|
|
What ever happened to reward and punishment, as in "Do as I say and I'll feed you"? Worked with my dog and he was smarter than any kid in the neighbourhood. I'm thinking of booking the new wing on the community centre to train neighbourhood dogs to spray paint in order to shut up all the parents who don't like dogs. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ William R Watt National Capital FreeNet Ottawa's free community network homepage: www.ncf.ca/~ag384/top.htm warning: non-FreeNet email must have "notspam" in subject or it's returned |
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
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." Why should they? They are students. They are given assignments and they are expected to complete them. 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. Certainly such relationships are possible, but it is not a requirement. 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. Mentoring is not "bossing." It's "tutoring or coaching." Absolutely the worst possible suggestion, unless your goal is to make people with disabilities even more vulnerable than they are. The goal is to teach both students. No compulsory school student has freely "chosen" to be in a mentor relationship with a teacher. They are required to submit to education, and their teachers "mentor" them. It's not demeaning or harmful for disabled student to be subjected to teaching, whomever the teacher may be. 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. That's happenstantial trust. Trust is also built between people forced together through the interactions they experience. People in the workforce are thrust together quite often, and it is necessary for them to know how to build trust with others, even others that they may not like at all. Learning how to be trustworthy is a valuable lesson children need to learn, including being trustworthy towards those you don't know well or necessarily like. 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. No more so than any student is being "subjected" to a standardized curriculum that is within their capabilities. Some people are better students than others, and some students need additional tutoring in subjects they may have some difficulty with. Unless you are proposing individualized curricula for every student, which is something no public school can possibly provide. 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. Why is it not? A student having difficulty needs mentoring. It's how we "personalize" the curriculum to the student's individual needs. 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. Strawman argument. 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. We're not talking about PhD level mentoring. 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. Well, when they do, they do. That's life. You don't deal with a person's disabilities by ignoring them to his or her detriment. Accepting disability as an excuse to abandon a person to his own devices is just as wrong as making them dependent on others when it's not necessary. The purpose of mentoring is not to "assign" someone so the disabled person can "get by," it's to provide the extra assistance needed during the educational process so that the disabled person can succeed and even excel and learn how to be self-sufficient. Mentoring is not intended to be babysitting or a permanent situation. I know many adults with disabilities who have suffered tremendously from hearing and believing that message. That's too bad. But you swing the pendulum far too much the other way when you suggest that disabled persons be left alone to struggle without needed assistance. They end up as dependent, self-doubting, self-hating adults. I don't see that as an issue for educational mentoring. 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! Hogwash! Teaching the young mentor not to think of others as "retards" is one of the primary learning opportunities for the mentor. While a child may not like the idea that they need mentoring, that's just too bad. It's more important that every attempt be made to get them successfully through the educational process than it is to pander to their ego. Once they graduate, they are free to reject any and all assistance if they so choose. And that principle applies to ALL students, disabled or not. 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? No, I have no problem with forcing children to pick up poo in the schoolyard. 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. Sure you do. You teach them that they don't always get to do just exactly as they please, and that they will often be required to do things they don't want to do. That's part of life. You are aware that there are children who like to help others, and not because they were forced to do so, right? Right. It's always better to seek volunteers who are interested in mentoring others, but it's also reasonable to *require* a student who has the requisite knowledge to mentor other students even if they donąt want to because it provides an excellent double teaching opportunity. Teaching others can be tremendously rewarding, and reluctant mentors may be reluctant only because they aren't aware of this. Or, they may be shy, or lazy, or uncaring. In all cases, requiring them to extend themselves to help others is good social education and very often has enormous beneficial effects for even reluctant mentors. Giving children a wide range of experience helps them learn and helps them to explore themselves and their potentials. Kids might not think they will like broccoli, but they ought to be forced to eat it anyway. Once they are adults, they can choose not to eat it anymore. "Forcing" a student to assist another student (disabled or otherwise) is not wrong It is horribly wrong. Nope. It's both necessary and desirable. 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." Hogwash. All any student has to do to avoid being mentored is to apply themselves and do the work, and the mentoring will be unnecessary. If they are having difficulty, however, then mentoring is an appropriate teaching method for any student. 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. They are CHILDREN. They don't get to be in charge of things until they are grown up. People with disabilities in particular need to learn non-compliance and how to have a voice and what it feels like to have that voice respected. "Learn non-compliance?" You mean they need to learn to say "No"? Sure they do, but not when saying no is detrimental to their health, safety, welfare or education. And there's nothing in the mentor relationship that keeps them from saying "no," if they can do the work. If they can't, then they need help, whether they want to admit it or not. 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. Ridiculous. Disabled persons are only vulnerable as you suggest when they are isolated and are NOT integrated into society, where expectations of performance are set and adhered to, and they are expected to put forth whatever effort is required to meet those performance standards. They are vulnerable when they are keep isolated at home, are not educated to the maximum extent possible, and are not taught the independence that comes with individual effort and success. Mainstreaming helps prevent such abuse. 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. Indeed. My point exactly. That has to stop. Instilling self discipline is the answer, and always has been. 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! Obviously you haven't experienced the tyranny of undisciplined youth. 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. One does not come to understand suffering or form a wish to relieve that suffering unless one is intimately exposed to suffering. Forcing a child into intimate relationship with a less fortunate person teaches them compassion. Isolating children from those who suffer teaches them nothing. 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. Now there's a particularly egregious example of the fallacies of non causa pro causa, ignoratio elenchi and mediocrity. -- 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 4/12/05 7:25 PM: 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. Can you point me to one? Are you saying that it is impossible for a person with intellectual disabilities to excel at grade 12 chemistry? Can prove this assertion? -- 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 4/12/05 7:28 PM: 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. Since most people with intellectual disabilities have numeracy and literacy skills at an elementary school level, none of them need Grade 12 chemistry. How generous of you to pigeon-hole every disabled person and dictate to them what their "needs" are. This is not really so complicated. The "mainstream" curriculum is about following prescribed units of study and getting grades for post-secondary education at college or university. There is an entirely different reality for people with intellectual disabilities and forcing them to waste their time on someone else's curriculum is waste and neglect. Challenging them to succeed at a standardized curriculum is not wasteful nor neglectful. 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. Not for people with intellectual disabilities or any other type of disability that calls for a different curriculum. As I said before, you cannot possibly know what anybody "needs" by way of curriculum, because there is an infinite number of variables involved and each person is different. 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. 1) They are not receiving a basic education, they are wasting precious time on someone else's curriculum that does not meet their needs How do you know? 2) They are being socialized into uselessness by sitting in a classroom that is designed to meet someone else's needs and being humiliated in the process How do you know? -- 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:
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. If your goal is to prepare the child to be a victim, that's a good choice. You engage in the fallacies of non causa pro causa and dicto simpliciter. "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. Yes, it might be... "I'll sit quietly so you won't hit me, and one day I will murder you in your sleep and then kill myself to escape this hell." You engage in the fallacy of non sequitur. That is fear, resulting in compliance. Well, depending on the need for compliance, compliance can come first, and respect later. LOL. Good luck with that. 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. Mm. Yes, I think we can agree that a 2 year old has quite a lot of difficulty understanding the particulars of road safety. The same reasoning is true in many other cases as well. Adults need not explain every decision or order. Children will come to learn the reasons for the decisions through context, repetition and experience. It gives them the opportunity to engage their reasoning faculties and ask themselves questions about why a particular order was given, and reason out for themselves why. 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. That's how many children learn how to be victims, particularly people with intellectual disabilities, the group that you want "mainstreamed" with assigned "mentors." This is the fallacy of affirmation of the consequent. 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 No, only that pretending to concentrate might mean suffering less physical pain. They still have no idea why concentrating is a good thing They'll figure it out eventually. and less painful. Pure operant conditioning. With the lousy results that operant conditioning produces. Actually, operant conditioning is extremely effective, even with rats. Humans are fully capable of integrating the conditioning and reasoning why the stimulus was administered and how to avoid similar displeasure. Kids do it all the time. 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. Operant conditioning is nothing more than bringing about changes in behaviour. Yup. There is no learning. Sure there is. It is, as you suggest, treating a human like a lab rat. Actually, the lab rats were being treated like human beings. You can definitely change a behaviour by giving someone electric shock, beating them, or whatever Weiser item might be on the menu that day. True. But you ignore the fact that not all incidences of corporal punishment or "operant conditioning" are equal. This is the fallacy of composition. Just compliance. Compliance first, understanding and respect later. It's a multi-step process. The compliance is teaching many things, and respect is not one of those things. So what? Respect comes later. And that is what that child is learning - comply, or else. Yup. A lesson every child must learn. If they are being trained to be sexually molested, sure. Again, the fallacy of composition 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. They are learning that life is about having the power to physically abuse others. Fallacy of composition. 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. It's nothing more than operant conditioning, as you've said. The act, yes. The result, however, is much greater because humans are reasoning creatures. -- 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 4/13/05 7:33 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 4/12/05 7:25 PM: 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. Can you point me to one? Are you saying that it is impossible for a person with intellectual disabilities to excel at grade 12 chemistry? Can prove this assertion? Um. An intellectual disability is commonly defined as an IQ or 70 or less with sigificant difficulties in 2 or more adaptive skill areas. In terms of how having an intellectual disability impacts on learning, it is almost universal that people with intellectual disabilities have severe difficulties with abstraction and sequencing, which partly explains why literacy and numeracy skills seldom advance beyond the elementary level. If you can find me just one example of a person with an intellectual disability who excelled at Grade 12 chemistry, I could only guess that they were misdiagnosed to beging with. |
in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 4/13/05 7:35 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 4/12/05 7:28 PM: 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. Since most people with intellectual disabilities have numeracy and literacy skills at an elementary school level, none of them need Grade 12 chemistry. How generous of you to pigeon-hole every disabled person and dictate to them what their "needs" are. I'm not pigeon-holing anyone, I referred to a very specific population, which by definition would not experience success at Grade 12 chemistry. This is not really so complicated. The "mainstream" curriculum is about following prescribed units of study and getting grades for post-secondary education at college or university. There is an entirely different reality for people with intellectual disabilities and forcing them to waste their time on someone else's curriculum is waste and neglect. Challenging them to succeed at a standardized curriculum is not wasteful nor neglectful. It is both, and severly so. They can have just as many challenges as non-disabled students and still have a curriculum that meets their needs and has relevance to their current and future life. 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. Not for people with intellectual disabilities or any other type of disability that calls for a different curriculum. As I said before, you cannot possibly know what anybody "needs" by way of curriculum, because there is an infinite number of variables involved and each person is different. Within the intellectual disability category, it is not difficult to see how inappropriate the "mainstream" curriculum is, since it is designed to meet entirely different needs for an entirely different purpose. 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. 1) They are not receiving a basic education, they are wasting precious time on someone else's curriculum that does not meet their needs How do you know? Because they have an intellectual disability. This means they are not going to benefit from high school course with literacy and numeracy requirements designed for transition to college and university. They deserve their own curriculum so that they can be challenged and develop to the greatest extent possible for life after high school. 2) They are being socialized into uselessness by sitting in a classroom that is designed to meet someone else's needs and being humiliated in the process How do you know? See above. |
|
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 4/13/05 7:31 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: 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." Why should they? They are students. They are given assignments and they are expected to complete them. A person with a disability is not an object. They are a human being, not an "assignment." They are human beings, and they are students. Students are given assignments. Assignments may include mentoring other students. 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. Certainly such relationships are possible, but it is not a requirement. I disagree, but this is getting into semantics. Whatever you wish to call it, I am in total disagreement with a forced relationship of this nature. It's about the worst thing you could do for all concerned. Ridiculous! People are in "forced relationships" throughout their lives. They need to learn as children how to deal with such relationships through experience. 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. Mentoring is not "bossing." It's "tutoring or coaching." Being forced to tutor or coach someone who has not asked for your tutoring or coaching is a boss/being bossed relationship. Not really. Absolutely the worst possible suggestion, unless your goal is to make people with disabilities even more vulnerable than they are. The goal is to teach both students. No compulsory school student has freely "chosen" to be in a mentor relationship with a teacher. They are required to submit to education, and their teachers "mentor" them. It's not demeaning or harmful for disabled student to be subjected to teaching, whomever the teacher may be. It is both demeaning and harmful to all concerned in the scenario you propose. The forced-to-be-teacher does not have the maturity or training to take on that role, and the forced-to-be-student is being asked to sort through an impossibly confusing relationship whereby they are being bossed by what should be a peer, not a superior. That's why it's called "education." Everybody learns something. 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. That's happenstantial trust. No, that's about mutuality. Trust is also built between people forced together through the interactions they experience. That's also a good way to build hatred. That it may be does not mean that it is, or will always be. Most of the time it works out okay, and children need to learn early how to get along with others, even those they don't like. 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. They are CHILDREN. They don't get to be in charge of things until they are grown up. But you think children who are not disabled should be in charge of children who are disabled. Mentoring is not being "in charge of." -- 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 4/15/05 12:01 AM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 4/13/05 7:31 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: 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." Why should they? They are students. They are given assignments and they are expected to complete them. A person with a disability is not an object. They are a human being, not an "assignment." They are human beings, and they are students. Students are given assignments. Assignments may include mentoring other students. This "mentoring" as you have described it is nothing but the objectification of the person with a disability as lesser human. 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. Certainly such relationships are possible, but it is not a requirement. I disagree, but this is getting into semantics. Whatever you wish to call it, I am in total disagreement with a forced relationship of this nature. It's about the worst thing you could do for all concerned. Ridiculous! People are in "forced relationships" throughout their lives. They need to learn as children how to deal with such relationships through experience. Ridiculous! A person with a disability gains nothing positive from being taught that they are lesser human beings and the non-disabled person gains nothing positive from learning that they should assume power and control over people with disabilities. Just because there are negative forced relationships in the world it makes no sense to deliberately subject people to experience them. With your way of thinking, it would make sense to sexually assault children so they will be able to deal with it. Yes, your thinking is that scary. 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. Mentoring is not "bossing." It's "tutoring or coaching." Being forced to tutor or coach someone who has not asked for your tutoring or coaching is a boss/being bossed relationship. Not really. Absolutely the worst possible suggestion, unless your goal is to make people with disabilities even more vulnerable than they are. The goal is to teach both students. No compulsory school student has freely "chosen" to be in a mentor relationship with a teacher. They are required to submit to education, and their teachers "mentor" them. It's not demeaning or harmful for disabled student to be subjected to teaching, whomever the teacher may be. It is both demeaning and harmful to all concerned in the scenario you propose. The forced-to-be-teacher does not have the maturity or training to take on that role, and the forced-to-be-student is being asked to sort through an impossibly confusing relationship whereby they are being bossed by what should be a peer, not a superior. That's why it's called "education." Everybody learns something. Why not have them learning more useful and positive things than how to have a miserable life as victims or abusers? 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. That's happenstantial trust. No, that's about mutuality. Trust is also built between people forced together through the interactions they experience. That's also a good way to build hatred. That it may be does not mean that it is, or will always be. Most of the time it works out okay, and children need to learn early how to get along with others, even those they don't like. They could learn to respect each other, rather than be forced into a relationship that neither is equipped to handle. 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. They are CHILDREN. They don't get to be in charge of things until they are grown up. But you think children who are not disabled should be in charge of children who are disabled. Mentoring is not being "in charge of." Is the person with a disability freely inviting the individual to be their mentor, and is the person being inviting freely accepting the invitation? If not, your program is nothing more than assigning a non-disabled boss to a person with a disability. |
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
A person with a disability is not an object. They are a human being, not an "assignment." They are human beings, and they are students. Students are given assignments. Assignments may include mentoring other students. This "mentoring" as you have described it is nothing but the objectification of the person with a disability as lesser human. No more so than any form of didacticism for any other student. No more so than by creating a "specialized" curriculum for a disabled student, and in fact less so. Students are, by definition, ignorant of the things they are to be taught. Assigning studies is a perfectly ordinary part of every educational scheme, and it's not "objectifying" anyone to do so, irrespective of their abilities. When any student needs specialized teaching or mentoring, providing it is not "objectifying" them or categorizing them as a "lesser human," it's simply recognizing that students may learn differently and may require some additional instruction to help them succeed. No "objectification" is present. 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. Certainly such relationships are possible, but it is not a requirement. I disagree, but this is getting into semantics. Whatever you wish to call it, I am in total disagreement with a forced relationship of this nature. It's about the worst thing you could do for all concerned. Ridiculous! People are in "forced relationships" throughout their lives. They need to learn as children how to deal with such relationships through experience. Ridiculous! A person with a disability gains nothing positive from being taught that they are lesser human beings and the non-disabled person gains nothing positive from learning that they should assume power and control over people with disabilities. Sophistry. Providing mentoring is not, as you insist, an evil plot to "objectify" and "dehumanize" the student, nor is it a method of creating juvenile despots with megalomaniacal tendencies. Just because there are negative forced relationships in the world it makes no sense to deliberately subject people to experience them. It makes perfect sense. It's absolutely necessary to *every* child's proper development to expose them to situations and relationships in which they have to learn to compromise and seek consensus with others. That's one of the primary things that group schooling is for; to expose children to other children in venues that force them to learn to get along with others. Students who receive exclusively private tutoring, with the absence of peers with whom they can learn to form relationships, are ill-equipped to survive in the real world. Just ask any child star. With your way of thinking, it would make sense to sexually assault children so they will be able to deal with it. Yes, your thinking is that scary. Specious, amphigorical nonsense. Learning to relate to and get along with ones peers is entirely different from engaging in sexual abuse. By even suggesting this as an appropriate analogy you destroy your credibility. They are CHILDREN. They don't get to be in charge of things until they are grown up. But you think children who are not disabled should be in charge of children who are disabled. Mentoring is not being "in charge of." Is the person with a disability freely inviting the individual to be their mentor, and is the person being inviting freely accepting the invitation? If not, your program is nothing more than assigning a non-disabled boss to a person with a disability. Doesn't matter. They are students. They must complete the assignments given. As for "assigning a boss" to a disabled person, every person who enters the workforce gets assigned a "boss," and every person needs to learn how to be "bossed" in one way or another. That's life. Get used to it. -- 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: A person with a disability is not an object. They are a human being, not an "assignment." They are human beings, and they are students. Students are given assignments. Assignments may include mentoring other students. This "mentoring" as you have described it is nothing but the objectification of the person with a disability as lesser human. No more so than any form of didacticism for any other student. It is more in that you have just created two classes of students, an added (negative and destructive) layer of objectification. No more so than by creating a "specialized" curriculum for a disabled student An appropriate curriculum, not specialized. and in fact less so. Students are, by definition, ignorant of the things they are to be taught. Assigning studies is a perfectly ordinary part of every educational scheme, and it's not "objectifying" anyone to do so, irrespective of their abilities. Sure it is! They aren't a "study" they are human beings! When any student needs specialized teaching or mentoring, providing it is not "objectifying" them or categorizing them as a "lesser human," it's simply recognizing that students may learn differently and may require some additional instruction to help them succeed. No "objectification" is present. Forcing students with vastly different needs to be in the same class where the students who are not getting an appropriate curriculum are assigned non-disabled bosses is about nothing more than objectification and the development of future victims and abusers. 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. Certainly such relationships are possible, but it is not a requirement. I disagree, but this is getting into semantics. Whatever you wish to call it, I am in total disagreement with a forced relationship of this nature. It's about the worst thing you could do for all concerned. Ridiculous! People are in "forced relationships" throughout their lives. They need to learn as children how to deal with such relationships through experience. Ridiculous! A person with a disability gains nothing positive from being taught that they are lesser human beings and the non-disabled person gains nothing positive from learning that they should assume power and control over people with disabilities. Sophistry. Providing mentoring is not, as you insist, an evil plot to "objectify" and "dehumanize" the student, nor is it a method of creating juvenile despots with megalomaniacal tendencies. You may truly believe that your proposal would accomplish otherwise, but sadly, that's exactly what such relationships produce. Just because there are negative forced relationships in the world it makes no sense to deliberately subject people to experience them. It makes perfect sense. It's absolutely necessary to *every* child's proper development to expose them to situations and relationships in which they have to learn to compromise and seek consensus with others. Mhm. That's one of the primary things that group schooling is for; to expose children to other children in venues that force them to learn to get along with others. OK. Students who receive exclusively private tutoring, with the absence of peers with whom they can learn to form relationships, are ill-equipped to survive in the real world. Just ask any child star. None of which has anything to do with your scheme. With your way of thinking, it would make sense to sexually assault children so they will be able to deal with it. Yes, your thinking is that scary. Specious, amphigorical nonsense. Learning to relate to and get along with ones peers is entirely different from engaging in sexual abuse. What you are proposing will result in production of victims and abusers much more so than learning to get along. By even suggesting this as an appropriate analogy you destroy your credibility. Only becuase you have no idea how foolish your idea truly is. They are CHILDREN. They don't get to be in charge of things until they are grown up. But you think children who are not disabled should be in charge of children who are disabled. Mentoring is not being "in charge of." Is the person with a disability freely inviting the individual to be their mentor, and is the person being inviting freely accepting the invitation? If not, your program is nothing more than assigning a non-disabled boss to a person with a disability. Doesn't matter. It does matter. This is why you need to think more about abusers and the abused. They are students. They must complete the assignments given. Thus when exerting this power care is required to ensure why the assignment is being given and if the results are likely to meet with the goals. As for "assigning a boss" to a disabled person, every person who enters the workforce gets assigned a "boss," and every person needs to learn how to be "bossed" in one way or another. That's life. Get used to it. Why should people with disabilities "get used to" being bossed by non-disabled people?!? My goodness you are such a fool. This is EXACTLY why people with disabilities are so vulnerable to sexual assault and other forms of abuse. Fools like you actually want them to learn to be victims, and to teach non-disabled people to be victimizers. Amazingly stupid. |
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
As for "assigning a boss" to a disabled person, every person who enters the workforce gets assigned a "boss," and every person needs to learn how to be "bossed" in one way or another. That's life. Get used to it. Why should people with disabilities "get used to" being bossed by non-disabled people?!? It's not just "disabled people," it's *everyone.* All children will ultimately grow up and become members of the workforce, and they will be "bossed" by any number of people in their lives. They need to learn how to be a good subordinate FIRST. The military knows this, which is why even General officers start out as boot recruits, where they learn to be "bossed." It has absolutely nothing whatever to do with one's disability status. My goodness you are such a fool. This is EXACTLY why people with disabilities are so vulnerable to sexual assault and other forms of abuse. Fools like you actually want them to learn to be victims, and to teach non-disabled people to be victimizers. Amazingly stupid. You certainly are if you think that teaching children to be subordinate to authority is a bad thing. -- 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 4/15/05 10:22 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: As for "assigning a boss" to a disabled person, every person who enters the workforce gets assigned a "boss," and every person needs to learn how to be "bossed" in one way or another. That's life. Get used to it. Why should people with disabilities "get used to" being bossed by non-disabled people?!? It's not just "disabled people," it's *everyone.* All children will ultimately grow up and become members of the workforce, and they will be "bossed" by any number of people in their lives. They need to learn how to be a good subordinate FIRST. The military knows this, which is why even General officers start out as boot recruits, where they learn to be "bossed." It has absolutely nothing whatever to do with one's disability status. I don't hear you assigning any people with disabilities to boss their non-disabled peers. So, obviously, since your little system features non-disabled people bossing disabled people, the main outcome will be as I stated: people with disabilities will get used to being bossed by non-disabled people, and non-disabled people will get used to bossing people with disabilities. Don't be silly, that's what mentoring programs are *about.* I never suggested NOT mentoring non disabled students. In fact I repeatedly told you that ANY student who was having difficulty in a specific academic area needs to be mentored. It so happens that we are specifically discussing the disabled, but that in no way suggests that they are the only students who need mentors. But before you come up with some scheme to give the people with disabilties equal bossing time, why the heck do these kids need to be bossing each other at all...they already have teachers, principals, parents, and other authority figures to boss them. You really seem to have some sort of authority-figure aversion. Why not just eliminate the need for this misguided and dangerous scheme by ensuring that students have an appropriate curriculum? Mentoring is an appropriate curriculum for a student who is having difficulty. My goodness you are such a fool. This is EXACTLY why people with disabilities are so vulnerable to sexual assault and other forms of abuse. Fools like you actually want them to learn to be victims, and to teach non-disabled people to be victimizers. Amazingly stupid. You certainly are if you think that teaching children to be subordinate to authority is a bad thing. Teaching people with disabilities to be a subordinate class of lesser humans who are to yield control of their own lives to a higher class of non-disabled people is most definitely and unquestionably a very bad thing and leads to horrifying rates of sexual assault and other forms of abuse. Specious, unsubstantiated, hysterical, untrue claptrap and nonsense. Scott, you had what you no doubt thought to be an interesting idea but it is totally without merit, Sez you. It's not my idea, it's an idea held by many education professionals, none of whom see the bogey-man you're in a panic about. and would lead to a vulnerable group of people being further victimized, and the school being nothing but a training ground for victims and abusers. Your anti-paranoia medication is wearing off. -- 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 |
Hi folks! Just thought I'd pop in and see how you are getting on.
I see that Sadder-butt Weiser is still spouting arrant nonsense, such as: ...The military knows this, which is why even General officers start out as boot recruits, where they learn to be "bossed."... In fact, only a small percentage of the officer corps is drawn from enlisted recruits, and only a *tiny* percentage of general officers come up from the ranks. But when did Scott ever let truth and accuracy get in the way of what looks (to him) like a good debating point? Hang in there Scottie; keep on spittin' against the wind until you finally bring it to a stop! I'll look in again next month to see if yer still beating the same dead horses. -Richard, His Kanubic Travesty -- ================================================== ==================== Richard Hopley Winston-Salem, NC, USA rhopley[at]earthlink[dot]net Nothing really matters except Boats, Sex, and Rock'n'Roll rhopley[at]wfubmc[dot]edu OK, OK; computer programming for scientific research also matters ================================================== ==================== |
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 4/15/05 10:22 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: As for "assigning a boss" to a disabled person, every person who enters the workforce gets assigned a "boss," and every person needs to learn how to be "bossed" in one way or another. That's life. Get used to it. Why should people with disabilities "get used to" being bossed by non-disabled people?!? It's not just "disabled people," it's *everyone.* All children will ultimately grow up and become members of the workforce, and they will be "bossed" by any number of people in their lives. They need to learn how to be a good subordinate FIRST. The military knows this, which is why even General officers start out as boot recruits, where they learn to be "bossed." It has absolutely nothing whatever to do with one's disability status. I don't hear you assigning any people with disabilities to boss their non-disabled peers. So, obviously, since your little system features non-disabled people bossing disabled people, the main outcome will be as I stated: people with disabilities will get used to being bossed by non-disabled people, and non-disabled people will get used to bossing people with disabilities. Don't be silly, that's what mentoring programs are *about.* I never suggested NOT mentoring non disabled students. In fact I repeatedly told you that ANY student who was having difficulty in a specific academic area needs to be mentored. It so happens that we are specifically discussing the disabled, but that in no way suggests that they are the only students who need mentors. But the only reason they need "mentors" (or really "peer bosses" in your system) is because they are being forced into an inappropriate curriculum to begin with. But before you come up with some scheme to give the people with disabilties equal bossing time, why the heck do these kids need to be bossing each other at all...they already have teachers, principals, parents, and other authority figures to boss them. You really seem to have some sort of authority-figure aversion. No, I'm just explaining that there is no issue with not having any authority figures to teach them how to be bossed. No need to throw peers into the mix. Why not just eliminate the need for this misguided and dangerous scheme by ensuring that students have an appropriate curriculum? Mentoring is an appropriate curriculum for a student who is having difficulty. They wouldn't be having difficulty if they weren't being subjected to an inappropriate curriculum. My goodness you are such a fool. This is EXACTLY why people with disabilities are so vulnerable to sexual assault and other forms of abuse. Fools like you actually want them to learn to be victims, and to teach non-disabled people to be victimizers. Amazingly stupid. You certainly are if you think that teaching children to be subordinate to authority is a bad thing. Teaching people with disabilities to be a subordinate class of lesser humans who are to yield control of their own lives to a higher class of non-disabled people is most definitely and unquestionably a very bad thing and leads to horrifying rates of sexual assault and other forms of abuse. Specious, unsubstantiated, hysterical, untrue claptrap and nonsense. Only because you are ignorant. Scott, you had what you no doubt thought to be an interesting idea but it is totally without merit, Sez you. It's not my idea, it's an idea held by many education professionals, none of whom see the bogey-man you're in a panic about. They are ignorant too. That's the beauty of being an "education professional" the damage you do becomes someone else's problem. and would lead to a vulnerable group of people being further victimized, and the school being nothing but a training ground for victims and abusers. Your anti-paranoia medication is wearing off. Your ignorance is astounding. |
"Oci-One Kanubi" wrote in message ps.com... Hi folks! Just thought I'd pop in and see how you are getting on. I see that Sadder-butt Weiser is still spouting arrant nonsense, such as: ...The military knows this, which is why even General officers start out as boot recruits, where they learn to be "bossed."... In fact, only a small percentage of the officer corps is drawn from enlisted recruits, and only a *tiny* percentage of general officers come up from the ranks. But when did Scott ever let truth and accuracy get in the way of what looks (to him) like a good debating point? Hang in there Scottie; keep on spittin' against the wind until you finally bring it to a stop! I'll look in again next month to see if yer still beating the same dead horses. -Richard, His Kanubic Travesty He's taken to citing anonymous "education experts." You know Scotty is in trouble when... |
A Usenet persona calling itself Oci-One Kanubi wrote:
Hi folks! Just thought I'd pop in and see how you are getting on. I see that Sadder-butt Weiser is still spouting arrant nonsense, such as: ...The military knows this, which is why even General officers start out as boot recruits, where they learn to be "bossed."... In fact, only a small percentage of the officer corps is drawn from enlisted recruits, and only a *tiny* percentage of general officers come up from the ranks. Every officer in the United States Army goes through OCS, where they get the living **** "bossed" out of them as recruits. The whole point is to teach them how to obey (and give) orders. But when did Scott ever let truth and accuracy get in the way of what looks (to him) like a good debating point? Evidently you don't know **** from Shinola. Small surprise. -- 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 |
You made a typical lot of incorrect assumptions. I do not have a Family members, smoking or moderate surplus in the health drink. As you know, exercise is diabetes, especially important. As the climbing up and down about our home, and I paddle the mountains. In addition, I am pleased that my small proportion of local and national tax revenue to support our local hospital, and to provide local emergency medical volunteers and help distribute vaccines and medicines to the community.
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:39 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com