|
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" That's an open question. ============= Nope. it's a fact. frtzw906 |
KMAN:
=============== 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. I agree with Scott. The person is screaming "Why am I in this classroom with a curriculum that has no relevance or consideration for my needs, where I am being humiliated on a daily basis in front of the other kids who see that I am lost and full of anxiety and I don't have one friend and only thing worse than this is going to be when school is over for me and I haven't learned what I need to learn to participate in the community and I will be alone in the basement of my parent's house waiting to die for 50 years which is even worse than sitting here and being humiliated." =============== Of course. It depends on perspective. And in these cases, there are several, and each is valid. To the average kid in the classroom, seemingly irrelevant oubursts are a hindrance. I'm sympathetic to the fact that it may represent something quite different to the person with disabilities. frtzw906 |
KMAN is stunned (as am I):
============== It's not a matter of budgets, it's a matter of social priorities. Cough. Sputter. Cough Did SCOTT WEISER just say that? He's becoming...gasp...a SOCIALIST right before our eyes!!!! ================ A very wise Canadian (by birth and youth), John Kenneth Galbraith (later American ambassador to India, among other achievements) once observed that just about EVERYBODY is an advocate for free enterprise until such time as it comes to whatever their personal endeavor is. Then, Galbraith noted, we could all find reasons why OUR particular little niche in society needed special protection from the rigors of the marketplace. Methinks our Scotty reflects just that. Police? A *very* left-wing approach to policing. Persons with disabilities (he hasn't told us what his particular connection is to this field)? Money and social/community support is not object! Odd, isn't it? frtzw906 |
KMAN:
============ But there's something better than what I might have to say, and that is a fellow named David (Dave) Hingsburger. Another name is Dick Sobsey. Two Canadians at the top of their field when it comes to people with intellectual disabilities and issues ranging from schooling to self-advocacy to sexuality. I had the pleasure of spending a few days with Dave and his insights just blew me away. =========== Well, I have to say, your insights in this area blow me away. Thanks. frtzw906 |
in article , BCITORGB at
wrote on 4/6/05 12:22 AM: KMAN: ============ But there's something better than what I might have to say, and that is a fellow named David (Dave) Hingsburger. Another name is Dick Sobsey. Two Canadians at the top of their field when it comes to people with intellectual disabilities and issues ranging from schooling to self-advocacy to sexuality. I had the pleasure of spending a few days with Dave and his insights just blew me away. =========== Well, I have to say, your insights in this area blow me away. Thanks. frtzw906 Thanks, that's really nice. You must have a pretty open mind because I'm not sure some of the stuff I am saying is exactly what you might have had in your own mind before this thread warped into this, but you really seem open to some of the perspectives introduced (or maybe they aren't new to you at all, my apologies if so). I've been involved with people with intellectual disabilities and their family members (and teachers and the rest) off and on for the last 20 years (totally "on" for the last 8 years and possibly the rest of my life) and I can't believe how much they have taught me. My wife gets most of the credit though for helping me mature beyond the superhero/macho approach to solving problems and learning the real difference between supporting someone and making their decisions for them. I remember how my view on "helping" used to be "Listen to what they say the problem is, and then tell them how to solve it." Man, what a power trip! All well intentioned of course, but so, so wrong. And so, so dangerous a message to send..."You are incapable of making your own decisions and choices, so put your trust and give authority to others for those choices and decisions." No wonder people with intellectual disabilities suffer abuse at rates that seem statistically impossible...it's because society actually trains them to be victims. And you know the sad part? People who truly care about them are usually the ones who unwittingly do the training! I should know, I used to be one of them. And I'm not perfect now, but I am aware, actively aware, of the extreme power imbalance that is in play and how I must challenge myself every minute not to misuse it. As per the typical school system approach (haven't been part of that system for more than 10 years) or what they teach in college in "developmental service worker" programs, I thought I was doing "behaviour modification" which is better described as "I will take away your power and show you who is boss. Even though I am doing this because I think I am helping you be 'normal' what I am really doing is teaching you to be powerless so that you are ready to be abused by another authority figure who will use your learned powerlessness to their sick advantage." Supporting someone the "right way" takes a helluva lot longer than the power trip techinique, but although both techniques might look like they result in the same outcome, that is not the case. The right way is about supporting the individual to establish goals and make choices and decisions to realize those goals. This includes the right to make a bad choice or decision (a right that non-disabled people have and use daily!) and get support to learn from it. Can you imagine feeling so powerless and anxious about decision-making that as a 20 year old adult you were incapable of choosing between sitting in a green chair or a black chair (these are identical chairs other than colour) and that a refusal from others to make the decision for you would result in an emotional breakdown? Well, that's actually a pretty common phenomenon, and that very situation is something I have seen with my own eyes. And this is a person that was surrounded with loving, caring, well-intentioned people. People who somehow trained her to be that way, and had the school system as an accomplice (yes, she was "mainstreamed" by the way). Helping someone crawl out of such a deep dark hole of powerlessness can take years or even decades, and the results come slowly and sometimes almost indescernably, but I find those little bits of progress are like home runs or touchdowns if you look it at from the perspective of where the person is coming from. |
On 5-Apr-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: Have you so little regard for privacy? No, for veracity. Your lack of regard for veracity has been well demonstrated. No need for more. Mike |
"Michael Daly" wrote in message ... On 5-Apr-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: Have you so little regard for privacy? No, for veracity. Your lack of regard for veracity has been well demonstrated. No need for more. Mike LOL. OK, that was funny. Good thing I drink club soda, or my keyboard would be a mess. And don't even think of making that into a sexualized retort. |
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 4/5/05 5:24 PM: 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. Ah. That has nothing to do with "mentoring." That is one person being forced to "help" another person who has not requested the help. So? These are children, and they don't have the right to refuse to participate in educational programs, even when those programs require their active participation in teaching other students, or helping other students who need help. It helps create a sense of community and responsibility for others, which is something that is sorely lacking in today's selfish society. I also advocate mandatory national service upon graduation from high school, either in the Civilian Conservation Corps (or other like public works entity) or military service. This is not only highly inappropriate, but dangerous. It helps teach the person with a disability that non-disabled people are their superiors, that they are deficient beings who must rely on non-disabled people, that they do not make their own decisions about what support they want and who will provide it, etc and so on. Hogwash. Disabled people know they are disabled and are well aware of the limitations they face and when they require assistance. Nobody is suggesting forcing assistance on anyone who is able to do something for themselves. You suggest that a student whose wheelchair is stuck in a hole ought to be left there without assistance, even if the occupant is incapable of communicating a desire for assistance. Certainly if a disabled person wishes to do something themselves, their wishes should be respected, and they should always be encouraged to attempt self-sufficiency, but when help is required, there's nothing wrong with engaging other students in helping them. All part of what contributes to making them an extremely vulnerable population. It also teaches the non-disabled student that it is appropriate and normal for them to assume a position of power over people with disabilities. Poppycock. There are no power issues here, there is simple human compassion and friendship. Your argument presupposes a selfish motive in the teaching of compassion. -- 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 Warren wrote:
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 Indeed. He's of the pinheaded stripe that ought to use a killfile. killfiles are the final refuge of fractional intellects. It's the Usenet equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "NYAH, NYAH, NYAH, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" It's the tactics of a four year old, which fits Michael pretty 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 KMAN wrote:
in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 4/5/05 5:32 PM: 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. Cough. Sputter. Cough Did SCOTT WEISER just say that? He's becoming...gasp...a SOCIALIST right before our eyes!!!! Social priorities is not socialism. Put Scott in charge of the school system, and each person with an intellectual disability will be mainstreamed with their own personal teacher! If the school needs 483 teachers for 600 students, so be it! It's a social priority! Well, only if they can afford it and are willing to pay for it. I also recognize that it is the taxpayers who are in charge of things, and if The People don't set education as a social priority, they have every right to end up with ignorant children. That's democracy for you! Now howsabout ensuring access to health care for every child in America...BEFORE your "a teacher for everyone" program kicks in? I'm not opposed to providing public health care for poor children. However, if you can pay for it, or can afford private insurance to cover it, you should pay for it. Only if you can demonstrably and verifiably not pay for it should your children get public medical assistance. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
Scott:
================ Poppycock. There are no power issues here, there is simple human compassion and friendship. Your argument presupposes a selfish motive in the teaching of compassion. ================ EVERY relationship has a power component. It may cut both ways, but it still is power. Oh, BTW, Scott, I think that on most of these issues regarding persons with disabilities, we (you, KMAN, and I) agree. You know what? That's OK. You don't have to try to squeeze an argument out of a discuission when there's none to be had. It can evolve into just that, a discussion, if you let it. frtzw906 |
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 4/5/05 5:24 PM: 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. Ah. That has nothing to do with "mentoring." That is one person being forced to "help" another person who has not requested the help. So? These are children, and they don't have the right to refuse to participate in educational programs, even when those programs require their active participation in teaching other students, or helping other students who need help. It helps create a sense of community and responsibility for others, which is something that is sorely lacking in today's selfish society. It's not mentoring when neither party is willing or makes the choice. The non-disabled student is not trained in supporting the individual with a disability in an appropriate helper role and will serve the purpose of teaching the individual with a disability that they are not competent and need to be assigned a non-disabled person to make their decisions for them. I also advocate mandatory national service upon graduation from high school, either in the Civilian Conservation Corps (or other like public works entity) or military service. That's a very different idea altogether. For example, having a voluntary service requirement means finding an agency with a volunteer program, receiving appropriate training and supervision, and supporting someone who has made a choice to receive that support. This is not only highly inappropriate, but dangerous. It helps teach the person with a disability that non-disabled people are their superiors, that they are deficient beings who must rely on non-disabled people, that they do not make their own decisions about what support they want and who will provide it, etc and so on. Hogwash. Disabled people know they are disabled and are well aware of the limitations they face and when they require assistance. Nobody is suggesting forcing assistance on anyone who is able to do something for themselves. You suggest that a student whose wheelchair is stuck in a hole ought to be left there without assistance, even if the occupant is incapable of communicating a desire for assistance. There is a huge difference between having an attendant to assist with such situations at one's request. This is not what I am talking about. I am talking about those students who are forcibly "mainstreamed" into an inappropriate curriculum. Certainly if a disabled person wishes to do something themselves, their wishes should be respected, and they should always be encouraged to attempt self-sufficiency, but when help is required, there's nothing wrong with engaging other students in helping them. Frocing them to do so is inappropriate. You are not picking up a piece of poo from the schoolyard. It's a human being. If someone doesn't want to help another human being, forcing them to do so is humliating for the person with a disability and only teaches the person being forced to project their anger onto an innocent party. All part of what contributes to making them an extremely vulnerable population. It also teaches the non-disabled student that it is appropriate and normal for them to assume a position of power over people with disabilities. Poppycock. There are no power issues here, there is simple human compassion and friendship. Your argument presupposes a selfish motive in the teaching of compassion. Forcing someone to perform a task against their will has nothing to do with the teaching of compassion. It might possibly help someone to develop a sense of duty, which of course can mean a lot of things. |
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
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. LOL! How brilliant! Take kids who have trouble at home and beat them at school! I didn't say "beat them." But as to discipline, somebody's got to do it, or the kids grow up to be criminals. Even young children can distinguish between unprovoked physical abuse and just punishment for wrongdoing. That'll learn 'em to concentrate! Most of the time, yes. And also that violence is acceptable, Violence is acceptable, in proper context. The unlawful violence against me in junior high school stopped when I stood up to a bully, took my lumps, and beat the crap out of him in self-defense after he wantonly attacked me without warning or provocation. After that fight, I never had another problem with any of my peers trying to bully me. But, it also taught me that it's a really good idea to do everything possible to avoid a fight, because even winning a fight *hurts.* I haven't been in a *single* fistfight since then, including during my tenure as a police officer, where I was always able to verbally convince people that fighting with me would be a very bad idea because one way or another, the law was going to win. More than 40 years of successful non-violence directly resulted from one single incidence of the lawful and appropriate use of physical force in self-defense. That's a lesson that *all* children ought to learn. When I worked as an EMT in a hospital ER, the people we saw most often from bar fights were the *winners.* They usually broke bones in the hand as a result of the punch that ended the fight, and ended up in a cast. Consider appropriate corporal punishment, both at home and in schools, as prophylactic self-defense by society against the inevitable violence perpetrated by undisciplined children who grow up into undisciplined adults. after all, school is a good and fine social institution, and they use violence, so it's OK for me too! Context is everything. Moreover, violence is an inherent part of human nature. Learning to control one's behavior because the painful consequences of not doing so is an important lesson to learn, because no matter who you are, there's always somebody bigger, badder and more violent out there who can hurt you if you **** them off. Children who don't understand that they must learn to control their behavior or they may suffer *even worse* violence are in grave danger. Smacking a child's hand or giving them a swat on the bottom to enforce obedience is not, contrary to liberal permissive dogma, going to turn them into psychopathic killers. Not doing so, however, stands a very good chance of turning them into uncontrollable, wild, selfish and violent adults who don't recognize any limitations on their behavior. That fact is perfectly clear. One needs only look at the decline of civility and the burgeoning juvenile crime rates to see this. 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. I agree with you on this point. Drugs are being unbelievably overprescribed. By SMACKING the kids is not the answer. Obviously. Why is it obvious to you? How do you deny thousands of years of corporal discipline that resulted in generation after generation of rational, peaceful and well-behaved adults? 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. Ridiculous. That's the recipe for a volcano that will erupt (internally, externally, or both). It just teaches the kid that when you have a problem, you lash out at it. Balderdash. The most violent teens on the planet are those who have *never* been disciplined. Teaching self-control is a necessary part of any child's upbringing, and teaching a child that authority has teeth, and that defiance may have painful consequences is absolutely necessary if the child is to grow up into a responsible adult. Heck, even the teacher hits me, what's wrong with me hitting a kid that I don't like? The answer is quite simple: You are not a teacher, and you do not have any authority to administer corporal punishment. Even small children are capable of distinguishing between punishment administered for wrongful behavior and wanton assault. 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. There are a proportion of kids diagnosed ADHD who experience a life-changing experience with medication. I'd say *all* of them do. The question is whether or not the changes are positive or negative. The vast, vast majority of the time, the changes are demonstrably negative and extremely harmful to the child's future. The dosage needs to be monitored closely with the intent of reducing it as soon as possible, and the goal of eliminating it. In 90% of the cases, the dosage should be zero. The medication should be combined with strategies for the teacher, parents, and child. The strategies should be tried first before medication is even a consideration. Yup. And corporal punishment is one of the prime strategies that should be applied LONG before medication is even considered. That said, I agree with much of what you say (regarding misdiagnosis and slapping of labels on kids so they can be dealt with through medications) but I think your focus on the need for the child to have a smack is way off. They need people around them who can set boundaries and help establish routines and structure that are appropriate. And how, exactly, do you set "boundaries" with an out-of-control child who refuses to acknowledge parental (or teacher) authority, no matter what punishments short of corporal punishment are applied? And then there's the issue of how you teach a child to stay away from danger. Telling a two year old that something is "hot" is only marginally useful until they understand what "hot" means. In my home, we have a wood stove insert to heat the house. There are no barriers, no guard rails, nothing to keep a child from touching the hot stove. And yet not one of the children has ever suffered a serious burn, because they learn very quickly not to touch (or even get near) the stove when it's lit. Has there been the occasional burned finger? Yes. But not more than once per child. Is allowing a child to burn his finger so he understands the concept of "hot" violent? To many parents, probably so, but to us, children have to learn to live in the real world, which is filled with real perils, which requires that they be absolutely and reliably obedient to parental commands. Unless we are willing to let them experiment with dangers that can severely injure or kill them, we have to find ways to teach them the painful consequences of carelessness or disobedience by using techniques that demonstrate the physical pain involved in doing such things while protecting them from any real harm. Wrapping children in bunting so as to keep them from any pain is a disservice to them. Corporal punishment is the way that rational adults teach the very real consequences of misbehavior in ways that are uncomfortable and unpleasant, but harmless. Thus, when teaching the two year old not to run out in the street, a bare-butt spanking that makes the consequences of disobedience much more real, immediate and painful than the abstract concept of "you might get hit by a car" is perfectly justifiable, reasonable, rational and effective. Likewise, smacking the back of the hand of a disruptive student who has refused polite requests to settle down to work is perfectly reasonable because it is harmless, but it makes the consequences of disobedience more unpleasant than those of obedience. When I was about 4, my dad caught me putting paperclips in the wall sockets. I didn't respond to lectures on the subject, so he bought a crank-type telephone generator and gave me a couple of very unpleasant but harmless shocks. Then he told me what was in the telephone box was "little electricity," and that what was in the wall socket was "big electricity." I got the message instantly, and never ventured near the wall sockets with a paperclip again. It was a valuable and well-crafted lesson that made it absolutely certain I wouldn't be in danger of death. But, if a parent today did the same thing, he would undoubtedly be arrested for "child abuse" merely because he subjected his child to some minor pain out of concern for his life. So, instead of children who understand the dangers of AC line voltage and current, we have plastic plugs which any three year old can remove and a generation of kids at risk for electrocution. Sorry, but life is full of danger and pain, and there's nothing wrong with instilling discipline and obedience through reasonable and appropriate corporal punishment in order to prevent greater, potentially fatal harm at a later time. Never has been, never will be, so long as it's done with the proper motives and in the proper proportion. And please don't bother trying to forward the specious argument that any corporal punishment is, or inevitably leads to, genuine physical abuse, because it's not true. For example, I don't run around the house with a cattle-prod zapping the two year old every time he disobeys just because my father used an electrical shock to reinforce a vital safety lesson. -- 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:
in article , BCITORGB at wrote on 4/5/05 5:53 PM: 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 Quite so. I have stated, quite specifically (as Scott is aware) that there are students with disabilities who have the same or better intellectual capacity as non-disabled peers and obviously they belong in the same classroom since they will benefit from the same curriculum. As I have also explained, perhaps more than a dozen times, for those who do not have the intellectual capacity to benefit from the "mainstream" curriculum, it is a totally appropriate reaction to space out or act out when being humiliated on a daily basis by having to sit through day after day of curriculum that is for someone else and you are just there filling up space. And in this we can agree, as I have said. Where we disagree is where you imply that most intellectually challenged kids fit this mold. Since you seldom care to argue about the less obvious cases or draw fine distinctions, I view your statements as being in the nature of a general policy of "exclude them unless they are certain to be capable." I tend to err on the side of "include them unless they are demonstrably incapable." If you can agree with that model, then we appear to have no real disagreement. -- 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:
in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 4/5/05 10:15 PM: 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. I've stated unequivocally that there are students with disabilities who benefit from the same curriculum as non-disabled peers. But you consistently argue a debate about general "mainstreaming" policy within the narrow framework of one particular student who may not benefit. You are deliberately misconstruing my position, and started doing so the moment your own arguments were shown to be lacking. This is around the time you got all snark about the idea that you weren't getting enough credit for your knowledge on this topic. Not really. I'm simply not allowing you to set policy based on one extreme example. I'm arguing for nuance and erring on the side of inclusiveness, while you seem to be arguing on the side of exclusion. -- 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:
in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 4/5/05 10:16 PM: 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. Actually, I'm not. As you know, I've already agreed with you that (as an example) a person with a physical disability with the same or better intellectual capacity as their non-disabled peers belongs in the same classroom as their non-disabled peers. Obviously and unquestionable. This elides the grey area issue of a student who does not have the "same or better intellectual capacity" as their peers but who is sufficiently advanced to benefit from the social interactions and instruction, even if he or she is not at the head of the class. Because it can be extremely difficult to accurate gauge the intellectual capacity of a person afflicted with brain damage that impairs communication, but not cognition, it's discriminatory to judge too quickly that a particular child is not able to benefit from the curriculum. Thus, it's perfectly reasonable to presume in favor of the hidden capabilities of a student and work hard to ensure that they benefit from both the social and academic benefits of being with their peers, unless and until it can be conclusively demonstrated that they are so far behind that both they and their peers are suffering as a result of the attempt to mainstream the disabled student. I do not agree with your implicit metric that a disabled student must be able to participate on an equal level in the classroom. I see nothing wrong with placing a disabled student who will require *more* assistance and specialized tutoring in order to keep up in the classroom, and in doing so require the other students to learn to "reasonably accommodate" their peer's disabilities. There is, however, a limit. On that we can agree. It's how you discover that limit that's important. I argue for giving the benefit of the doubt to the disabled student and not excluding them unless it is quantifiably clear that they cannot benefit from any aspect of the classroom environment *and* they are being so disruptive that it's impossible to teach the other children. Both aspects of this test must be met, after a considerable period of adjustment and attempts at accommodation, before any student is denied access to the public schools. I'm arguing the general case, not a specific reality. You are being dishonest. How 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 Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 4/5/05 5:32 PM: 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. Cough. Sputter. Cough Did SCOTT WEISER just say that? He's becoming...gasp...a SOCIALIST right before our eyes!!!! Social priorities is not socialism. No! But you want to force taxpayers to support social needs! Put Scott in charge of the school system, and each person with an intellectual disability will be mainstreamed with their own personal teacher! If the school needs 483 teachers for 600 students, so be it! It's a social priority! Well, only if they can afford it and are willing to pay for it. Good luck with that! I also recognize that it is the taxpayers who are in charge of things, and if The People don't set education as a social priority, they have every right to end up with ignorant children. That's democracy for you! Great! Now howsabout ensuring access to health care for every child in America...BEFORE your "a teacher for everyone" program kicks in? I'm not opposed to providing public health care for poor children. However, if you can pay for it, or can afford private insurance to cover it, you should pay for it. Only if you can demonstrably and verifiably not pay for it should your children get public medical assistance. Good luck with that! |
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: 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. LOL! How brilliant! Take kids who have trouble at home and beat them at school! I didn't say "beat them." But as to discipline, somebody's got to do it, or the kids grow up to be criminals. Even young children can distinguish between unprovoked physical abuse and just punishment for wrongdoing. Corporal punishment is usually administered in aid of the person administering it. The myth of the detached robotic corporal punisher dishing out emotionally detached consequences is just that...a myth. That'll learn 'em to concentrate! Most of the time, yes. Yup, concentrate on revenge. And who they are going to beat in the schoolyard just like the teacher beat them. And also that violence is acceptable, Violence is acceptable, in proper context. A classroom is not the proper context. The unlawful violence against me in junior high school stopped when I stood up to a bully, took my lumps, and beat the crap out of him in self-defense after he wantonly attacked me without warning or provocation. After that fight, I never had another problem with any of my peers trying to bully me. But, it also taught me that it's a really good idea to do everything possible to avoid a fight, because even winning a fight *hurts.* I haven't been in a *single* fistfight since then, including during my tenure as a police officer, where I was always able to verbally convince people that fighting with me would be a very bad idea because one way or another, the law was going to win. More than 40 years of successful non-violence directly resulted from one single incidence of the lawful and appropriate use of physical force in self-defense. That's a lesson that *all* children ought to learn. When I worked as an EMT in a hospital ER, the people we saw most often from bar fights were the *winners.* They usually broke bones in the hand as a result of the punch that ended the fight, and ended up in a cast. Consider appropriate corporal punishment, both at home and in schools, as prophylactic self-defense by society against the inevitable violence perpetrated by undisciplined children who grow up into undisciplined adults. It doesn't work that way. Kids who already have problems end up getting beaten by their teachers, thus teaching them that violence and aggression is how the world works, and the message definitely gets passed on. after all, school is a good and fine social institution, and they use violence, so it's OK for me too! Context is everything. Moreover, violence is an inherent part of human nature. Learning to control one's behavior because the painful consequences of not doing so is an important lesson to learn, because no matter who you are, there's always somebody bigger, badder and more violent out there who can hurt you if you **** them off. Children who don't understand that they must learn to control their behavior or they may suffer *even worse* violence are in grave danger. Teach them not to be violent by hitting them. Interesting. Have you ever heard about cycles of abuse? Smacking a child's hand or giving them a swat on the bottom to enforce obedience is not, contrary to liberal permissive dogma, going to turn them into psychopathic killers. Nope. But it will teach them that physical force is an appropriate way to deal with problems. It will also make them very angry. Not doing so, however, stands a very good chance of turning them into uncontrollable, wild, selfish and violent adults who don't recognize any limitations on their behavior. That fact is perfectly clear. One needs only look at the decline of civility and the burgeoning juvenile crime rates to see this. It is a rather juvenile leap to attribute these problems to a failure of teachers to beat their students. 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. I agree with you on this point. Drugs are being unbelievably overprescribed. By SMACKING the kids is not the answer. Obviously. Why is it obvious to you? How do you deny thousands of years of corporal discipline that resulted in generation after generation of rational, peaceful and well-behaved adults? LOL. Which generation are we talking about? You mean the generations where wife-beating was an accepted social practice? 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. Ridiculous. That's the recipe for a volcano that will erupt (internally, externally, or both). It just teaches the kid that when you have a problem, you lash out at it. Balderdash. The most violent teens on the planet are those who have *never* been disciplined. Not in my considerable experience. Do you have some research to indicate that violent teens come from peaceful environments? You do realize that there are disciplined families that have never raised a hand to a child, right? Teaching self-control is a necessary part of any child's upbringing, and teaching a child that authority has teeth, and that defiance may have painful consequences is absolutely necessary if the child is to grow up into a responsible adult. Being beaten teaches children to beat others. Are you saying that there are no responsible adults who were not beaten by their parents and teachers? How silly. Heck, even the teacher hits me, what's wrong with me hitting a kid that I don't like? The answer is quite simple: You are not a teacher, and you do not have any authority to administer corporal punishment. Even small children are capable of distinguishing between punishment administered for wrongful behavior and wanton assault. Actually, you hear those exact words all the time. The teacher does it, so why shouldn't I? 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. There are a proportion of kids diagnosed ADHD who experience a life-changing experience with medication. I'd say *all* of them do. The question is whether or not the changes are positive or negative. The vast, vast majority of the time, the changes are demonstrably negative and extremely harmful to the child's future. With proper medical care this never has to happen. The dosage needs to be monitored closely with the intent of reducing it as soon as possible, and the goal of eliminating it. In 90% of the cases, the dosage should be zero. Could be. The medication should be combined with strategies for the teacher, parents, and child. The strategies should be tried first before medication is even a consideration. Yup. And corporal punishment is one of the prime strategies that should be applied LONG before medication is even considered. Only if you want a child with even more problems who will end up with even more medication. That said, I agree with much of what you say (regarding misdiagnosis and slapping of labels on kids so they can be dealt with through medications) but I think your focus on the need for the child to have a smack is way off. They need people around them who can set boundaries and help establish routines and structure that are appropriate. And how, exactly, do you set "boundaries" with an out-of-control child who refuses to acknowledge parental (or teacher) authority, no matter what punishments short of corporal punishment are applied? I find out what is going on. And then there's the issue of how you teach a child to stay away from danger. You can do this without smacking people. Telling a two year old that something is "hot" is only marginally useful until they understand what "hot" means. In my home, we have a wood stove insert to heat the house. There are no barriers, no guard rails, nothing to keep a child from touching the hot stove. And yet not one of the children has ever suffered a serious burn, because they learn very quickly not to touch (or even get near) the stove when it's lit. Has there been the occasional burned finger? Yes. But not more than once per child. Is allowing a child to burn his finger so he understands the concept of "hot" violent? To many parents, probably so, but to us, children have to learn to live in the real world, which is filled with real perils, which requires that they be absolutely and reliably obedient to parental commands. Unless we are willing to let them experiment with dangers that can severely injure or kill them, we have to find ways to teach them the painful consequences of carelessness or disobedience by using techniques that demonstrate the physical pain involved in doing such things while protecting them from any real harm. Wrapping children in bunting so as to keep them from any pain is a disservice to them. Corporal punishment is the way that rational adults teach the very real consequences of misbehavior in ways that are uncomfortable and unpleasant, but harmless. I never once burned myself on a stove but also was never smacked to learn no to do so. I have worked with many vulnerable people with limited cognitive abilities and have never smacked them to help them learn not to burn themselves on a stove. And none of them ever has. Thus, when teaching the two year old not to run out in the street, a bare-butt spanking that makes the consequences of disobedience much more real, immediate and painful than the abstract concept of "you might get hit by a car" is perfectly justifiable, reasonable, rational and effective. Being beaten by your parent is not a logical consequence to running on the street. It only teaches that your parent is unstable and lacks the parenting skills to help you develop boundaries. Likewise, smacking the back of the hand of a disruptive student who has refused polite requests to settle down to work is perfectly reasonable because it is harmless, but it makes the consequences of disobedience more unpleasant than those of obedience. It's not harmless at all. I meets the needs of the teacher. It is a strategy for the weak of mind, and demonstrates a lack of discipline by the person in authority. When I was about 4, my dad caught me putting paperclips in the wall sockets. I didn't respond to lectures on the subject, so he bought a crank-type telephone generator and gave me a couple of very unpleasant but harmless shocks. Then he told me what was in the telephone box was "little electricity," and that what was in the wall socket was "big electricity." I got the message instantly, and never ventured near the wall sockets with a paperclip again. It was a valuable and well-crafted lesson that made it absolutely certain I wouldn't be in danger of death. But, if a parent today did the same thing, he would undoubtedly be arrested for "child abuse" merely because he subjected his child to some minor pain out of concern for his life. So, instead of children who understand the dangers of AC line voltage and current, we have plastic plugs which any three year old can remove and a generation of kids at risk for electrocution. Oddly enough, I've also never electrocuted myself. But what you are describing above is quite different from administering a rap on the hand to bring about classroom compliance. Sorry, but life is full of danger and pain, and there's nothing wrong with instilling discipline and obedience through reasonable and appropriate corporal punishment in order to prevent greater, potentially fatal harm at a later time. Never has been, never will be, so long as it's done with the proper motives and in the proper proportion. Those are mythical motives and mythical proportions. And please don't bother trying to forward the specious argument that any corporal punishment is, or inevitably leads to, genuine physical abuse, because it's not true. For example, I don't run around the house with a cattle-prod zapping the two year old every time he disobeys just because my father used an electrical shock to reinforce a vital safety lesson. I'm sure your father and you are special exeptions. It's not like you walk around with a gun waiting for the day you can shoot someone. |
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , BCITORGB at wrote on 4/5/05 5:53 PM: 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 Quite so. I have stated, quite specifically (as Scott is aware) that there are students with disabilities who have the same or better intellectual capacity as non-disabled peers and obviously they belong in the same classroom since they will benefit from the same curriculum. As I have also explained, perhaps more than a dozen times, for those who do not have the intellectual capacity to benefit from the "mainstream" curriculum, it is a totally appropriate reaction to space out or act out when being humiliated on a daily basis by having to sit through day after day of curriculum that is for someone else and you are just there filling up space. And in this we can agree, as I have said. Where we disagree is where you imply that most intellectually challenged kids fit this mold. Since you seldom care to argue about the less obvious cases or draw fine distinctions, I view your statements as being in the nature of a general policy of "exclude them unless they are certain to be capable." I tend to err on the side of "include them unless they are demonstrably incapable." If you can agree with that model, then we appear to have no real disagreement. That's fine, as long as you realize 100% of kids with intellectual disabilities deserve a more appropriate curriculum than Grade 12 chemistry. |
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 4/5/05 10:15 PM: 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. I've stated unequivocally that there are students with disabilities who benefit from the same curriculum as non-disabled peers. But you consistently argue a debate about general "mainstreaming" policy within the narrow framework of one particular student who may not benefit. I'm talking about an millions of students...all those who deserve a more appropriate curriculum than one that is designed for a different purpose and need. You are deliberately misconstruing my position, and started doing so the moment your own arguments were shown to be lacking. This is around the time you got all snark about the idea that you weren't getting enough credit for your knowledge on this topic. Not really. Yea, you did. I'm simply not allowing you to set policy based on one extreme example. I'm arguing for nuance and erring on the side of inclusiveness, while you seem to be arguing on the side of exclusion. It's not one extreme example. I am talking about all the millions of kids that deserve a curriculum designed for their needs, not one that is tailored to the needs of others. |
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 4/5/05 10:16 PM: 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. Actually, I'm not. As you know, I've already agreed with you that (as an example) a person with a physical disability with the same or better intellectual capacity as their non-disabled peers belongs in the same classroom as their non-disabled peers. Obviously and unquestionable. This elides the grey area issue of a student who does not have the "same or better intellectual capacity" as their peers but who is sufficiently advanced to benefit from the social interactions and instruction, even if he or she is not at the head of the class. Because it can be extremely difficult to accurate gauge the intellectual capacity of a person afflicted with brain damage that impairs communication, but not cognition, it's discriminatory to judge too quickly that a particular child is not able to benefit from the curriculum. Thus, it's perfectly reasonable to presume in favor of the hidden capabilities of a student and work hard to ensure that they benefit from both the social and academic benefits of being with their peers, unless and until it can be conclusively demonstrated that they are so far behind that both they and their peers are suffering as a result of the attempt to mainstream the disabled student. By the time of high school the diagnosis of intellectual disability will not be in doubt and the neither will the need for an appropriate curriculum. If the person is not at an academic level that makes it possible to pursue post-secondary education, then their high school years are their last chance for formal education to help them with their life ahead. They deserve to have that time focused on their needs, not picking their nose in a class that has nothing to do with them except offer them the "opportunity" to sit in the same space as non-disabled people. I do not agree with your implicit metric that a disabled student must be able to participate on an equal level in the classroom. I see nothing wrong with placing a disabled student who will require *more* assistance and specialized tutoring in order to keep up in the classroom, and in doing so require the other students to learn to "reasonably accommodate" their peer's disabilities. If they can in fact benefit appropriately from the curriculum with help, by all means. There is, however, a limit. On that we can agree. It's how you discover that limit that's important. I argue for giving the benefit of the doubt to the disabled student and not excluding them unless it is quantifiably clear that they cannot benefit from any aspect of the classroom environment *and* they are being so disruptive that it's impossible to teach the other children. This should be fully identified by Grade 8, if not, there is incompetence at play. Both aspects of this test must be met, after a considerable period of adjustment and attempts at accommodation, before any student is denied access to the public schools. Who is being denied access to public schools?!?!? I'm arguing the general case, not a specific reality. You are being dishonest. How so? By pretending from time to time that you don't know what type of disabilities I am talking about. |
Scott thinks:
============= teaching a child that authority has teeth, and that defiance may have painful consequences is absolutely necessary if the child is to grow up into a responsible adult. ================ Why am I thinking of Stanley Milgram right now? Could it be.... teaching people the importance of obeying authority.... naaahhh! Funny thing is, my children are very well-mannered and well-behaved (almost to a fault) but I've always asked them to question authority (not necessarily verbally, but at least intellectually). In fact, I *never* want them to "accept" authority without question! frtzw906 |
in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 4/6/05 4:36 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 4/5/05 10:15 PM: 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. I've stated unequivocally that there are students with disabilities who benefit from the same curriculum as non-disabled peers. But you consistently argue a debate about general "mainstreaming" policy within the narrow framework of one particular student who may not benefit. Mainstreaming of any student who cannot benefit from the "mainstream" curriculum is inappropriate. You are deliberately misconstruing my position, and started doing so the moment your own arguments were shown to be lacking. This is around the time you got all snark about the idea that you weren't getting enough credit for your knowledge on this topic. Not really. I'm simply not allowing you to set policy based on one extreme example. I'm arguing for nuance and erring on the side of inclusiveness, while you seem to be arguing on the side of exclusion. The mainstreaming of students into a setting with an inappropriate curriculum results in exclusion. High school is not forever. Forcing a student with a disability into a class that is not meeting their learning needs is humiliating for that student and does not "include" them with the other students. Giving a student a curriculum that meets their needs, supports achievement, and results in a greater ability to participate in the community is the path to the greatest possible level of inclusion. |
in article , BCITORGB
at wrote on 4/6/05 7:10 PM: Scott thinks: ============= teaching a child that authority has teeth, and that defiance may have painful consequences is absolutely necessary if the child is to grow up into a responsible adult. ================ Why am I thinking of Stanley Milgram right now? Could it be.... teaching people the importance of obeying authority.... naaahhh! Funny thing is, my children are very well-mannered and well-behaved (almost to a fault) but I've always asked them to question authority (not necessarily verbally, but at least intellectually). In fact, I *never* want them to "accept" authority without question! frtzw906 The real danger is in teaching compliance rather than respect. "I sit quietly so you won't hit me" is not respect. That is fear, resulting in compliance. There is no internal motivation to change the behaviour, it is through external threat only that the change is achieved. This type of behavioural management teaches people to be victims and victimizers. Someone who is having trouble focusing in class who gets a smash on the back of the hand is being forced to comply. There is no learning or respect or understanding. Just compliance. And that is what that child is learning - comply, or else. And this is training for being a victim. The next person of authority who seeks their compliance may have the intention to sexually assault them. And the child has been taught that refusal to comply results in a beating, and that they are powerless. So the comply. They also learn to seek compliance from others, using the same technique as the authority figure that taught them how to do it. It could be younger kids in the schoolyard or siblings at home. And eventually a wife and kids. |
KMAN observes:
================= Someone who is having trouble focusing in class who gets a smash on the back of the hand is being forced to comply. There is no learning or respect or understanding. Just compliance. ================ And there's plenty of research on the use of force, to ensure compliance, which indicates that, give half a chance, the "victim" will turn around and return the favor. The effect of force for purposes of compliance is generally "short-term" compliance where "short-term" is defined as "so long as the party using the force is percieved to be in a more powerful position". The moment the teenager, being forced into compliance by the father, reckons he's tougher than his old man, the old man had better watch his step, 'cause he's gonna get a really good hiding to make up for all the ones he dished out. frtzw906 |
KMAN 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. Cough. Sputter. Cough Did SCOTT WEISER just say that? He's becoming...gasp...a SOCIALIST right before our eyes!!!! ======================== And here's what's interesting as well. Consider if, in the context of this discussion of persons with disabilities, I had responded to Scott's suggestions that, "Tough luck on the parents of the disabled child! They made the decision to have that child. Why is that *my* problem?! Why should the classrooms in which my children are required to learn, be burdened with pupils who are a hindrance and slow up the whole learning process?" I don't feel that way. I wouldn't say it. BUT.... Where does Scott get off showing such empathy for persons with disabilities when, just a few days ago, in the discussion of universal health care and the plight of the poor, he took a different tack. I recall phrases like "Why is it my problem that the poor decided to have children they couldn't support?!" WOW! The turmoil in Scott's head over these issues must be intense. Such logical inconsistency must border on the painful. frtzw906 Put Scott in charge of the school system, and each person with an intellectual disability will be mainstreamed with their own personal teacher! If the school needs 483 teachers for 600 students, so be it! It's a social priority! Now howsabout ensuring access to health care for every child in America...BEFORE your "a teacher for everyone" program kicks in? |
|
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 4/5/05 5:24 PM: 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. Ah. That has nothing to do with "mentoring." That is one person being forced to "help" another person who has not requested the help. So? These are children, and they don't have the right to refuse to participate in educational programs, even when those programs require their active participation in teaching other students, or helping other students who need help. It helps create a sense of community and responsibility for others, which is something that is sorely lacking in today's selfish society. It's not mentoring when neither party is willing or makes the choice. You wrongly presume that neither party is willing, and you incorrectly presume that one has to "make the choice" to be a mentor. No such restriction is found in the definition of the word. The non-disabled student is not trained in supporting the individual with a disability in an appropriate helper role and will serve the purpose of teaching the individual with a disability that they are not competent and need to be assigned a non-disabled person to make their decisions for them. Balderdash. The whole point is to TEACH the mentor how to mentor while also teaching the disabled student how to be mentored. Mentoring has nothing to do with "making their decisions for them," it is simply defined as "tutoring or coaching." It's extremely common for more advanced students to be called upon to mentor less advanced students, or students who are having difficulty with a particular aspect of the curriculum, regardless of the ability of the mentored student. You suggest that any hint or implication to a disabled student who is struggling that they are disabled and struggling by way of giving them a mentor is demeaning. It's not. It's a perfectly ordinary form of didacticism. I also advocate mandatory national service upon graduation from high school, either in the Civilian Conservation Corps (or other like public works entity) or military service. That's a very different idea altogether. For example, having a voluntary service requirement means finding an agency with a volunteer program, receiving appropriate training and supervision, and supporting someone who has made a choice to receive that support. That's why I want it to be mandatory. Young people need to be taught that freedom is not free, and that to enjoy the benefits of civilized society, one must participate in maintaining that society. This is not only highly inappropriate, but dangerous. It helps teach the person with a disability that non-disabled people are their superiors, that they are deficient beings who must rely on non-disabled people, that they do not make their own decisions about what support they want and who will provide it, etc and so on. Hogwash. Disabled people know they are disabled and are well aware of the limitations they face and when they require assistance. Nobody is suggesting forcing assistance on anyone who is able to do something for themselves. You suggest that a student whose wheelchair is stuck in a hole ought to be left there without assistance, even if the occupant is incapable of communicating a desire for assistance. There is a huge difference between having an attendant to assist with such situations at one's request. This is not what I am talking about. I am talking about those students who are forcibly "mainstreamed" into an inappropriate curriculum. We've already agreed that it would be wrong to do so, so you are evading the issue. Certainly if a disabled person wishes to do something themselves, their wishes should be respected, and they should always be encouraged to attempt self-sufficiency, but when help is required, there's nothing wrong with engaging other students in helping them. Frocing them to do so is inappropriate. Why? You are not picking up a piece of poo from the schoolyard. It's a human being. Which makes requiring his/her peers to assist him/her when necessary all the more desirable and necessary. We force children to pick up poo, or trash, or any number of other things, including toys. So what? If someone doesn't want to help another human being, forcing them to do so is humliating for the person with a disability and only teaches the person being forced to project their anger onto an innocent party. Wrong. NOT teaching children to help others in need (as you suggest is proper policy) is destroying the very fabric of our society. "Forcing" a student to assist another student (disabled or otherwise) is not wrong, it's a necessary part of teaching children to be responsible adults. You imply that "forcing" a two-year-old to eat his peas causes the child to "project his anger" onto an innocent party. Maybe so, but the point is that neither the two-year-old nor the disabled child nor the older child assigned to mentor him are in charge of things, and they can, and should be required to do many things that they don't like doing, because it teaches them, among other things, discipline, self-control, self-reliance, obedience, altruism, humility, compassion and concern for others. Such things are a necessary part of every child's education. It is the lack of such education that has resulted in a generation of selfish, self-centered, undisciplined, uncaring, dependent, disobedient, arrogant, uncompassionate children who are a scourge on our society. As for the disabled person, particularly a disabled child, it's hardly uncommon for ego to get in the way of reality, and it's sometimes necessary to teach disabled children things they don't want to learn, just as it's necessary to "force" all children to learn things they don't think they need to know because they are, well, ignorant children. When talking about educating children, almost everything adults do is "forcing" the child to do something they don't want to do because they'd rather be vegetating in front of the TV watching Spongebob Squarepants. Tough. Children, including disabled children, aren't in charge and their wants, likes and dislikes are of but little import when it comes to their educations. They need to do as they are told, whether they like it or not. All part of what contributes to making them an extremely vulnerable population. It also teaches the non-disabled student that it is appropriate and normal for them to assume a position of power over people with disabilities. Poppycock. There are no power issues here, there is simple human compassion and friendship. Your argument presupposes a selfish motive in the teaching of compassion. Forcing someone to perform a task against their will has nothing to do with the teaching of compassion. Wrong. Forcing a child to feed his gerbil, even when he doesn't want to, has absolutely everything to do with teaching compassion, and the oftentimes direct result of not having compassion, which is that creatures die when compassion is missing. It might possibly help someone to develop a sense of duty, which of course can mean a lot of things. Nothing wrong with that. We need a LOT more instilling of a sense of duty in our children. -- 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:
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 4/5/05 5:32 PM: 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. Cough. Sputter. Cough Did SCOTT WEISER just say that? He's becoming...gasp...a SOCIALIST right before our eyes!!!! Social priorities is not socialism. No! But you want to force taxpayers to support social needs! Of course. I'm not an anarchist. "That to secure these liberties, governments are instituted among men" is not a call to socialism, but it is a recognition that people must be governed. And for government to function, the people have to pay for it. Thus, levying taxes is perfectly correct. The question is WHO authorizes the extraction of taxes to support government programs, and HOW they go about doing so. Put Scott in charge of the school system, and each person with an intellectual disability will be mainstreamed with their own personal teacher! If the school needs 483 teachers for 600 students, so be it! It's a social priority! Well, only if they can afford it and are willing to pay for it. Good luck with that! Then they get ignorant, uncontrollable children. Petard hoist. -- 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:
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: 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. LOL! How brilliant! Take kids who have trouble at home and beat them at school! I didn't say "beat them." But as to discipline, somebody's got to do it, or the kids grow up to be criminals. Even young children can distinguish between unprovoked physical abuse and just punishment for wrongdoing. Corporal punishment is usually administered in aid of the person administering it. Well, yes, that's rather the point. The person administering it is authorized to do so in order to obtain obedience and proper conduct. The myth of the detached robotic corporal punisher dishing out emotionally detached consequences is just that...a myth. Hardly. Billions of people for thousands of years have benefited from the focusing effects of corporal punishment. That'll learn 'em to concentrate! Most of the time, yes. Yup, concentrate on revenge. Corporal punishment is not "revenge." It's punishment for wrongdoing intended to instill discipline and understanding that misbehavior has negative consequences, provided by persons in authority who have license to maintain and teach discipline. And who they are going to beat in the schoolyard just like the teacher beat them. Nobody, if the discipline policy is properly and rigorously enforced. The reason we HAVE rampant schoolyard violence is BECAUSE there are no substantial (and painful) consequences for inflicting unlawful and wanton physical violence on classmates. And also that violence is acceptable, Violence is acceptable, in proper context. A classroom is not the proper context. Sure it is. More than just the physical discomfort, the psychological effects of the acute embarrassment of being spanked before a roomful of your peers is most effective at preventing repeat misbehavior. It also acts as an object lesson to the other students in the class that such misbehavior will not be tolerated. The unlawful violence against me in junior high school stopped when I stood up to a bully, took my lumps, and beat the crap out of him in self-defense after he wantonly attacked me without warning or provocation. After that fight, I never had another problem with any of my peers trying to bully me. But, it also taught me that it's a really good idea to do everything possible to avoid a fight, because even winning a fight *hurts.* I haven't been in a *single* fistfight since then, including during my tenure as a police officer, where I was always able to verbally convince people that fighting with me would be a very bad idea because one way or another, the law was going to win. More than 40 years of successful non-violence directly resulted from one single incidence of the lawful and appropriate use of physical force in self-defense. That's a lesson that *all* children ought to learn. When I worked as an EMT in a hospital ER, the people we saw most often from bar fights were the *winners.* They usually broke bones in the hand as a result of the punch that ended the fight, and ended up in a cast. Consider appropriate corporal punishment, both at home and in schools, as prophylactic self-defense by society against the inevitable violence perpetrated by undisciplined children who grow up into undisciplined adults. It doesn't work that way. It absolutely works that way. Kids who already have problems end up getting beaten by their teachers, Corporal punishment is not "beating" a student. It's physically harmless, mildly uncomfortable, and highly embarrassing, nothing more. thus teaching them that violence and aggression is how the world works, and the message definitely gets passed on. You sure don't give human children any credit for intelligence. Even a dog can easily learn that getting swatted with a rolled-up newspaper for chewing on slippers means "don't chew on the slippers," not "go out and bite everything that moves." Corporal punishment is not "violence and aggression," it's duly-deserved and duly-administered punishment for misdeeds, and kids are quite adept at discerning the difference between abuse and justified punishment. after all, school is a good and fine social institution, and they use violence, so it's OK for me too! Context is everything. Moreover, violence is an inherent part of human nature. Learning to control one's behavior because the painful consequences of not doing so is an important lesson to learn, because no matter who you are, there's always somebody bigger, badder and more violent out there who can hurt you if you **** them off. Children who don't understand that they must learn to control their behavior or they may suffer *even worse* violence are in grave danger. Teach them not to be violent by hitting them. Interesting. You need to learn to distinguish between justifiable violence and unjustifiable violence. Most people comprehend the distinction. Have you ever heard about cycles of abuse? Yup. But corporal punishment, properly applied in response to documented misbehavior is not "abuse." And the reason there are "cycles of abuse" is because those who abuse have never learned that they are not allowed to use unjustified physical force against others, and that there are penalties, often harsh ones, for doing so. The way to break the cycle of abuse is to teach the children that an unjustified use of force against another will result in severe punishment. Children are well equipped to understand by analogy, and the analogy of corporal punishment is "you suffer uncomfortable and humiliating consequences for wrongful behavior as a child, and the discomfort and humiliation only gets more severe as you grow up and continue to misbehave." Not teaching them this lesson, beginning VERY early, is a disservice to the child and to society. Smacking a child's hand or giving them a swat on the bottom to enforce obedience is not, contrary to liberal permissive dogma, going to turn them into psychopathic killers. Nope. But it will teach them that physical force is an appropriate way to deal with problems. Physical force is an appropriate way to deal with problems, depending of course on the nature of the problem. Using justifiable physical force in self-defense is a perfectly appropriate way to deal with an unlawful assault, and children need to learn this, as well as learn the distinction between self-defense and unlawful assault. It will also make them very angry. Tough. They'll get over it. Learning to control anger is yet another vital lesson children must be taught. A disservice is done to children whenever adults pander to them in order to curry favor and avoid making their children angry or upset. Children must be TAUGHT to control their anger and they must be TAUGHT how to analyze and redirect anger in proper, acceptable ways. They will never learn this lesson if they are a) never angry, and/or b) never disciplined for inappropriate displays of anger and resentment. Not doing so, however, stands a very good chance of turning them into uncontrollable, wild, selfish and violent adults who don't recognize any limitations on their behavior. That fact is perfectly clear. One needs only look at the decline of civility and the burgeoning juvenile crime rates to see this. It is a rather juvenile leap to attribute these problems to a failure of teachers to beat their students. Corporal punishment is not "beating." And I blame the parents far more than I do educators, but educators are still responsible for failing in their duty to properly teach and discipline students. 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. I agree with you on this point. Drugs are being unbelievably overprescribed. By SMACKING the kids is not the answer. Obviously. Why is it obvious to you? How do you deny thousands of years of corporal discipline that resulted in generation after generation of rational, peaceful and well-behaved adults? LOL. Which generation are we talking about? You mean the generations where wife-beating was an accepted social practice? Strawman argument. There is absolutely no credible correlation between persons undergoing appropriate and justified corporal punishment as children and their becoming "wife-beaters." Besides, you make a sexist strawman argument as well. 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. Ridiculous. That's the recipe for a volcano that will erupt (internally, externally, or both). It just teaches the kid that when you have a problem, you lash out at it. Balderdash. The most violent teens on the planet are those who have *never* been disciplined. Not in my considerable experience. Do you have some research to indicate that violent teens come from peaceful environments? Who said anything about "peaceful environments?" Most undisciplined homes are anything but "peaceful." They are usually utter chaos and violence at all times. That's what happens when you let the kids run the house. You do realize that there are disciplined families that have never raised a hand to a child, right? Sure. But because that occurs, it does not follow that corporal punishment creates abusers. You must also recognize that there are families that "never raised a hand to a child" who ended up with violent, out-of-control children. Watch any episode of "Nanny 911" or "Supernanny" for weekly examples of undisciplined permissiveness resulting in uncontrollable, violent children. Teaching self-control is a necessary part of any child's upbringing, and teaching a child that authority has teeth, and that defiance may have painful consequences is absolutely necessary if the child is to grow up into a responsible adult. Being beaten teaches children to beat others. Are you saying that there are no responsible adults who were not beaten by their parents and teachers? How silly. Once again, corporal punishment is not "beating." Heck, even the teacher hits me, what's wrong with me hitting a kid that I don't like? The answer is quite simple: You are not a teacher, and you do not have any authority to administer corporal punishment. Even small children are capable of distinguishing between punishment administered for wrongful behavior and wanton assault. Actually, you hear those exact words all the time. The teacher does it, so why shouldn't I? Here's the answer: "You may not do so because you are not the teacher, you are the student. You don't get to do many things a teacher does, and one of those things is that you don't get to administer punishment for misdeeds, whether the punishment is corporal or otherwise. That is not within the sphere of your authority. If you presume to usurp the authority granted to teachers, then YOU will be punished appropriately for overstepping the bounds. When and if you grow up to be an adult with authority over others, including perhaps children, then you may be authorized to administer punishments. Until then, you may not do so." The fact that an ignorant child may attempt to rationalize his bad behavior and excuse the unauthorized use of force on another does not mean that society is required to accept that rationalization. Instead, children should be taught that punishment is administered by duly-appointed authorities ONLY, and than any use of force against another, for any reason other than in legitimate, justifiable self-defense, will be harshly punished. 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. There are a proportion of kids diagnosed ADHD who experience a life-changing experience with medication. I'd say *all* of them do. The question is whether or not the changes are positive or negative. The vast, vast majority of the time, the changes are demonstrably negative and extremely harmful to the child's future. With proper medical care this never has to happen. Yes, yes, it's possible to narcotize all children into a compliant stupor, but that doesn't teach them anything, and once they get off the drugs, they STILL won't have the ability to concentrate, and will be too old to learn how, presuming that they don't end up on "Adult ADHD" medication for the rest of their lives. The dosage needs to be monitored closely with the intent of reducing it as soon as possible, and the goal of eliminating it. In 90% of the cases, the dosage should be zero. Could be. The medication should be combined with strategies for the teacher, parents, and child. The strategies should be tried first before medication is even a consideration. Yup. And corporal punishment is one of the prime strategies that should be applied LONG before medication is even considered. Only if you want a child with even more problems who will end up with even more medication. Nah. Wayne just told me about an interview he did with the Commandant of a prep-school military academy here in Colorado. When asked about ADHD students, the Commandant said, "We don't have any. If they have a problem when they get here, we cure them in about a week." That said, I agree with much of what you say (regarding misdiagnosis and slapping of labels on kids so they can be dealt with through medications) but I think your focus on the need for the child to have a smack is way off. They need people around them who can set boundaries and help establish routines and structure that are appropriate. And how, exactly, do you set "boundaries" with an out-of-control child who refuses to acknowledge parental (or teacher) authority, no matter what punishments short of corporal punishment are applied? I find out what is going on. How does that help the child to learn what boundaries are? And then there's the issue of how you teach a child to stay away from danger. You can do this without smacking people. Most of the time, yes. Sometimes, a smack is the proper technique. Telling a two year old that something is "hot" is only marginally useful until they understand what "hot" means. In my home, we have a wood stove insert to heat the house. There are no barriers, no guard rails, nothing to keep a child from touching the hot stove. And yet not one of the children has ever suffered a serious burn, because they learn very quickly not to touch (or even get near) the stove when it's lit. Has there been the occasional burned finger? Yes. But not more than once per child. Is allowing a child to burn his finger so he understands the concept of "hot" violent? To many parents, probably so, but to us, children have to learn to live in the real world, which is filled with real perils, which requires that they be absolutely and reliably obedient to parental commands. Unless we are willing to let them experiment with dangers that can severely injure or kill them, we have to find ways to teach them the painful consequences of carelessness or disobedience by using techniques that demonstrate the physical pain involved in doing such things while protecting them from any real harm. Wrapping children in bunting so as to keep them from any pain is a disservice to them. Corporal punishment is the way that rational adults teach the very real consequences of misbehavior in ways that are uncomfortable and unpleasant, but harmless. I never once burned myself on a stove but also was never smacked to learn no to do so. Neither did these kids. The point, which you evidently missed, is that children are perfectly capable of correlating cause and effect, including when corporal punishment is administered in response to disobedience. I have worked with many vulnerable people with limited cognitive abilities and have never smacked them to help them learn not to burn themselves on a stove. And none of them ever has. You miss the metaphor. Thus, when teaching the two year old not to run out in the street, a bare-butt spanking that makes the consequences of disobedience much more real, immediate and painful than the abstract concept of "you might get hit by a car" is perfectly justifiable, reasonable, rational and effective. Being beaten by your parent is not a logical consequence to running on the street. Once again, corporal punishment is not "beating." It only teaches that your parent is unstable and lacks the parenting skills to help you develop boundaries. Only to brainless liberal simps who deliberately ignore several thousands of years of human history in child-rearing. Likewise, smacking the back of the hand of a disruptive student who has refused polite requests to settle down to work is perfectly reasonable because it is harmless, but it makes the consequences of disobedience more unpleasant than those of obedience. It's not harmless at all. Sure it is. In fact, it's helpful. It meets the needs of the teacher. Indeed. And the need of the teacher is "teach discipline, respect and obedience." It is a strategy for the weak of mind, No, that's the strategy of liberal permissive apologists. and demonstrates a lack of discipline by the person in authority. Nah. Not disciplining children demonstrates a lack of discipline on the part of authorities. When I was about 4, my dad caught me putting paperclips in the wall sockets. I didn't respond to lectures on the subject, so he bought a crank-type telephone generator and gave me a couple of very unpleasant but harmless shocks. Then he told me what was in the telephone box was "little electricity," and that what was in the wall socket was "big electricity." I got the message instantly, and never ventured near the wall sockets with a paperclip again. It was a valuable and well-crafted lesson that made it absolutely certain I wouldn't be in danger of death. But, if a parent today did the same thing, he would undoubtedly be arrested for "child abuse" merely because he subjected his child to some minor pain out of concern for his life. So, instead of children who understand the dangers of AC line voltage and current, we have plastic plugs which any three year old can remove and a generation of kids at risk for electrocution. Oddly enough, I've also never electrocuted myself. But what you are describing above is quite different from administering a rap on the hand to bring about classroom compliance. Not really. The lesson is the same: "Does it hurt when you do that? Then don't do that." Sorry, but life is full of danger and pain, and there's nothing wrong with instilling discipline and obedience through reasonable and appropriate corporal punishment in order to prevent greater, potentially fatal harm at a later time. Never has been, never will be, so long as it's done with the proper motives and in the proper proportion. Those are mythical motives and mythical proportions. Affirmed and supported by tens of thousands of years of human behavior and efficaciously applied to billions upon billions of children over the millennia. That's my kind of "myth." And please don't bother trying to forward the specious argument that any corporal punishment is, or inevitably leads to, genuine physical abuse, because it's not true. For example, I don't run around the house with a cattle-prod zapping the two year old every time he disobeys just because my father used an electrical shock to reinforce a vital safety lesson. I'm sure your father and you are special exeptions. Nah, just ordinary people. It's not like you walk around with a gun waiting for the day you can shoot someone. Quite right, I don't. -- 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:
And in this we can agree, as I have said. Where we disagree is where you imply that most intellectually challenged kids fit this mold. Since you seldom care to argue about the less obvious cases or draw fine distinctions, I view your statements as being in the nature of a general policy of "exclude them unless they are certain to be capable." I tend to err on the side of "include them unless they are demonstrably incapable." If you can agree with that model, then we appear to have no real disagreement. That's fine, as long as you realize 100% of kids with intellectual disabilities deserve a more appropriate curriculum than Grade 12 chemistry. Why would I agree to that? It's entirely possible for some students with intellectual disabilities to excel at Grade 12 chemistry. -- 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:
I've stated unequivocally that there are students with disabilities who benefit from the same curriculum as non-disabled peers. But you consistently argue a debate about general "mainstreaming" policy within the narrow framework of one particular student who may not benefit. I'm talking about an millions of students...all those who deserve a more appropriate curriculum than one that is designed for a different purpose and need. No, you're trying to use a single example as a model for millions of others. You have absolutely no idea what an "appropriate curriculum" is for *any* disabled student, not even your example. How could you? You don't know any of them and you don't know WHAT they need. I'm simply not allowing you to set policy based on one extreme example. I'm arguing for nuance and erring on the side of inclusiveness, while you seem to be arguing on the side of exclusion. It's not one extreme example. I am talking about all the millions of kids that deserve a curriculum designed for their needs, not one that is tailored to the needs of others. Problem with your theory is that in many cases, the curriculum tailored for the "needs of others" is perfectly appropriate for the disabled. That they may need *other* programs targeted at specific, individual needs of a specific disable student is irrelevant to the greater need that *all* children have for a basic education and socialization. -- 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: ============= teaching a child that authority has teeth, and that defiance may have painful consequences is absolutely necessary if the child is to grow up into a responsible adult. ================ Why am I thinking of Stanley Milgram right now? Could it be.... teaching people the importance of obeying authority.... naaahhh! Funny thing is, my children are very well-mannered and well-behaved (almost to a fault) but I've always asked them to question authority (not necessarily verbally, but at least intellectually). In fact, I *never* want them to "accept" authority without question! Lucky you. Not everybody is so lucky. However, I'd wager that even you have given your children a swat from time to time, not to mention the odd verbal dressing-down or other punishment. You see, young children aren't particularly logical creatures. They tend to react on a very visceral basis to their needs, wants and desires, and become upset when they do not receive instant gratification. Sometimes they become very upset, to the point of hysteria. Other times, they become deliberately disobedient IN ORDER to test your limits as a parent and to determine just what they can get away with without suffering unpleasant consequences. And they tend to do this starting at an age where "reasoning" with them can be only marginally to entirely ineffective. If you fail to teach them when they are young that obedience is not a matter of personal choice or preference, they will be a detriment to society when they grow up. -- 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:
in article , BCITORGB at wrote on 4/6/05 7:10 PM: Scott thinks: ============= teaching a child that authority has teeth, and that defiance may have painful consequences is absolutely necessary if the child is to grow up into a responsible adult. ================ Why am I thinking of Stanley Milgram right now? Could it be.... teaching people the importance of obeying authority.... naaahhh! Funny thing is, my children are very well-mannered and well-behaved (almost to a fault) but I've always asked them to question authority (not necessarily verbally, but at least intellectually). In fact, I *never* want them to "accept" authority without question! frtzw906 The real danger is in teaching compliance rather than respect. That can be a problem. Still, if the choice is compliance or respect, I'll take compliance. "I sit quietly so you won't hit me" is not respect. If that is the only thought process, you're correct, but most often, the thought process is rather more complex. That is fear, resulting in compliance. Well, depending on the need for compliance, compliance can come first, and respect later. I don't need a two-year-old to respect me when I tell him not to run out into the street, I need his instant, unquestioning obedience. If fear of punishment causes that compliance, fine. At some later time, when he's intellectually capable of understanding why I required unquestioning obedience, I'll be happy to explain to him why, and hopefully he will be able to see that he owes me respect because it was his safety that I was concerned with. This is, in fact, the way it usually happens. There is no internal motivation to change the behaviour, it is through external threat only that the change is achieved. Don't be silly. The internal motivation is: "Scott was extremely displeased at my behavior and he punished me for it. Why would he do that? Hm, maybe what I did was wrong or dangerous. Perhaps I should amend that behavior in order to gain both approval from Scott and avoid further painful and embarrassing punishment, not to mention avoiding the possibility of physical harm." The external threat stimulates the internal motivation. Children are pretty good at picking up on adult approval and disapproval. That's how they learn to survive, and always have. This type of behavioural management teaches people to be victims and victimizers. That's the most asinine thing I've ever heard you say, and it's completely without foundation or reason. Someone who is having trouble focusing in class who gets a smash on the back of the hand is being forced to comply. Yup. They are also being taught that concentration is desirable and less painful. Pure operant conditioning. There is no learning or respect or understanding. Wrong. Even a rat can learn behaviors in response to operant conditioning, so clearly there's learning going on. "If I do that, it hurts. I guess I won't do that." The understanding and respect comes later. Just compliance. Compliance first, understanding and respect later. It's a multi-step process. And that is what that child is learning - comply, or else. Yup. A lesson every child must learn. Then they learn *why* they must comply, and they learn why it is that they were punished, and who, and when they are subject to justifiable punishment. As a result, they learn proper behavior, respect and how to successfully integrate into society. This is not random brutalization we're talking about here, it's specific corporal punishment administered for specific wrongdoing. Even small children understand the cause and effect in getting a smack on the bottom for disobeying a parent's safety instructions. And this is training for being a victim. Hogwash, poppycock AND balderdash! The next person of authority who seeks their compliance may have the intention to sexually assault them. And the child has been taught that refusal to comply results in a beating, and that they are powerless. So the comply. Nonsense. They also learn to seek compliance from others, using the same technique as the authority figure that taught them how to do it. It could be younger kids in the schoolyard or siblings at home. And eventually a wife and kids. Specious nonsense. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
KMAN observes: ================= Someone who is having trouble focusing in class who gets a smash on the back of the hand is being forced to comply. There is no learning or respect or understanding. Just compliance. ================ And there's plenty of research on the use of force, to ensure compliance, which indicates that, give half a chance, the "victim" will turn around and return the favor. The effect of force for purposes of compliance is generally "short-term" compliance where "short-term" is defined as "so long as the party using the force is percieved to be in a more powerful position". Interestingly, there is ALWAYS someone in a "more powerful" position in every person's life. If no one else, the government itself, which is perfectly capable and willing of exercising any degree of force necessary to obtain compliance, up to and including deadly force. Learning how to audit your behavior in response to those in authority over you is necessary if one is to be successful in life. That's why mandatory universal military service is a very good idea. The moment the teenager, being forced into compliance by the father, reckons he's tougher than his old man, the old man had better watch his step, 'cause he's gonna get a really good hiding to make up for all the ones he dished out. Funny how that rarely happens in families where corporal punishment is properly administered. Could it be that as the child grows, he comes to understand why his parent might have given him a licking? Could it be that the man he becomes understands that his father was looking out for his best interests when he was a child, and that by being firm, fair and consistent in his administration of discipline, his father was setting and enforcing boundaries on proper conduct that every child needs in order to grow up properly? I got only a couple of "really good hidings" from my father, and I richly deserved each one, and I not only don't hold any animus towards him, I reverently thank him for caring enough about me to discipline me when I was being a total ****. That's a recognition I came to as a young adult, when I finally realized that I wasn't supposed to be in charge because I didn't know how to be in charge. You resolutely refuse to distinguish between appropriate discipline and random abuse. There is a huge difference. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself frtzw906 wrote:
KMAN 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. Cough. Sputter. Cough Did SCOTT WEISER just say that? He's becoming...gasp...a SOCIALIST right before our eyes!!!! ======================== And here's what's interesting as well. Consider if, in the context of this discussion of persons with disabilities, I had responded to Scott's suggestions that, "Tough luck on the parents of the disabled child! They made the decision to have that child. Why is that *my* problem?! Why should the classrooms in which my children are required to learn, be burdened with pupils who are a hindrance and slow up the whole learning process?" I don't feel that way. I wouldn't say it. Go ahead and say it, it'll expand your mind. BUT.... Where does Scott get off showing such empathy for persons with disabilities when, just a few days ago, in the discussion of universal health care and the plight of the poor, he took a different tack. I recall phrases like "Why is it my problem that the poor decided to have children they couldn't support?!" WOW! The turmoil in Scott's head over these issues must be intense. Such logical inconsistency must border on the painful. Nah. You just don't understand my technique. Not surprising, only the illuminati do. -- 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 4/12/05 6:36 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: "Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 4/5/05 5:24 PM: 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. Ah. That has nothing to do with "mentoring." That is one person being forced to "help" another person who has not requested the help. So? These are children, and they don't have the right to refuse to participate in educational programs, even when those programs require their active participation in teaching other students, or helping other students who need help. It helps create a sense of community and responsibility for others, which is something that is sorely lacking in today's selfish society. It's not mentoring when neither party is willing or makes the choice. You wrongly presume that neither party is willing You didn't speak of any process whereby the parties in question have a say in this "mentoring." and you incorrectly presume that one has to "make the choice" to be a mentor. No such restriction is found in the definition of the word. I think most people's understanding of a mentorship relationship is that the two people have chosen to be in the relationship. The non-disabled student is not trained in supporting the individual with a disability in an appropriate helper role and will serve the purpose of teaching the individual with a disability that they are not competent and need to be assigned a non-disabled person to make their decisions for them. Balderdash. The whole point is to TEACH the mentor how to mentor while also teaching the disabled student how to be mentored. Ah, basically teaching the non-disabled student to boss people with disabilities, and teaching people with disabilities to be bossed. Absolutely the worst possible suggestion, unless your goal is to make people with disabilities even more vulnerable than they are. Mentoring has nothing to do with "making their decisions for them," it is simply defined as "tutoring or coaching." Actually, even using standard dictionary definitions, the key to a mentoring relationship is trust. While trust might possibly emerge from an imposed relationship, it seems to me it is much more likely to come from a relationship where the two people actually choose to be together. It's extremely common for more advanced students to be called upon to mentor less advanced students, or students who are having difficulty with a particular aspect of the curriculum, regardless of the ability of the mentored student. You suggest that any hint or implication to a disabled student who is struggling that they are disabled and struggling by way of giving them a mentor is demeaning. It's not. It's a perfectly ordinary form of didacticism. The reason you are wanting to force this mentoring relationship - and the reason the person is struggling - is they are being subjected to someone else's curriculum. This is not the same as a student getting a 65 in Grade 12 chemistry getting some peer help (not what I would call mentoring) from a 95 student so they can bring their grade up to 70. That has nothing to do with a student who has numeracy at a Grade 1 level and reads at a Grade 2 level suffering through Grade 12 biology. I also advocate mandatory national service upon graduation from high school, either in the Civilian Conservation Corps (or other like public works entity) or military service. That's a very different idea altogether. For example, having a voluntary service requirement means finding an agency with a volunteer program, receiving appropriate training and supervision, and supporting someone who has made a choice to receive that support. That's why I want it to be mandatory. Young people need to be taught that freedom is not free, and that to enjoy the benefits of civilized society, one must participate in maintaining that society. Great. But a child with a disability is not a guinea pig, and teachers in schools rarely have appropriate training, let alone some student that the teacher (supposedly and laughedly) has time to "train" to be a mentor. This is not only highly inappropriate, but dangerous. It helps teach the person with a disability that non-disabled people are their superiors, that they are deficient beings who must rely on non-disabled people, that they do not make their own decisions about what support they want and who will provide it, etc and so on. Hogwash. Disabled people know they are disabled and are well aware of the limitations they face and when they require assistance. Nobody is suggesting forcing assistance on anyone who is able to do something for themselves. You suggest that a student whose wheelchair is stuck in a hole ought to be left there without assistance, even if the occupant is incapable of communicating a desire for assistance. There is a huge difference between having an attendant to assist with such situations at one's request. This is not what I am talking about. I am talking about those students who are forcibly "mainstreamed" into an inappropriate curriculum. We've already agreed that it would be wrong to do so, so you are evading the issue. I could only evade the issue - as you see it - if I knew what the issue is and how you see it. Which I don't. Certainly if a disabled person wishes to do something themselves, their wishes should be respected, and they should always be encouraged to attempt self-sufficiency, but when help is required, there's nothing wrong with engaging other students in helping them. Frocing them to do so is inappropriate. Why? It is the wrong message to send. It is telling the person with a disability that they need a non-disabled person "assigned" to them in order to get by. I know many adults with disabilities who have suffered tremendously from hearing and believing that message. They end up as dependent, self-doubting, self-hating adults. And the non-disabled person learns and helps to reinforce exactly that same view. "Teacher says I have to help Billy because he's a retard." Great! You are not picking up a piece of poo from the schoolyard. It's a human being. Which makes requiring his/her peers to assist him/her when necessary all the more desirable and necessary. We force children to pick up poo, or trash, or any number of other things, including toys. So what? You see no probleim in treating poo and people with disabilities the same way? If someone doesn't want to help another human being, forcing them to do so is humliating for the person with a disability and only teaches the person being forced to project their anger onto an innocent party. Wrong. NOT teaching children to help others in need (as you suggest is proper policy) is destroying the very fabric of our society. You don't "teach" anything by forcing. You are aware that there are children who like to help others, and not because they were forced to do so, right? "Forcing" a student to assist another student (disabled or otherwise) is not wrong It is horribly wrong. it's a necessary part of teaching children to be responsible adults. It is teaching the person with a disability to doubt their own value and surrender power to non-disabled persons, and it is teaching the non-disabled person to assume that role. There is no mutual respect to be developed from "Teacher says I have to help you." You imply that "forcing" a two-year-old to eat his peas causes the child to "project his anger" onto an innocent party. ? Maybe so, but the point is that neither the two-year-old nor the disabled child nor the older child assigned to mentor him are in charge of things They should be. People with disabilities in particular need to lear non-compliance and how to have a voice and what it feels like to have that voice respected. There is a reason why they are so extremely vulnerable to sexual abuse and other assaults. Because they are taught - through hairbrained schemes like forced mentorships and mainstreaming - that they are powerless and their place on earth is to do what non-disabled people tell them to do. and they can, and should be required to do many things that they don't like doing, because it teaches them, among other things, discipline, self-control, self-reliance, obedience, altruism, humility, compassion and concern for others. Such things are a necessary part of every child's education. It is the lack of such education that has resulted in a generation of selfish, self-centered, undisciplined, uncaring, dependent, disobedient, arrogant, uncompassionate children who are a scourge on our society. Perhaps it is living in a selfish, self-centred, undisciplined, uncaring, depdent, disobedient, arrogant, uncompassionate society that was prodeuced selfish, self-centred, undisciplined, uncaring, depdent, disobedient, arrogant, uncompassionate children that you speak of. As for the disabled person, particularly a disabled child, it's hardly uncommon for ego to get in the way of reality, and it's sometimes necessary to teach disabled children things they don't want to learn, just as it's necessary to "force" all children to learn things they don't think they need to know because they are, well, ignorant children. When talking about educating children, almost everything adults do is "forcing" the child to do something they don't want to do because they'd rather be vegetating in front of the TV watching Spongebob Squarepants. Tough. Children, including disabled children, aren't in charge and their wants, likes and dislikes are of but little import when it comes to their educations. They need to do as they are told, whether they like it or not. LOL. Heil Weiser! All part of what contributes to making them an extremely vulnerable population. It also teaches the non-disabled student that it is appropriate and normal for them to assume a position of power over people with disabilities. Poppycock. There are no power issues here, there is simple human compassion and friendship. Your argument presupposes a selfish motive in the teaching of compassion. Forcing someone to perform a task against their will has nothing to do with the teaching of compassion. Wrong. Forcing a child to feed his gerbil, even when he doesn't want to, has absolutely everything to do with teaching compassion, and the oftentimes direct result of not having compassion, which is that creatures die when compassion is missing. Compassion is a combination of understanding of suffering and the wish to relieve that suffering. This is not taught by saying "help that person because I say so." That simply teachers the child that you have power of them, and while you might think that has value, it certainly has nothing to do with compassion. It might possibly help someone to develop a sense of duty, which of course can mean a lot of things. Nothing wrong with that. We need a LOT more instilling of a sense of duty in our children. Perhaps so. But it has nothing to do with compassion. You can teach someone to dutifully murder other people. This is accomplished by exerting power over them and having them in turn exert power over someone else. Sort of like your mentorship program. |
in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 4/12/05 6:39 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: "Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 4/5/05 5:32 PM: 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. Cough. Sputter. Cough Did SCOTT WEISER just say that? He's becoming...gasp...a SOCIALIST right before our eyes!!!! Social priorities is not socialism. No! But you want to force taxpayers to support social needs! Of course. I'm not an anarchist. "That to secure these liberties, governments are instituted among men" is not a call to socialism, but it is a recognition that people must be governed. And for government to function, the people have to pay for it. Thus, levying taxes is perfectly correct. The question is WHO authorizes the extraction of taxes to support government programs, and HOW they go about doing so. Oho. So it's not quite so crystal clear where supporting social needs is appropriate and where it becomes a horrific commie plot. Put Scott in charge of the school system, and each person with an intellectual disability will be mainstreamed with their own personal teacher! If the school needs 483 teachers for 600 students, so be it! It's a social priority! Well, only if they can afford it and are willing to pay for it. Good luck with that! Then they get ignorant, uncontrollable children. Petard hoist. Is that how we got you? |
|
| 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