths, science, reading et al are taught. So, we need to decide, during math class, should the primary focus be on the teaching of maths or should we repeatedly take time out for "socializing" whenever we get a random, irrelevant outburst? I'm sympathetic to the socialization argument. To a point. Once the socialzation becomes an undue burden to the teachers and other pupils (when their freedoms are being violated), then, I think, we've had enough. frtzw908 If I may, rather than focusing on the "burden on the teacher angle" let's look at who it is for...students. If you are teaching Grade 6 math so that students will be prepared for Grade 7 math, but you have 3 students with intellectual disabilities in the class for "mainstreaming" purposes who are still at a Grade 1 math level and trying to get to Grade 2, who is it that the teacher is going to appropriately serve all of those needs? |
"BCITORGB" wrote in message oups.com... KMAN says: ========= To be fair, Scott may not realize that "blame it on ESL" is at the core of our public school apologistics (at least here in Ottawa). ========= KMAN, I was referring to Scott assuming I had made up this bit about ESL; he suggested that perhaps the parents hadn't actually said it. They had. As to your comment: not just in Ottawa. frtzw906 LOL, OK. |
"BCITORGB" wrote in message oups.com... KMAN... off-thread comment: did you ever sort out the "time" issue on your computer and 4 of your posts which still don't appear on google because they were "sent" some time later today (but actually two days ago)...??? frtzw906 Yeah, sorry 'bout that. |
KMAN suggests:
================== If I may, rather than focusing on the "burden on the teacher angle" let's look at who it is for...students. If you are teaching Grade 6 math so that students will be prepared for Grade 7 math, but you have 3 students with intellectual disabilities in the class for "mainstreaming" purposes who are still at a Grade 1 math level and trying to get to Grade 2, who is it that the teacher is going to appropriately serve all of those needs? ================== I take your point. But having been a teacher, albeit not at the elementary level, I can speak best to the dilemmas faced by teachers. Your point is very valid. But I'd like to suggest that, in the scenario you propose, none of the students are well served. Further, given that the students with disabilities tend to have parents and/or organized lobby groups ensuring that the interests of their children are well served (not that there's anything wrong with that), there is considerable political pressure on teachers to serve those students. Gifted students, too, tend to have activist parents. Too often, IMHO, it is the very "average" child who has no one advocating for her. Notwithstanding all the pressures on teachers to serve *all* the individualized "interests", it is the teacher who must be particularly vigilant, and to advocate if necessary, to ensure that the average students' needs are not forgotten. frtzw906 |
"BCITORGB" wrote in message oups.com... KMAN suggests: ================== If I may, rather than focusing on the "burden on the teacher angle" let's look at who it is for...students. If you are teaching Grade 6 math so that students will be prepared for Grade 7 math, but you have 3 students with intellectual disabilities in the class for "mainstreaming" purposes who are still at a Grade 1 math level and trying to get to Grade 2, who is it that the teacher is going to appropriately serve all of those needs? ================== I take your point. But having been a teacher, albeit not at the elementary level, I can speak best to the dilemmas faced by teachers. Your point is very valid. But I'd like to suggest that, in the scenario you propose, none of the students are well served. That's what I'm saying :-) Further, given that the students with disabilities tend to have parents and/or organized lobby groups ensuring that the interests of their children are well served (not that there's anything wrong with that), there is considerable political pressure on teachers to serve those students. Sure, the teacher is the lightning rod for problems that they have nothing to do with. Gifted students, too, tend to have activist parents. Too often, IMHO, it is the very "average" child who has no one advocating for her. Notwithstanding all the pressures on teachers to serve *all* the individualized "interests", it is the teacher who must be particularly vigilant, and to advocate if necessary, to ensure that the average students' needs are not forgotten. frtzw906 For sure...your job as a teacher is to serve everyone, not just the loudest parents (or the loudest kids). |
Scott texplains:
================= The whole reason that "mainstreaming" is being mandated in many places is precisely BECAUSE of the sort of attitude that you demonstrate that the disabled are a "burden" on society, which is the same thing as saying they are worthless, unworthy and ought to be hidden away someplace where we don't have to look at them and don't have to deal with them, and don't have to expose our children to them. =================== I demonstrate *no* attitude. So far I have described actual events. You have advocated shunning PC language in favor of "telling it like it is". That's all I've done. I didn't say anything at all about "burden on society". You chose to read that into my comments. Please recall, that's what you admonish others for. I said they were, in some instances, a burden on the learning environment in classrooms. They inhibit the ability of other pupils to learn (and the ability of the teacher to teach). Further, as KMAN points out, the mainstreamed classroom may be completely inappropriate for the child with disabilities as well. His description of "nose picking and pecker player" was particularly poignant, because I've seen both. I stand by my statement "they are, in some instances, a burden on the learning environment in classrooms." I challenge you to demonstrate otherwise. frtzw906 |
"BCITORGB" wrote in message oups.com... Scott texplains: ================= The whole reason that "mainstreaming" is being mandated in many places is precisely BECAUSE of the sort of attitude that you demonstrate that the disabled are a "burden" on society, which is the same thing as saying they are worthless, unworthy and ought to be hidden away someplace where we don't have to look at them and don't have to deal with them, and don't have to expose our children to them. =================== I demonstrate *no* attitude. So far I have described actual events. You have advocated shunning PC language in favor of "telling it like it is". That's all I've done. I didn't say anything at all about "burden on society". You chose to read that into my comments. Please recall, that's what you admonish others for. I said they were, in some instances, a burden on the learning environment in classrooms. They inhibit the ability of other pupils to learn (and the ability of the teacher to teach). Further, as KMAN points out, the mainstreamed classroom may be completely inappropriate for the child with disabilities as well. His description of "nose picking and pecker player" was particularly poignant, because I've seen both. I stand by my statement "they are, in some instances, a burden on the learning environment in classrooms." I challenge you to demonstrate otherwise. frtzw906 I guess one issue with phrasing it that way is that a learning environment is for learners (all of them). What is really happening is that the Grade 6 class is designed to deliver a curriculum to advance the Grade 6 students to Grade 7. This means that if you have people working at a Grade 1 level, they are being denied an appropriate curriculum, and any efforts to provide them an appropriate curriculum will in turn deny the Grade 6 students what they need. What it all boils down to is everyone should have a curriculum that meets their needs. |
Scott asserts:
============= Not in any sane educational system. In any place where there are *real* teachers; qualified, dedicated and understanding, even "difficult" children are not ejected from the system merely because they have emotional or cognitive difficulties to overcome. Teaching difficult, damaged students is hard, but it's immensely rewarding too when a child who was about to be given up as lost suddenly finds his or her way out of the darkness, with the help of a TEACHER. ============ I don't necessarily disagree. However, from the perspective of a teacher with 30 kids in her class, the immediate responsibility is to the majority. That is, if one particular student is disrupting the learning environment for 29 others, the "one" student needs to be isolated. Quite likely, this student requires special attention (both counselling and teaching) that cannot normally be given in a classroom. You've made the case for special treatment for gifted students. I don't disagree. I also make the case for special treatment for children with cognitive difficulties. frtzw906 |
Scott says:
============== This is where private schools can again excel by hiring and properly compensating the best and brightest teachers we have. ============= Interesting. This may be the case in the USA. In the private schools around my community, these teachers earn less and their compensation packages are inferior to their colleagues in the public sector. Scott reflects: =============== I've often wondered why it is that we will pay doctors hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to prescribe Valium and cough syrup, but we won't pay the people who have the most influence on our children's lives, other than the parents, a decent, living wage. ============= I've never had a problem paying my GP what he earns -- he *earns* it. However, I'd be happy to rephrase your statement and substitute "lawyers" for "doctors". frtzw906 |
KMAN refines my point (Thanks!):
================ What is really happening is that the Grade 6 class is designed to deliver a curriculum to advance the Grade 6 students to Grade 7. This means that if you have people working at a Grade 1 level, they are being denied an appropriate curriculum, and any efforts to provide them an appropriate curriculum will in turn deny the Grade 6 students what they need. What it all boils down to is everyone should have a curriculum that meets their needs. =================== You are right: "a learning environment is for learners (all of them). " We've opted for -- for a myriad of reasons -- a rather "industrial" model of education (most jurisdictions) for reasons of efficiency. Constant assaults on the funding of education just exacerbate the need for further efficiencies. The notion of "individualized" instruction takes a beating when classroom sizes escalate from about 22 per class to 35 per class in less than 10 years. It *is* possible to teach 35 (or more) pupils in a classroom, but the students had better be relatively homogeneous if that's your objective. That pretty-much rules out mainstreaming. frtzw906 |
Scott thinks:
============= Funny, I always thought that the goal was to figure out why the student was being disruptive, solve that problem and find ways to motivate the student so he becomes a scholar. ============= Right. And you're not going to be able to do that in a classroom of 35 pupils with at *least* 5 special needs (from gifted to disabled) mainstreamed into the mix. The average classroom teacher, given the average mix I describe above, is unable to deliver the quality you desire. However, if some of the special needs pupils were afforded the special programs they require, their problems could be diagnosed and solved/dealt with. frtzw906 |
Scott does an interesting about-turn on "disabled":
============== Do you know what the cure for "Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder" used to be? SMACK! "Now shut up, sit down and study, or you'll get another, and worse!" Seemed to work pretty well for most students for, oh, a couple of hundred years. Note that this corporal punishment is not to be meeted out to the disabled student who is incapable of control, but to the OTHER students who are allowing themselves to be distracted by what ought to be ignored. ================ So, you're suggesting that the cure for chemical or hormonal "disabilities" are "smacks upside the head". Hmmmm...... And the kid is supposed to know, from the SMACK, why his mind doesn't work like others' minds? So, Scott, exactly where are you able to draw the line and distinguish between what you call "the disabled student who is incapable of control" and those with ADHD? And, further, why do you distinguish? Is it just because the ADHD kid *looks* "normal"? You feel it is OK to pick on the disabled so long as they don't look like they are? Boy, oh, boy... you asked me to consider my motives... I think the shoe is on your foot. frtzw906 |
Scott, clearly demonstrating that he hasn't a clue what it is like to
teach: ===================== So, as regards your complaint about disabled students being a distraction in the classroom, I'm un-persuaded that your concern is legitimate. The solution for other students exposed to this distraction is to be taught to ignore it and get on with their studies, however that needs to be accomplished. ================= In the case of my anecdote, I can assure you, no amount of "concentrating" could have allowed one to ignore the utterances, shrieks, bellows, howling, and general thrashing about. Impossible. frtzw906 |
Scott asserts (likely not based on experience):
=================== The problem with "gifted" children tends to be that their parents, in their zeal to advance their child's intellect, unconsciously isolate their gifted children from their peers, usually by focusing on academics to the exclusion of socialization. Kids simply do not grow up to be socially isolated all by themselves, it takes parental complicity. ================== First, I don't think you know the difference between "bright" and "gifted". I have two daughters: one is bright (very right) and the other is gifted. There's a *huge* difference. Being gifted is, in a manner of speaking, a disability. Gifted kids view the world through different lenses and their classmates' impression of them is very similar to their impression of the child with other cognitive disabilities. In a small elementary school, both groups of kids are very much alone. As KMAN points out, kids need peer groups and friends who will invite them to birthday parties and the like. I can assure you, the socialization difficulties my daughter had at elementary school had nothing to do with her parents. Her difficulties were those of a disabled child. Once she was in high school, she found like-minded students. Now that she's at university, she's got a wide social circle. It's more about having peers that one can relate to than it is about anything the parent do or do not do. frtzw906 |
"BCITORGB" wrote:
Scott says: ============== This is where private schools can again excel by hiring and properly compensating the best and brightest teachers we have. ============= Interesting. This may be the case in the USA. In the private schools around my community, these teachers earn less and their compensation packages are inferior to their colleagues in the public sector. I'll stay out of this argument in general. (Though as a parent of an infant who will become a "special needs" student--and another child who may well be gifted--I do find it very interesting.) "Compensation" isn't necessarily financial. BCITORGB is right in that private schools (in Canada, anyway) pay their teachers less then public ones. I know, since I went to one of Canada's top private schools. But most of the teachers wouldn't think of trading their jobs for public school salaries. The compensation in this case is not financial, but rather in working conditions. (Note: I'm referring only to academic-type private schools, although I'm sure there are also private schools for the disabled.) Not only are there no mentally disabled students, there are also very few students who need that extra level of attention to "keep up". Class sizes are kept reasonable. Kids from families willing to spend the big bucks on education were probably raised to be interested in learning, and put that much more effort into their own education. Basically, there really is a good level of teacher-student interaction. And the teachers benefit from that as much as the students do. And it's not just the quality of the students--I recall having this discussion with one of my teachers--but also the quality of the parents. Having parents who are actually interested and involved in their children's education is very rewarding to the teachers (and while it may sound foreign to many of us, a large proportion of parents of children in public schools couldn't give a damn about the quality of the education, so long as their kids are out of sight and mind for several hours every day). -Paul |
Paul reports:
============== a large proportion of parents of children in public schools couldn't give a damn about the quality of the education, so long as their kids are out of sight and mind for several hours every day). ================ While I agree with much of what you say, this comment I'll disagree with. Most parents, I believe, have a genuine concern for the welfare and success of their children. I'll rephrase: "a very small proportion of parents of children in public schools couldn't give a damn about the quality of the education, so long as their kids are out of sight and mind for several hours every day)." But I'll take it a step further, and make the same claim of private schools -- especially the boarding schools. "Out of sight, out of mind". I think this is even more the case with the significant number of so-called "satellite" kids who now get enrolled in private schools (not that that's not also an issue in the public schools -- particularly in higher socio-economic neighborhoods). frtzw906 |
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 4/3/05 10:14 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself frtzw906 wrote: KMAN picks up something I missed. Thanks: As to the other daughter, being gifted, she is unlikely to have as many problems with socialization Are you nuts? That's one of the groups that has the most problems with socialization! Worse than software engineers! (Although sometimes one in the same). It's not the kids who have problems, it's the parents and schools which create problems. ========================= Exactly! As I mentioned, one of my daughters fits into the gifted category. One of the most heart-wrenching experiences for me (I can't even imagine how it must have been for her!) was picking her up from school with a couple hundred kids playing on the playground and she, always, by herself with no friends. High school was a relief. University has been a godsend for her. ==================== This is why it's imperative that children be carefully socialized very early, beginning when they are babies and toddlers, so that no matter how bright they are, they are still well able to communicate and interact with their peers. The problem with "gifted" children tends to be that their parents, in their zeal to advance their child's intellect, unconsciously isolate their gifted children from their peers, usually by focusing on academics to the exclusion of socialization. Kids simply do not grow up to be socially isolated all by themselves, it takes parental complicity. Actually, once kids reach adolescense, the fact that they were well socialized at an early age seems to matter very little, in terms of the experiences of gifted children and children with intellectual disabilities. The high school experience results in abuse and isolation, even if physically integrated with other kids. I'll grant you that high school is a cruel place, but it's a lot less cruel if a large proportion of the students have grown up with disabled schoolmates. It takes time, of course, to change the culture. and will experience socialization at her new school as well, and will receive a better education. Keeping her in public school would be unfair to her, particularly so if its done *because* she has a disabled sister. Explain again. The child who is gifted is better off in a specialized environment with other people who are gifted, but the child who has a disability is not better off in a specialized environment with other people who are disabled. Why? ================= Excellent question. Gifted minds need to know. =============================== Because gifted students need specialized teaching and stimulation to fully realize their *intellectual* potential. And you don't think a student with an intellectual disability needs specialized teaching and stimulation to fully realize his/her intellectual potential? I believe I said that just below. However, their needs are different. Don't you think it would be even more important for that student than the student who is gifted, given that the student who is gifted is likely bound for many more years of formal educational opportunities, where as the student who has an intellectual disability is likely to complete their formal education at the end of high school? It depends in part on the nature of the disability. If they are unchallenged by ordinary educational curricula, they become bored and often disruptive and their intellect suffers. What do you think is happening to the intellect of the student with an intellectual disability who is forced to sit through an irrelevant curriculum? What do you think is happening to their behaviour? How do you think it impacts on them to be sitting in a classroom with a curriculum that doesn't meet their needs, being bored, and being disruptive. Do you think that earns them a whole pile of non-disabled peers who invite them out on dates for Saturday night? Nobody said it was easy. Still, mainstreaming disabled students is better for them, and for their peers, and for society, than hiding them away in "special" schools. We tried that model. It doesn't work. At the same time, gifted children also need socialization time with "ordinary" children, so that they can also learn how to come to grips with their intellect and learn how to integrate into a society that may try to exclude them out of jealousy or merely because they are the "green monkey." Gifted children must learn how to put on social camouflage so that they can associate successfully with those who may not be as intellectually advanced. But these lessons are much easier for gifted students to learn, in part because of their intellect, but also because they can learn to "hide" their intellect when necessary. It's not like being in a motorized wheelchair or having some physical deformity. Disabled children also need specialized instruction to help compensate for their disabilities If you mean they need learning opportunities that are appropriate to their needs, that is certainly true. Yup. but most of all they need socialization with others to learn the skills of living in the world that they cannot receive in special, disabled-only classes. Do you have evidence that they learn these socialization skills through being placed in classes where the curriculum is directed to everyone but them? It depends on the individual student, the particular class, and the specific needs of the disabled student. It may well require additional teaching aides to help the disabled student keep up. It may require special teaching techniques and tools. It may even require modifying the *whole* curriculum so that the "normal" students participate in ways which help the disabled students through. Peer mentoring has had some success. It's a matter of tailoring the classroom to the students, not tailoring the students to the classroom, which is a fundamental paradigm shift for most public schools. In such classes, what socialization they learn is how to interact socially with other disabled children, not with everybody else. You might want to learn more about what goes on when students with intellectual disabilities are placed in the mainstream classes, and see if the results are as you expect. You might want to not make assumptions about what I know about the subject. What most students with intellectual disabilities need more than anything is a peer group, just like the rest of us sought out in high school. They want peers they can relate to and they want friends - real friends - who spend time with them on weekends and during the summer. Yup. I agree. And they find those peer groups not just among the disabled, but among ordinary students in a non-discriminatory environment. They also need a curriculum that meets their needs - learning how to use the public transportation system and how to manage money. Yup, but not until they are older. We're talking about young children here, remember. The need help with the challenge of a world that deals in abstraction, places importantance on sequencing, requires the ability to read the emotional states of others, and the ability to understand various social contexts and apply appropriate behaviours - all areas where people with intellectual disabilities experience severe learning difficulties. Yup. No argument there. They do need help in those areas beyond what an ordinary student would. None of that is taught in a Grade 12 chemistry class, Correct. What's taught in Chemistry is chemistry. Plenty of disabled students are capable of learning chemistry. Physics, too. Just look at Stephen Hawking. and in fact, you probably could not come up with a more cruel environment. Learning to deal with peer cruelty is also a necessary skill. I submit very little is being taught about socialization either. That may be true, but that is the fault of the educators and the people who oversee them (like the parents) not the student. So fix the problem. What is happening is the kid with the disabilitiy is picking his nose and playing with his pecker, which is in my view a toally appropriate response to being in an environment that has absolutely no relevance, and an environment where everyone else there can see that you are totally out of place and is reaching all sorts of disparaging conclusions about you. I find the way that you stereotype all "kids with disabilities." Very diverse of you. This leaves them with a deficit that can cripple them for life, not just physically or mentally, but socially. It leads to feelings of exclusion and isolation because they never have the opportunity to meet and make friends with non-disabled children. Do you have evidence that this happens as a result of being placed in the mainstream classroom? Sure. It happens all the time. To develop a friendship, mutual respect is required. It's hard to develop the respect of your non-disabled peers if you are sitting in algebra class doing self-stimulation to pass the time as concepts totally irrelevant to you and of no benefit to your future are discussed, and the rest of the class points at you and comes up with insulting nicknames. Stereotyping. What about the "disabled" kid who is perfectly normal intellectually, but was paralyzed in a car accident and can't move anything below her neck? Do you think she is going to be "self-stimulating" rather than learning algebra? You really need to examine your anti-disability prejudices a bit. Hiding the disabled away is also harmful to non-disabled children. I agree. Don't hide them. Give them a curriculum that meets their needs and make sure that their achievements are celebrated as loudly and proudly as anyone else in the school. You falsely presume that the only curriculum that they "need" is specialized life-skills training. Disabled kids need to learn math, science, english and all the things any child needs to learn. Yes, they may need MORE help, and specialized life-skills training *in addition* to their regular schooling, but that doesn't mean they should be excluded from mainstream society. It only exacerbates the "green monkey" syndrome and makes it much harder for non-disabled children to accept those who are different. It is to everyone's benefit that children be required to associate with and create relationships with disabled children as early as possible. The earlier the better, before prejudices, bigotry and bias rear their ugly heads. This works quite well in elementary school, but starting in middle school and by the time of high school it doesn't work, I disagree. How well it works in high school depends entirely on how much importance parents, teachers, students and the community as a whole puts on tolerance, diversity and empathy for the disabled. and part of the reason is simply that for the non-disabled students, the purpose of high school is to move on to the next academic step (university or college) which is not the destination for students with intellectual disabilities. Most high schools are little more than a 4 year holding pattern wherein children go through puberty and learn social skills. That being the case, one of the skills they need to learn is how to get along with the disabled. If they don't learn it then, they will grow up to be bigoted, intolerant "abilitists" who stereotype, demean and marginalize the disabled. They need a curriculum that is focused on giving them the most tools possible to enjoy a meaningful and contributing existence in the post-school world. Sitting in classrooms and spacing out while someone else's curriculum is delivered won't accomplish this. Stereotyping. Ensuring an inclusive school environment for all is very important, but putting kids with disabilities into a classroom that is delivering a curriculum that does not meet their needs for the misguided purpose of offering "socialization" is a fool's game. No, it's a game of compassion and diversity that every child needs to learn, if for no other reason than the "there but by the grace of God go I" lesson. And it is the person with the disability that suffers. Not necessarily. Not if the community is compassionate and supportive. Now, if you are talking about a person who happens to use a wheelchair but is perfectly capable of benefitting from the Grade 12 chemistry curriculum, then by all means, that's where they belong, not in some separate classroom doing the same work but separated from their non-disabled peers. The problem with your argument is that it makes grossly erroneous presumptions about "the disabled" and their abilities. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
On 3-Apr-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: Self-evidently, you cannot. I just point out your lies and stupidity. Well, I grant you there's a point somewhere, but most likely it's on the top of your head. And a sharp one it is, too. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Scott has a query about my anecdote: ============== And when you say the parents "clearly felt that the ESL numbers constituted a debit," is that a presumption you made based on their putting their gifted daughter in private school, or did they make quotable statements to that effect? I suspect the former, and I question your assumptions. ============== You suspect incorrectly: they made public statements regarding their displeasure with the large number of ESL (English as Second Language) students in the school. Well, thanks for at least clearing up the acronym issue. Can you point me to any such published or verifiable remarks? -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Scott correctly observes: =============== Children must be treated as INDIVIDUALS, and their INDIVIDUAL best interests should be served by their parents, to the best of their ability, without regard for other students, whose educations are the responsibility of their parents. ============== You are correct -- partially. Whereas the school system is mandated to serve the individualized needs of pupils, it is also required to protect the entire student body (the system) from the negative actions of students who hinder the advancement of others. Just as in any society, the INDIVIDUAL'S freedoms and rights stop where those rights and freedoms interfere with the rights and freedoms of others. So it is in schools as well. That falsely presumes that merely because a particular person is intellectually limited, that this constitutes an actionable "hindrance" of the advancement of other students. That's one of the conundrums of public schools: They have to serve everyone, and cannot, by their nature, serve each one as they may need or deserve. Sounds like what's needed is private schools... -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Scott demonstrates that he's never spent any time in a school classroom as an adult: ==================== And mainstreaming also places an undue and, at times, unfair burden on teachers and classmates. Only if you believe that providing a proper educational and social environment for someone who is already facing an enormous uphill battle just to survive is an "undue burden." Most people, and certainly most socialist egalitarianists, believe that helping the disabled is not an "undue burden" but is rather a mitzvah and a gift, and an opportunity to show charity and love and empathy and concern for those less fortunate, and a teachable moment particularly for children (as well as ignorant, bigoted adults) wherein the intrinsic value of every human being can be demonstrated and the rewards of altruistic service to others taught to impressionable youth. ==================== Scott, if you're trying to teach a lesson in arithmetic to a class of Grade 3 pupils and are repeatedly disrupted by random vocal and physical outbursts the, yes, that's an undue burden. I say it's an opportunity. Besides, you're stereotyping all "disabled children" with the broad brush. A burden on the teachers That's what they get paid the big bucks for. and the majority of the pupils, They'll just have to learn to deal with it. That's what they're there to do, isn't it? who, I might add, also have a right to an education individualized so as to maximize THEIR learning. In a PUBLIC school? BWAHAHAHAHAHAH! You pose an interesting dilemma. You veer away from the line taken by most right-wing critics of the educational system. Most such critics make the case that far too much time is taken up with mamby-pamby, soft stuff like socialization, and that not enough hard-core maths, science, reading et al are taught. So, we need to decide, during math class, should the primary focus be on the teaching of maths or should we repeatedly take time out for "socializing" whenever we get a random, irrelevant outburst? No reason it can't be both. I simply don't agree with your implied thesis that "normal" students are incapable of working through distractions. I'm sympathetic to the socialization argument. To a point. Once the socialzation becomes an undue burden to the teachers and other pupils (when their freedoms are being violated), then, I think, we've had enough. Well, there may be a limit, but you generalize far too much and try to use it as an argument not to mainstream disabled students. As I said before, each student is different, and will need different assistance. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
KMAN says: ========= To be fair, Scott may not realize that "blame it on ESL" is at the core of our public school apologistics (at least here in Ottawa). ========= KMAN, I was referring to Scott assuming I had made up this bit about ESL; he suggested that perhaps the parents hadn't actually said it. They had. The issue of non-english speaking students is an *entirely different argument* from that of disabled students. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:42 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com