|
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
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. Yup, that's an issue. It's one of the considerations parents must take into account when taking their children out of public school. Will doing so have unintended negative consequences for my child in later life? But, the point is that the decision is up to the parents, not the state. -- 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: =============== 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? Nope. Name, address, phone number. -- 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: ============ 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! Nope. It's an opportunity likely combined with a cry for help. -- 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: ============= 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. No, you weren't. You have been extremely vague about the *specific* student, but you have been attempting to tar *all* disabled students with that particular brush during a discussion of general policy. As an opportunity it wears thin real fast.... oh.... after about 2 days. Only for the intellectually and compassion challenged. -- 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 (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. And yet you apply your arguments to the broader issues by omission and implication. I don't deny that in extraordinary cases, a particular child may not be able to successfully integrate into school society, but every child deserves the *chance* to try. I'm not going to argue a specific case with you because it's pointless to do so. This is a discussion of general policies and ideas. -- 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 recommends: ============ Hire another teacher or put the disabled students in a Grade 1 math class. ============ Oh yeah, I totally forgot about the budget surplus. It's not a matter of budgets, it's a matter of social priorities. -- 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:
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. No, you've been trying to limit the scope of the discussion, and I've not been allowing it. An anecdote in this context serves only as an illustration, not a determinative example. -- 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, 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. No, I recommend appropriate corporal punishment for students who haven't been taught by their parents to be quiet, respectful and obedient to authority and who haven't learned to concentrate. I deny that just because a student is disruptive and unwilling to concentrate or obey, that the student is *unable* to concentrate or obey due to some phony, concocted "diagnosis" that is little more than a marketing tool for Ritalin. Overcoming "ADHD" is something you *learn* to do, not something you can be medicated into. Sometimes children need to be caused to focus, and corporal punishment, in appropriate measure, can be an effective tool for obtaining obedience and stimulating focus. Most of the time, "ADHD" is nothing more than a sugar high caused by poor nutrition and breakfast cereal combined with lax, permissive parenting that spills over into the classroom. -- 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:
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? Nope, thousands of years of human history. 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. Hogwash. So, Dr Scott, how about other people who look "normal" but suffer from mental illnesses; will a SMACK cure them as well? Depends on the illness. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Even advocates for mentally disabled children (such as those with CP) tell parents not to coddle their children or tolerate misbehavior. 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. It's not their appearance, it's their behavior. I'm not saying that parents or teachers should cane disabled children (or any children), I'm merely saying that the current vogue of declaring unruly children to be suffering from "ADHD" is entirely generated by bad-behavior, permissive-parenting apologists and drug companies, and that this "disorder," if it exists at all, which I doubt, only truly exists in an extremely small fraction of children. Thus, the current practice of medicating vast numbers of exuberant, undisciplined children by schools is based in two things: The crippling fear of educators to use corporal punishment to maintain order in the schools and a desire to avoid the issue and the problem of disciplining children that haven't been disciplined at home by applying the convenient "ADHD" diagnosis. That way the school can wash its hands of the "problem child," demand that the child be medicated into a stupor, and blame their inability to control students on a fictional "condition" the child supposedly suffers from. It's a giant racket, and a fraud, and it ought to be stopped. How shallow. You'd like to think so, but it ain't so. -- 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 |
Scott incorrectly states:
=============== 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. ================ KMAN does nothing of the sort. You just keep reading it that way. Surely from everything he's said thus far, you can't believe that of him. frtzw906 |
Scott:
============== 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. ============== And KMAN hasn't said you did. He's just reporting on the realities. frtzw906 |
Scott, intending to be argumentative, but detracting from the
discussion: =================== 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. ====================== I think *everyone* knows exactly what KMAN is talking about. There's nothing at all disparaging about his suggestions as they pertain to individuals with profound intellectual disabilities. frtzw906 |
Scott:
=============== 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. ================ Whoops! May I remind you one more time about the superior learning outcomes for the Canadian school system. frtzw906 |
Scott:
============== 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. ============= Is that a true reflection of the American system, Scott? From a Canadian perspective you're wrong: The vast majority of "Scholars truly interested in, and deserving of a college education *do* usually get there through the public school system" frtzw906 |
Scott:
=============== (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. ============== "How do you do? My name is Sue! ... With apologies to Johnny Cash. frtzw906 |
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... 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. That's what mainstreaming does, because it teaches the person with a disability that they are useless (since they are just filling up space watching someone else's curriculum) and it teaches the non-disabled peers the same thing (since they can see that the person is just filling up space). |
Scott to KMAN:
================ 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. ==================== Scott, the discussion you wish to have may/will be useful, but it is disingenuous to accuse KMAN of trying to divert it. You're the one doing the diverting (and that's OK, it just complicates the issue). frtzw906 |
Scott:
================= 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. ================ Good thing I was an ornery-enough SOB to raise **** so as to curtail such practises as far as they concerned my kids. Hey! Come to think of it, it was more like a private school after I got through with the principal. Isn't it great what bossy parents can do? GRIN frtzw906 |
Scott:
============== 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! Nope. It's an opportunity likely combined with a cry for help ================ The other students got the point by day 2. Next opportunity please. frtzw906 |
Scott:
============== 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? Nope. Name, address, phone number. ============= Have you so little regard for privacy? frtzw906 |
Scott:
============== Hire another teacher or put the disabled students in a Grade 1 math class. ============ Oh yeah, I totally forgot about the budget surplus. It's not a matter of budgets, it's a matter of social priorities. =================== WE AGREE! More butter, less guns. It's a classic. frtzw906 |
Scott:
============= ======================= KMAN, your thoughts on these matters need to be published (are they?). WOW! Everything you describe, I've seen. frtzw906 ==================== Yo, dude, go look up the word "edit." ================= Content! frtzw906 |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Scott incorrectly states: =============== 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. ================ KMAN does nothing of the sort. You just keep reading it that way. Surely from everything he's said thus far, you can't believe that of him. I merely analyze his statements here, which so indicate. -- 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: ============== 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. ============== And KMAN hasn't said you did. He's just reporting on the realities. No, he's reporting on one, single reality while trying to extend the reasoning to the general case. I'm arguing the general case, not a specific reality. -- 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: =============== 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. ================ Whoops! May I remind you one more time about the superior learning outcomes for the Canadian school system. Whatever the outcomes, they are not superior to most private educations. -- 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: ============== 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. ============= Is that a true reflection of the American system, Scott? Given the degree of scholarship I've seen in some recent college grads, that would be my guess. From a Canadian perspective you're wrong: The vast majority of "Scholars truly interested in, and deserving of a college education *do* usually get there through the public school system" That's an open question. -- 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 to KMAN: ================ 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. ==================== Scott, the discussion you wish to have may/will be useful, but it is disingenuous to accuse KMAN of trying to divert it. You're the one doing the diverting (and that's OK, it just complicates the issue). Wrong. I've always been arguing policy and the general case. -- 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: ============== 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? Nope. Name, address, phone number. ============= Have you so little regard for privacy? No, for veracity. -- 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 , Michael Daly
wrote: On 21-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: Take a pill, your blood pressure is spiking... **** off, dickhead. A killfile would work better |
|
|
|
|
in article , BCITORGB
at wrote on 4/5/05 5:58 PM: Scott, intending to be argumentative, but detracting from the discussion: =================== 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. ====================== I think *everyone* knows exactly what KMAN is talking about. There's nothing at all disparaging about his suggestions as they pertain to individuals with profound intellectual disabilities. frtzw906 Actually, even mild intellectual disabilities (which usually means a maximum IQ of 70, IQ not being a great measure, but certainly good enough to explain why they are not going to benefit from a curriculum designed for those of average intelligence). |
|
|
Scott:
=========== Wrong. I've always been arguing policy and the general case. ============== Fine. And KMAN and I haven't. And we've understood one another. Perhaps because we speak Canajun and you don't frtzw906. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:44 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com