|
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
"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? Hire another teacher or put the disabled students in a Grade 1 math class. -- 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 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. I disagree. Your persona attitude comes through loud and clear. Please note that I am not attributing this persona to you, the real person. So far I have described actual events. You've done a good deal of editorializing, not just stating facts. You have advocated shunning PC language in favor of "telling it like it is". That's all I've done. No problem. All I've done is challenge your persona's assertions. 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 see the implication, I state the observation. I said they were, in some instances, a burden on the learning environment in classrooms. Well, now that you're finally *qualifying* your statement by admitting that you're positing worst-case scenearios. They inhibit the ability of other pupils to learn (and the ability of the teacher to teach). I deny both as a categorical truth. I don't believe that students cannot learn to ignore distractions. In fact, I argue that providing them with distractions *causes* them to learn to concentrate. Concentration leads to better learning. 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. As have I. Still, hiding them away because they pick their nose or pull their pud is discriminatory. Clearly, what's needed is some additional assistance for the disabled child so that he is not bored. Nobody said it was easy, or cheap. I stand by my statement "they are, in some instances, a burden on the learning environment in classrooms." I challenge you to demonstrate otherwise. I will agree with the statement "in rare instances." For the most part, most "disabled" children can be successfully mainstreamed, in combination with additional special education. This is true because the profoundly disabled, who are the likely "pecker pullers" comprise only a small component of the disabled student population. The vast majority of students with disabilities both need and can benefit from mainstreaming. In those rare instances where it simply doesn't work out, some other plan is needed. -- 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 KMAN wrote:
"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. In this we can agree. I never suggested that disabled students should be "socially promoted." I find "social promotion" to be extremely harmful. I know, I'm a victim of that system. I was "socially promoted" in math, even after I *begged* to be kept back so I could learn the basics. As a result, my math skills are abysmal. -- 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 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. Sounds like a budget problem to me. Sounds to me like private schools are the answer. 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. That would depend on the particular student. 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. I have no problem with special treatment, but I do have a problem with discriminatory, exclusionary treatment. -- 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 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. Maybe they suffer under the same sort of socialistic system you have for health care.... 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". Works that way 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 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. Form smaller classes. 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. Hire more teachers. Oh, yeah, you have to pay more taxes for that...oh well. -- 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 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? Did you fail to read the sentence beginning with "Note" and ending with "ignored?" 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? Oh, it's pretty clear most of the time. Those in wheelchairs with profound mental disabilities are the "incapable of control" group. Unruly children who have never learned that they are not in charge are in the other group. It's pretty easy to identify the second group after even a short period of observation. And, further, why do you distinguish? Because it's the difference between an actual mental disability and simple lack of discipline and self-control. One can often be cured with a swift kick in the ass, the other can't. Even a dog can be taught not to pee on the carpet. 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? Children with "ADHD" aren't "disabled," they are "under-disciplined" and "unmotivated" to act appropriately. I frankly doubt such a thing as ADHD even exists, except in the devious minds of drug-makers and their research lackeys. Funny how this "disability" was only identified after a generation of undisciplined, over-stimulated children raised by incompetent, mollycoddling, permissive parents started going to school, drug-company researchers saw a golden opportunity to sell more prescription medications, and school officials saw a way to drug unruly students into lethargic zombiehood so they didn't have to deal with actually disciplining a child. You ought to watch "Supernanny" sometime to see obvious examples of parental failures in discipline that could very easily be "diagnosed" as ADHD by some school bureaucrat. They do that, you know. A school bureaucrat can simply *claim* that a child is "suffering from ADHD" based on his "expert" opinion, and the vast majority of the time the parents believe it and their kids end up drugged into a stupor. I'd rather teach them to pay attention, thank you very much. -- 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, 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. Funny, combat engineers and trauma physicians manage to concentrate with laser-like precision under much worse conditions. How do you suppose they learned to do this? -- 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 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. No, it's a gift and a challenge. 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. Then the fault lies with the school and the parents involved. 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. I would expect you to say so. Realize, however, that it may not be so. Her difficulties were those of a disabled child. Nobody said that growing up was easy. That's no reason to isolate anyone, however. 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. It's up to you to find her peers if necessary. -- 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 |
in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 4/3/05 2:23 AM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 4/1/05 11:23 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote: Thanks to KMAN: ============ If I may, for many a person with a disability, "handicapped" is like the n-word to many a person with black skin. I realize no offense likely intended frtzw906 :-) ============= You're right, none intended. As I was writing, I occasionally was about to write "disabled" but wasn't sure if that was perhaps the taboo expression. In another lifetime, I was in the public school system, and was more "aware". Now I occasionally get caught using n-word equivalencies... Sorry! It's not the "handicapped" that bothers me...people can be handicapped and I don't subscribe to the pressure to use "politically correct" speech It's not about being politically correct. My awakening on this issue comes simply from listening to people with disabilities and understanding how the rest of the world views them and how this impacts on the way they view themselves. I don't know one person with a disability who wants to be labelled as handicapped. Of course, they would prefer not to have any label at all. But there are times when it is pragmatically necessary, in which case, whatever the label, understanding that it is "a person with a disability" not a "disabled person" makes a huge difference. It's semantic politically-correct pettifoggery. Disabled people are disabled. No, they are people. It's just a fact of life. They are handicapped. They have a "disadvantage that makes achievement unusually difficult." It's only a pejorative term if one uses it in a pejorative context. Otherwise it's simply a statement of fact couched in a way that is, if anything, supportive of their disadvantage and it recognizes the fundamental strength of character that's implicit in their successes. If they find it important that you don't speak about them as though the disability IS their identity, rather than a part of who they are, why deliberately go out of your way? A person with a disability is just that - a person with a disability. They are not a "disabled person" like some car than won't run. Unless one is using it in a pejorative context, saying "That man is black" or "That woman is Asian" or "That child is Indian" or "That person is handicapped" is simply a statement of observed reality and ought not be cause for all this histrionic gum-flapping. The term "handicapped" is offensive to most people with disabilities, when you say "person with a handicap" or "handicapped person." Why do out of your way to use a term that you know offends, when there is no reason you have to use it? Engaging in politically corrrect sophistry doesn't help anybody, it just masks the *real* problem, which is that many people consider the handicapped (or disabled, or "person with a disability") as somehow inferior to others. It's not about being politically correct. Language used around people with disabilities and the way people with disabilities are treated/viewed are not two phenomena that develop in isolation. That's not the case. They are not inferior, they are not superior, they are equal in every way but one: they have a disadvantage that makes achievement unusually difficult. Lots of people have such disadvantages. Blacks. Indians. The poor. So what? Big deal. Denying that they are disadvantaged doesn't help them overcome the disadvantage and help them towards achievement I agree with all of the above. it merely silences the debate because people are too afraid of being politically incorrect to take ownership of the problems the disabled/handicapped face in life that each person can help to resolve. I disagree here. Affording someone the simple respect of acknowledging that they are first and foremost a person, and using terminologies that do not offend them, does not silence anyone. Getting all het-up about calling someone "handicapped" is just a way of avoiding the issue entirely. Only in the same way that getting het-up about calling someone a "******" is just a way of avoiding the issue entirely. Your position on this makes no sense. It makes it easy to say "hey, he's not handicapped and he doesn't need my help" and go on about your life with nary a thought to how you could ease the burden. All I've said is that if there is a need to refer to the fact that someone has a disability, the most respectful way to do so is to say that the are "a person with a disability" not a "disabled person" and not "handicapped" since that is a term that is as offensive to a person with a disability as "******" is to a person who is black. It also allows people to ignore the issues entirely by claiming that they don't want to be seen as being insensitive or discriminatory by noticing someone's disability, so they just *ignore the person entirely.* Using respectful language has nothing to do with what you are talking about. What you are talking about here is, however, quite interesting, and if it were not being spoken in the context of justification for deliberately using disrespectful language, would be a basis for an important discussion. If you don't think this is the case, spend a week in a wheelchair sometime. You become positively invisible. I have some significant insight into what people with disabilities experience. Sorry, but I believe in telling it like it is and facing things directly, not finding semantic refuges and dodges that allow me to avoid the issues. Sorry, that's not what I am advocating. I'm telling you that there are ways of being more respectful to a person with a disability. That has nothing to do with avoiding issues. You don't have to call someone who is black a ****** in order to directly face the issues concerning them. what offended me is the compartmentalizing of the handicapped child as a debit to the system and your presumption that this debit ought to be leveled out by abusing her sister out of egalitarian zeal. As to the anecdote in question, you can't begin to imagine how the hypocrisy of those parents ****ed me off. There's nothing in the least bit hypocritical about what they did. Their handicapped child is entitled to a public school education, according to your own vociferous arguments, and the parents are perfectly entitled to exercise that right. Her sister, however, is fortunate enough to get a better, private education at her parents expense, who, by the way are *still paying for her public school educational right!* Thus, while the bright sister's private education reduces the burden on the public school system, thus freeing up resources for other students, her parents are now, in effect, paying DOUBLE for the handicapped sister's education. What on earth is your complaint? It's not only no skin off your nose, it's actually beneficial to the school system as a whole. Your complaint sounds remarkably like sour grapes to me. Or you are being incredibly naďve and/or disingenuous. The outcome of this will be the erosion of funds for the public school system because support for paying the taxes to sustain public schools will plummet. Only if you let it happen. And if it does, what does that tell you about the value of a public school education? It tells you that people are selfish. Moreover, it won't happen because if it was going to happen, it would have *already happened.* But it's not happening, is it? People still pay taxes for public schools, and many of them put their kids in private schools anyway. No big disaster looming. Never has been. Will be. If you make public school education the sole domain of the poor and people with disabilities. The further outcome will be schools that are comprised entirely of the poor and people with disabilities. So what? So long as they are receiving a top-notch education funded by the public They won't be. which can afford to provide far more resources to each public school child than they could before, when children who had the means to get a private education were forced into the public system, thus clogging it up, who cares? Think of it as a way of providing much better, specialized education for those students. It won't happen. 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. And for them to malign the public system as they were in the process of diminishing it! How did they "malign" the system? By wishing to give their gifted daughter an education commensurate with her abilities? By exercising their handicapped daughter's fundamental right to a public school education while paying double what you pay for your child? Please enlighten us as to how they "maligned" the system. It stills makes my blood boil! If I were king for a day, private schools would be on the chopping block. Why? Because YOU can't afford one for your own kids? You would bind gifted children, or even ordinary children lucky enough to have wealthy parents to academic slavery merely in order to assuage your own guilt and anger over not being able to provide a premium education for your own children? You are leaping to the faulty conclusion that a publicly funded school is incapable of serving giften children appropriately. It's hardly a faulty conclusion. Every study ever done shows that private school educations are far superior, particularly when it comes to individualized instruction for the gifted, than public schools. Whoops, you are getting a bit mixed up. Those studies don't claim that a publicly funded school is incapable of serving gifted children appropriately, they claim that they simply aren't doing so. Obviously, they could, with the right approach and the right resources. It's a simple fact that public schools, by their nature, have to provide a uniform curriculum to every student because there is always insufficient money, resources and teachers to provide individualized instruction for gifted students. So provide what is needed. Even in the best public systems, which provide special "charter schools" and special schools for the gifted, the quality of education is far inferior to a private school education targeted at an individual student. And the more public schools become the sole domain of the poor and people with disabilities, the worse and worse the schools will get, since they will get less and less resources and less and less funding. |
in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 4/5/05 12:51 AM: 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. You won't change the culture by having people with intellectual disabilities sitting in a classroom while a curriculum targeted at everyone but them is followed. This just wrongly teaches the other kids that the students with intellectual disabilities are useless and at best are to be patronized as pets. To earn the respect of their non-disabled peers they need their own curriculum tailored to their needs where they can experience and demonstrate success. 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. Everyone needs a learning program that meets their needs. A high school kid with an intellectual disability needs a curriculum to prepare them for life after high school, not wasting time sitting in the back of a chemistry class picking their nose. 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. I'm talking about intellectual disabilities. 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. I haven't said a thing about a special school. And, frankly, the special school model is very old and was done at a time when a person with an intellectual disability being in school at all was considered progressive. Every student needs a curriculum that is right for them. Sticking a kid in a class that is not intended for their learning needs for five years is just the pre-abandonment phase for the lousy quality of life that will follow and the kids they were sitting with have moved on to post-secondary education and/or jobs. 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. They won't get it sitting in a class with a curriculum that has nothing to do with their needs or abilities. 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. Oh, what great socialization that is. So the rest of the class follows the teacher at the front doing their Grade 12 lessons, and the kid at the back sits in the corner with a TA doing his Grade 2 lessons. Yessir, that will develop a profound mutual respect and open up all sorts of social opportunities. 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. Ah, yes, the kids that are trying to get an A in Grade 12 chemistry so they can get into college will have their curriculum altered, and the teacher will stray from the curriculum to take time to include the kid with the intellectual disability. It's no problem if the chemistry curriculum doesn't get done and the kids don't get into college. Nobody will mind. 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. Good luck with that. As early as Grade 9 high school kids are being hammered (as are their teachers) with the need for high grades to get into college. That's what high school is for most students - preparation for the next stage of schooling. For students who aren't going on to post-secondary education, they need their own curriculum to prepare them for their own next step, not a watered down peanut gallery version of somebody else's curriculum. 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. Well, you are so far off in dreamland (for a guy who loves to acuse others of utopian thinking) that you clearly need a reality check. 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. You aren't going to find that sitting in the Grade 12 chemistry class, sticking out like a sore thumb and being humiliated by an environment that has no relevance to you. 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. I'm talking about high school. I told you some time ago that "mainstreaming" works quite well until about the end of elementary school. 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. And they won't get it in the mainstream high school class, where the kids are being prepared for the next step in their formal education. 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. Stephen Hawking does not have an intellectual disability. I haven't been talking about people with physical disabilities. Obviously there's no reason why a student with a physical disability who has the same or higher intellect than the other students in the Grade 12 chemistry class should not be a competent and contributing member of that class just like anyone else with those intellectual abilities. 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. Spend some time talking with kids who have been through it and see if they learned that skill, or if instead they developed mental health issues that ended up being more of a barrier for them than the intellectual disability itself. Talk to the parents of those kids when their kids are in their 30s and 40s and still haven't recovered from the damaged suffered. The high school environment holds little relevancy for life after high school. It's not worth deliberately forcing suffering on people just so they can experience the suffering, given that they aren't going to experience the special brand of high school suffering ever again. 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. You could fix the problem by changing the purpose of high school for all the kids, accomplished by elminating post-secondary education and competitive employment. 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. I'm talking about students with intellectual disabilitiesin high school, and have been throughout. 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. How do you know? 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 Obviously that's not who I am talking about. Give me a break. 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. You need to stop being disingenuous. You know that's not who I am talking about. 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. I never said that. Disabled kids need to learn math, science, english and all the things any child needs to learn. Yes. 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. I want them included in mainstream society. This is accomplished by having a curriculum that meets their needs, rather than sitting them in a Grade 12 chemistry class that is going to be of no benefit to having a better quality of life when school is out. If they can't go anywhere because they can't use the bus, can't buy anything because they can't use money, and have no social life because they have no friends, then I submit that whatever else they were doing was a complete waste of time. 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. None of that helps a bit. There is no way to make Grade 12 chemistry relevant for a person with an intellectual disability who still needs to learn how to make change for a 20. It doesn't do a thing for either the "regular" student or the "disabled" student to share a classroom environment where it is obvious to all concerned that the student with a disability is just filling up space. 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. That's exactly what they learn through mainstreaming, which is forcing the person with a disability into an environment that does not meed their needs, and puts them through 4 or 5 years of humiliation as everyone pretends they are included in a curriculum that is totally irrelevant to their needs. 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. If you were reading at a Grade 2 level and still learning how to break a 20, what would you do during algebra class? I'd space out as far as I could. Or worse, I'd act out and do whatever I could to communicate "get me the hell out of here." And that's what happens, one or the otther, or both. Does wonders for socialization, yessir. 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. You won't teach it or learn it by sticking someone in an environment that does nothing to meet their needs. And it is the person with the disability that suffers. Not necessarily. Not if the community is compassionate and supportive. If you compassionaltely and supportively force someone to endure a totally irrelevant environment, they still suffer. 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. No, it doesn't. It speaks what they have to say for themselves. Sit down with people with intellectual disabilities who endured mainstreaming in high school and ask them about it. Try to find out what they learned. Ask them how many friends they have from those mainstream classes. |
|
in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 4/3/05 2:27 AM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 4/1/05 11:26 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: "BCITORGB" wrote in message oups.com... Thanks to KMAN: ============ If I may, for many a person with a disability, "handicapped" is like the n-word to many a person with black skin. I realize no offense likely intended frtzw906 :-) ============= You're right, none intended. As I was writing, I occasionally was about to write "disabled" but wasn't sure if that was perhaps the taboo expression. In another lifetime, I was in the public school system, and was more "aware". Now I occasionally get caught using n-word equivalencies... Sorry! As to the anecdote in question, you can't begin to imagine how the hypocrisy of those parents ****ed me off. And for them to malign the public system as they were in the process of diminishing it! It stills makes my blood boil! If I were king for a day, private schools would be on the chopping block. [I might be persuaded that "choice" in education *might* be a good thing through some sort of voucher system so long as -- ditto the medicare program -- nobody could spend more than the voucher amount. I'd have to think this one through.] frtzw906 The challenge is to promote flexibility and excellence in education without ending up with nothing but elite schools for the gifted/rich and slums for everyone else. Well, the free market, combined with stipends for the genuinely poor solves that problem. It won't work. The amount of the stipend is obviously going to have limits, and the amount of taxes the free market payers are going to want to contribute to those vouchers is going to be next to nothing. Not unless society as a whole decides to abandon the poor, which is unlikely. If they were going to do so, they would have done so by now. You imply that contributing to public school education is optional or voluntary. I never suggested any such thing. I suggest that the stipend be based on need, and that it come from taxes that are levied equally on all, to reduce the burden to any individual as much as possible. Even the selfish rich would be unlikely to complain about a few dollars, or even a few hundred dollars in additional sales taxes paid to fund public schools. Schools in poor areas are already not getting the funding and resources they need. Poor people are already being abandoned, and what you are advocating only makes it easier to do so. However, in the present system, if "slum schools" happen, the blame falls on the government, not on the parents who put their children in private schools...while usually simultaneously paying for a by-right public school education for the same students. The fact is that the more students who are moved to private schools, the more money and resources available to those remaining in public schools. What on earth could be wrong with that? What's wrong with that is it is total crap. You don't know that. Sure I do. You merely assume it because you have no faith that the people will be willing to tax themselves to achieve it. Problem is, they ALREADY ARE. If they can get a better education for their children, while providing a better education for poor children for the same amount, or less, than they are now paying for a public school education, why wouldn't they? Because they won't want to pay for something they aren't using. They aren't willing to pay enough for decent public schools now...you think their interest will go UP when public schools become the sole domain of the poor and people with disabilities? The only real difference in the money stream is that the money goes with the child, not to the district. In this way, the educational system has something to compete for, which always results in a better product. What a joke. I have to admit, when I was in my early 20s I used to think a bit like you. The world doesn't work that way. Grow up. |
|
|
don't you guys knwo how to edit out old verbiage? Stephen Hawking does not have an intellectual disability. I haven't been He was in no way disabled as a child. I disagree with forcing kids to "socialize". It can be terribly traumatic to an intelligent sensitive mind. If a kid want's to be alone with his or her thoughts then leave him or her be. I also don't agree with focdign people of any age to take certified paddling instrctions. It's all a plot by busy bodies who want to control other people's lives because they are such failures in their own lives. It's the same reason peopel who can't solve thier own mental problems become clinical psychologists. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ William R Watt National Capital FreeNet Ottawa's free community network homepage: www.ncf.ca/~ag384/top.htm warning: non-FreeNet email must have "notspam" in subject or it's returned |
Scott proposes a model tat contradicts earlier comments:
================== 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. ============== I'm not entirely opposed to this. However, may I remind you that you thought it entirely appropriate for wealthy parents, of brighter kids, to take those kids out of the public school environment. Your point was that they have every obligation to look after the best interests of their child. Let's go with that proposition. What if I decide that it is NOT in my child's best interests to mentor someone else? You claim the move to a private school, to "escape" the public school environment, is appropriate for wealthy people. Where's my child's right to "escape" and to have an individualized curriculum? frtzw906 |
Scott:
============= I find the way that you stereotype all "kids with disabilities." Very diverse of you. =========== This sort of nit-picking does nothing to advance the discussion. Given the context of the thread thus far, we all know full well the nature of the disability KMAN is referring to. frtzw906 |
Scott informs:
============ Most high schools are little more than a 4 year holding pattern wherein children go through puberty and learn social skills. ============ That perhaps explains why the USA lags behind most industrialized nations in school performance. Too much socializing (and football and cheerleading,) and not enough math. frtzw906 |
Scott compassionately asserts:
==================== 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. ============== Except, as Scott has said in response to what started this sub-thread, if you are wealthy enough to send your kid to private school where there are no children with intellectual disabilities. frtzw906 |
Scott:
=============== Well, thanks for at least clearing up the acronym issue. Can you point me to any such published or verifiable remarks? ============== Yes, we were having a beer while watching fireworks. When I enquired about the brighter girl being at private school, that's the reason given. Good enough for you? frtzw906 |
Scott:
============ That falsely presumes that merely because a particular person is intellectually limited, that this constitutes an actionable "hindrance" of the advancement of other students. ============ I made no such presumption. The context was a student (and many more like her), who repeatedly interrupted classroom activities with violent vocal and physical outbursts. That's a hindrance! frtzw906 |
Scott says:
============= I say it's an opportunity. Besides, you're stereotyping all "disabled children" with the broad brush. =============== First, I established the nature of the disability and the nature of the interruptions, so there was no broad brush -- I was specific. As an opportunity it wears thin real fast.... oh.... after about 2 days. frtzw906 |
Scott scoffs:
============== who, I might add, also have a right to an education individualized so as to maximize THEIR learning. In a PUBLIC school? BWAHAHAHAHAHAH! =============== Likely a reflection of the poor job being done in the USA. Notwithstanding some difficulties, Canada, as you've been informed, does quite well in international comparisons. So scoff if you will, but keep your scoffing to references to the USA, OK? frtzw906 |
Scott asserts (incorrectly):
============= 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. ============= I've made NO argument not to mainstream. I've made arguments that there are times when it is *not* appropriate. frtzw906 |
Scott recommends:
============ Hire another teacher or put the disabled students in a Grade 1 math class. ============ Oh yeah, I totally forgot about the budget surplus. frtzw906 |
Scott:
=========== I said they were, in some instances, a burden on the learning environment in classrooms. Well, now that you're finally *qualifying* your statement by admitting that you're positing worst-case scenearios. ============== Not "worst-case" at all insofar as they are "worst" but they are also quite common -- to be encountered in almost *every* school. frtzw906 |
The warm and fuzzy Scott opines:
=============== I will agree with the statement "in rare instances." For the most part, most "disabled" children can be successfully mainstreamed, in combination with additional special education. This is true because the profoundly disabled, who are the likely "pecker pullers" comprise only a small component of the disabled student population. The vast majority of students with disabilities both need and can benefit from mainstreaming. In those rare instances where it simply doesn't work out, some other plan is needed. ============ We agree. This sub-thread started however, with the tale of two sisters, one of whom was what you characterized as a "worst-case" scenario. The subsequent discussion revolved around the hypocrisy of the parents, leaving the "worst-case" scenario in the public school, for less-wealthy pupils do deal with, while they took their brighter daughter out of that environment and into a private school. frtzw906 |
Scott:
========= I have no problem with special treatment, but I do have a problem with discriminatory, exclusionary treatment. ============== As do I. frtzw906 |
Scott in a state of confusion....
================= 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. Maybe they suffer under the same sort of socialistic system you have for health care.... ================ Huh!? frtzw906 |
Scott, confusing multiple issues:
================ 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? Did you fail to read the sentence beginning with "Note" and ending with "ignored?" =================== You recommned a SMACK for ADHD students. I queriesd whether you thought that was appropriate for students, such as they, who have no idea why their minds work differently than others'. You still hven't answered. frtzw906 |
Doctor Scott:
=========== Children with "ADHD" aren't "disabled," they are "under-disciplined" and "unmotivated" to act appropriately. I frankly doubt such a thing as ADHD even exists, except in the devious minds of drug-makers and their research lackeys. You ought to watch "Supernanny" sometime ... ============== So you got your medical credentials from TV, did you? Look, on many of the "types" you describe, our solutions may be quite similar. However, I happen to know some very well-mannered kids who have AD disorder. They just can't comprehend the way others can. They have a disability. So, Dr Scott, how about other people who look "normal" but suffer from mental illnesses; will a SMACK cure them as well? After all your advocating for the disabled, you've just completely lost credibility. You're obviously just a sucker for the "look" of a person with disabilities. How shallow. frtzw906 |
|
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
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. You won't change the culture by having people with intellectual disabilities sitting in a classroom while a curriculum targeted at everyone but them is followed. This just wrongly teaches the other kids that the students with intellectual disabilities are useless and at best are to be patronized as pets. Then change the curriculum or place the disabled child in the appropriate class. To earn the respect of their non-disabled peers they need their own curriculum tailored to their needs where they can experience and demonstrate success. Indeed, but they must be taught in conjunction WITH their peers, which is to say in the same facilities and classrooms, whenever possible. Otherwise you end up with the old, two-tier system of separate schooling for the disabled. Properly integrating the disabled (and there are many different types and degrees of disability) into mainstream schools can be difficult, and often requires individualized instruction that may require in-class tutors and assistants for the disabled, as well as special classes to help them keep up. The primary component of mainstreaming, however, is that the disabled students are to be kept in the general classroom with their peers whenever, and to the maximum extent possible, depending on the individual disabled student. 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. Everyone needs a learning program that meets their needs. A high school kid with an intellectual disability needs a curriculum to prepare them for life after high school, not wasting time sitting in the back of a chemistry class picking their nose. You falsely assume that all disable students are equal, and that all of them are incapable of comprehending chemistry and that all of them do nothing but pick their noses. This is merely ignorant bigotry. 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. I'm talking about intellectual disabilities. I'm talking about every possible variety of disability. Keep in mind that "intellectual" disabilities are often misdiagnosed and children who are actually quite intelligent are pigeon-holed as "mentally disabled" merely because their ability to communicate is impaired. Again, I refer you to Stephen Hawking, perhaps the most intelligent human being alive on the planet today, who can barely communicate at all, but when he does, human knowledge and scientific understanding are advanced substantially. The child suffering from cerebral palsy may have normal learning capacity but suffer from an inability to control her body or communicate. CP is "brain damage," but it doesn't mean that the child is unteachable. You don't specify what disability the particular child you are so upset about has, so it's hard to judge whether the problems are caused by parents, teachers, peers or are simply a function of the degree of intellectual 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. I haven't said a thing about a special school. And yet you clearly imply that they need to be taken out of the general classroom so that they are not "disruptive." If they are not to go to a special school, what are you suggesting as a way to fulfill their RIGHT to an education? And, frankly, the special school model is very old and was done at a time when a person with an intellectual disability being in school at all was considered progressive. Every student needs a curriculum that is right for them. Sticking a kid in a class that is not intended for their learning needs for five years is just the pre-abandonment phase for the lousy quality of life that will follow and the kids they were sitting with have moved on to post-secondary education and/or jobs. You're the only one suggesting that disabled kids be "stuck in a class that is not intended for their learning needs." I've never even hinted at such a plan. 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. They won't get it sitting in a class with a curriculum that has nothing to do with their needs or abilities. The needs of disabled students are, at the core, exactly the same as the needs of any child. That a disabled child may have *additional* needs does not take away from their need for basic education and socialization. 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. Oh, what great socialization that is. So the rest of the class follows the teacher at the front doing their Grade 12 lessons, and the kid at the back sits in the corner with a TA doing his Grade 2 lessons. Yessir, that will develop a profound mutual respect and open up all sorts of social opportunities. You're the only one making such a suggestion, and it's demeaning and bigoted of you to do so because you use a blanket characterization (and a largely incorrect one at that) to disparage all disabled students. 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. Ah, yes, the kids that are trying to get an A in Grade 12 chemistry so they can get into college will have their curriculum altered, and the teacher will stray from the curriculum to take time to include the kid with the intellectual disability. It's no problem if the chemistry curriculum doesn't get done and the kids don't get into college. Nobody will mind. Thus are the vicissitudes of a public school education. When you suck at the public teat, you get the same pabulum everybody else does, and in public schools, the curriculum is quite often concocted to serve the lowest common denominator. Pity about that, but that's socialism for you. Sounds like you need to send your kids to private school. ;-) 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. Good luck with that. Nobody said it would be easy. As early as Grade 9 high school kids are being hammered (as are their teachers) with the need for high grades to get into college. As should be the case. Going to college should be a *privilege* offered to the best of the best of our young scholars. When society "levels" colleges like they do public schools, you end up with the same pabulum being served and you end up with hordes of unqualified graduates with useless degrees that represent nothing more than 4 (or more likely 6) wasted years and a couple of hundred thousand dollars down the rat-hole of liberal arts, and they end up flipping burgers, hauling trash and digging ditches anyway. That's what high school is for most students - preparation for the next stage of schooling. Hardly. Most kids learn next to nothing in high school, or college, except where the best parties are and where to score some really gnarly bud. Scholars truly interested in, and deserving of a college education don't usually get there through the public school system. When they do, it's in *spite* of the public schools, not because of them. For students who aren't going on to post-secondary education, they need their own curriculum to prepare them for their own next step, not a watered down peanut gallery version of somebody else's curriculum. Great argument for the elimination of public schools in favor of private ones! 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. You aren't going to find that sitting in the Grade 12 chemistry class, sticking out like a sore thumb and being humiliated by an environment that has no relevance to you. Depends on whether you are up to Grade 12 chemistry. Just because a person is disabled, even mentally, doesn't mean they are incapable of cognition. 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. And they won't get it in the mainstream high school class, where the kids are being prepared for the next step in their formal education. No, they DON'T get it, because of people who dismiss and demean them as worthless and unable to be anything but a burden and drag on the system. As for the other kids, one of the greatest lessons they can ever learn is not to be judgmental, bigoted assholes towards people with disabilities. 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. Stephen Hawking does not have an intellectual disability. Indeed. Nor do many disabled students, even ones with brain dysfunctions like CP. The problem is in figuring out who's who. Too often, children who have vast untapped intellectual potential are discriminated against by ignorant bigots who *think* that they are intellectually deficient merely because the child cannot communicate very well. It's not at all uncommon for teachers and parents to assume that bad, anti-social behavior is caused by a brain defect, when in fact it's caused by frustration and anger in a child who understands *exactly* what's happening to him, but who is unable to communicate his needs and desires to uncaring, bigoted people around him who judge him on his appearance and demeanor without taking the time to discover why it is that he's acting so badly. Often, the reason for bad conduct is simple frustration and anger, not intellectual deficiencies. Imagine the anger you would feel if you were brain-damaged to the extent that you could not communicate but still understood exactly what was going on, were well able to think and reason and learn, but found that people were treating you like a useless piece of humanity with no ability to think or reason? It would **** me off to no end, and I might very well decide to engage in socially inappropriate behavior in public out of pique and spite, just to garner attention and relieve my frustration. You wrongly presume that all children with brain defects are properly diagnosed and are getting appropriate care and support for their true level of disability. That's hardly the case. Disabled kids are misdiagnosed and their abilities underestimated all the time...probably more often than not...and far too often, embarrassed parents try to hide them away, either deliberately or wrong-headedly denying them socialization and education because they are afraid of being ridiculed or simply believe their kids are incapable of learning and thus don't need social intercourse. One of the other purposes of mainstreaming is to make sure that disabled children are NOT isolated at home, but rather that they are moved into society so that they can at least be given every opportunity to demonstrate their intellectual capacity in an intellectually stimulating environment. Many are the success stories of isolated children who appeared to be intellectually bereft who came out of their shells and proved to have great intellect once they were removed from isolation and challenged intellectually by concerned, caring educators trained to find ways to communicate with the uncommunicative. Finding those lost souls is one of the duties public schools have, even if it "drags down" the quality of education for others, which it does not. I haven't been talking about people with physical disabilities. I have. I know you'd like to limit the debate, but I'm not going to play that game. Obviously there's no reason why a student with a physical disability who has the same or higher intellect than the other students in the Grade 12 chemistry class should not be a competent and contributing member of that class just like anyone else with those intellectual abilities. Even if they are disruptive and like to pick their nose and pull their puds because they are angry and frustrated at being denied the necessary assistance to succeed? CP is a *physical disability* just like quadriplegia, and you can't judge a book by its cover. 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. Spend some time talking with kids who have been through it and see if they learned that skill, or if instead they developed mental health issues that ended up being more of a barrier for them than the intellectual disability itself. Talk to the parents of those kids when their kids are in their 30s and 40s and still haven't recovered from the damaged suffered. You mean like me? I was an outcast in high school because I grew up on an isolated farm and because I was intellectually superior to most of my peers and was bored to tears with the dearth of educational stimulation (except for math, which I just never got...my brother, an aeronautical engineer who works for Burt Rutan and helped design Spaceship One, got the math genes...I'm the artistic one) and was one of those students who could finish all the coursework and reading in a given class in the first month of the session. Of course, the teachers wouldnąt *let* me prove I'd learned what they set out to teach me and thus allow me to either move on or do something else entirely, so I was bored most of the time and did my share of "acting out." That's one reason I never completed college. Professors hate it when their students won't play the game of "Academic Fellatio." I gave up on them after a while, recognizing that many of them weren't nearly as smart as I am, and that they didn't react well when that was demonstrated to all in class. I associated mostly with adults when I was a child, many of them college professors, actors, writers and prominent scientists, including Theodore Sturgeon, Robert Heinlein, Vladimir Nabokov and Leo Zilard (one of the inventors of the atomic bomb) so I learned early how to communicate at an adult level. I spent my summer vacations at the Mary Rippon Theater at CU, soaking up Shakespeare, wiring lights, selling cookies and tee shirts and learning stage-fighting. I got my first kiss under the house left stairs into Hellems from an actress several years my senior. My intellect and my unique upbringing made it difficult to get along in school, which was exacerbated by my physical appearance, and I suffered at the hands of a number of bullies and bigots throughout my school days. Remember your high school days? There was always at least one kid, either fat or skinny, who wore hideous orange plaid shirts and green slacks and either carried a briefcase or had a pen-protector in his pocket, and almost always wore glasses. He's the guy like "Sheldon" on Saturday Night Live that was always being pushed around and rejected. That was me, until my senior year in high school, when I discovered fashion, learned some useful self-defense techniques, and finally found a girlfriend who was something other than a vacuous bimbo who couldn't hold up her end of an argument. Turns out she was bisexual, but hey, that didn't really bother me because whatever her other proclivities, she liked me...and so did her girlfriend. Ah, the Seventies! I know first-hand exactly what you're talking about, which is why I'm arguing that such social dynamics are a necessary and desirable part of every child's school experience. It prepares them better for life, where there are many more assholes and bigots around than in school. School trauma is unfortunate, but it's just part of life, and I soon learned to deal with it, as most people do. While ostracism in school is hurtful, it's also part and parcel of learning social skills and coping mechanisms. Do you want to know who the *most* damaged high school students are? It's usually the prom queens, head cheerleaders and jocks, who have their whole identities tied up in the acceptance and adulation of their peers. When they get out of school, and fall from that pedestal, they sometimes fall all the way down and never really recover. "Those of us who knew the pain of valentines that never came, and those whose name were never called when choosing sides for basketball" are stronger, better people for the experience, because we learn our own value, and the value of true friendship and how to cope with rejection and cruelty, all lessons that serve us well in adulthood. (with no apology whatever to Janis Ian, one of my comrades in arms) I wouldn't choose to go through it again, but I'm a better person for having done so. The really strange thing to me is that for being such a social outcast in high school, as recently as three years ago, THIRTY YEARS LATER, from time to time people I would swear on a stack of bibles I had never met before in my life will approach me in public and tell me that they went to high school with me. Weird in the extreme! I must have had a much greater impact on my peers than I ever knew. The high school environment holds little relevancy for life after high school. It's not worth deliberately forcing suffering on people just so they can experience the suffering, given that they aren't going to experience the special brand of high school suffering ever again. I disagree completely. The suffering of high school is *nothing* compared to the suffering in the "real world" they will experience if they don't learn how to cope with rejection and peer pressure in school. 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. You could fix the problem by changing the purpose of high school for all the kids, accomplished by elminating post-secondary education and competitive employment. I imagine there are other, better ways as well. Costly perhaps, but hey, it's worth it, right? 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. I'm talking about students with intellectual disabilitiesin high school, and have been throughout. Yes, you've been trying manfully to divert the discussion, but I'm not playing. 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 Obviously that's not who I am talking about. Give me a break. Nope, sorry, no breaks for you at all. 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. You need to stop being disingenuous. You know that's not who I am talking about. Aren't you? I think you're trying to evade the issue by attempting to divert the discussion. 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. I never said that. That's the implication of your statements. You don't want them in classes with "normal" children because they might be disruptive, and you harp continuously on your presumption that they "need" specialized training that "meets their needs" while all the while ignoring the fact that one of the most pressing "needs" they have is to participate in society and learn to socialize with their peers. Disabled kids need to learn math, science, english and all the things any child needs to learn. Yes. 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. I want them included in mainstream society. This is accomplished by having a curriculum that meets their needs, rather than sitting them in a Grade 12 chemistry class that is going to be of no benefit to having a better quality of life when school is out. How do YOU know it's not going to be of any benefit to them? Are you omnipotent? Hell, I didn't think that I needed to know the rules of grammar, sentence structure and parsing or punctuation in junior high, so I bailed on a lot of English classes. Now I'm an editor, journalist and a writer who still has to refer to the Chicago Manual of Style more often than I should. What the hell do YOU know about what every individual disabled child "needs" by way of education? If they can't go anywhere because they can't use the bus, can't buy anything because they can't use money, and have no social life because they have no friends, then I submit that whatever else they were doing was a complete waste of time. You suggest that they should learn these things to the exclusion of academic achievement merely because they might "drag down" the system if other students were forced to cope with their presence in school. Nobody but you is suggesting that disabled students don't need specialized instruction in life skills unique to their disability. That does not preclude their need for an ordinary academic education and school-based socialization. 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. None of that helps a bit. How wrong you are is astonishing. There is no way to make Grade 12 chemistry relevant for a person with an intellectual disability who still needs to learn how to make change for a 20. Nice bigoted categorization there. It doesn't do a thing for either the "regular" student or the "disabled" student to share a classroom environment where it is obvious to all concerned that the student with a disability is just filling up space. Well, it's their space to fill, or don't you get the fact that they have a RIGHT to fill that space, even if it doesn't do them one damned bit of good. That's the mandate of public educational systems. Besides, there's more to school than rote learning. 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. That's exactly what they learn through mainstreaming, which is forcing the person with a disability into an environment that does not meed their needs, and puts them through 4 or 5 years of humiliation as everyone pretends they are included in a curriculum that is totally irrelevant to their needs. You don't understand what their needs are, so you are hardly qualified to judge. 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. If you were reading at a Grade 2 level and still learning how to break a 20, what would you do during algebra class? I'd space out as far as I could. Or worse, I'd act out and do whatever I could to communicate "get me the hell out of here." And that's what happens, one or the otther, or both. Does wonders for socialization, yessir. You're the only one here insisting that someone who has yet to learn to "break a 20" be placed in an algebra class. -- 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 William R. Watt wrote:
don't you guys knwo how to edit out old verbiage? Stephen Hawking does not have an intellectual disability. I haven't been He was in no way disabled as a child. I disagree with forcing kids to "socialize". It can be terribly traumatic to an intelligent sensitive mind. If a kid want's to be alone with his or her thoughts then leave him or her be. Bad idea. It results in isolated, depressed, socially-inept people who are rarely successful or happy in later life. Sometimes it ends up in suicide. -- 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 proposes a model tat contradicts earlier comments: ================== 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. ============== I'm not entirely opposed to this. However, may I remind you that you thought it entirely appropriate for wealthy parents, of brighter kids, to take those kids out of the public school environment. Your point was that they have every obligation to look after the best interests of their child. Let's go with that proposition. What if I decide that it is NOT in my child's best interests to mentor someone else? You claim the move to a private school, to "escape" the public school environment, is appropriate for wealthy people. Where's my child's right to "escape" and to have an individualized curriculum? I never suggested that any child should be compelled to attend public school if private schools are an option, I merely state that for those who must, perforce, attend public school, they ought to be required to assist those in need as a part of the curriculum. -- 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: ============= I find the way that you stereotype all "kids with disabilities." Very diverse of you. =========== This sort of nit-picking does nothing to advance the discussion. Given the context of the thread thus far, we all know full well the nature of the disability KMAN is referring to. But do "we" accept his attempt to narrow the discussion? No, not I. -- 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 informs: ============ Most high schools are little more than a 4 year holding pattern wherein children go through puberty and learn social skills. ============ That perhaps explains why the USA lags behind most industrialized nations in school performance. Too much socializing (and football and cheerleading,) and not enough math. I don't disagree at all. All things in moderation. -- 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 07:29 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com