"BCITORGB" wrote in message
oups.com...
KMAN... off-thread comment: did you ever sort out the "time" issue on
your computer and 4 of your posts which still don't appear on google
because they were "sent" some time later today (but actually two days
ago)...???

frtzw906

Yeah, sorry 'bout that.

KMAN suggests:
==================
If I may, rather than focusing on the "burden on the teacher angle"
let's
look at who it is for...students. If you are teaching Grade 6 math so
that
students will be prepared for Grade 7 math, but you have 3 students
with
intellectual disabilities in the class for "mainstreaming" purposes who
are
still at a Grade 1 math level and trying to get to Grade 2, who is it
that
the teacher is going to appropriately serve all of those needs?
==================

I take your point. But having been a teacher, albeit not at the
elementary level, I can speak best to the dilemmas faced by teachers.

Your point is very valid. But I'd like to suggest that, in the scenario
you propose, none of the students are well served. Further, given that
the students with disabilities tend to have parents and/or organized
lobby groups ensuring that the interests of their children are well
served (not that there's anything wrong with that), there is
considerable political pressure on teachers to serve those students.

Gifted students, too, tend to have activist parents. Too often, IMHO,
it is the very "average" child who has no one advocating for her.
Notwithstanding all the pressures on teachers to serve *all* the
individualized "interests", it is the teacher who must be particularly
vigilant, and to advocate if necessary, to ensure that the average
students' needs are not forgotten.

frtzw906

"BCITORGB" wrote in message
oups.com...
KMAN suggests:
==================
If I may, rather than focusing on the "burden on the teacher angle"
let's
look at who it is for...students. If you are teaching Grade 6 math so
that
students will be prepared for Grade 7 math, but you have 3 students
with
intellectual disabilities in the class for "mainstreaming" purposes who
are
still at a Grade 1 math level and trying to get to Grade 2, who is it
that
the teacher is going to appropriately serve all of those needs?
==================

I take your point. But having been a teacher, albeit not at the
elementary level, I can speak best to the dilemmas faced by teachers.

Your point is very valid. But I'd like to suggest that, in the scenario
you propose, none of the students are well served.

That's what I'm saying :-)

Further, given that
the students with disabilities tend to have parents and/or organized
lobby groups ensuring that the interests of their children are well
served (not that there's anything wrong with that), there is
considerable political pressure on teachers to serve those students.

Sure, the teacher is the lightning rod for problems that they have nothing
to do with.

Gifted students, too, tend to have activist parents. Too often, IMHO,
it is the very "average" child who has no one advocating for her.
Notwithstanding all the pressures on teachers to serve *all* the
individualized "interests", it is the teacher who must be particularly
vigilant, and to advocate if necessary, to ensure that the average
students' needs are not forgotten.

frtzw906

For sure...your job as a teacher is to serve everyone, not just the loudest
parents (or the loudest kids).

Scott texplains:
=================
The whole reason that "mainstreaming" is being mandated in many places
is
precisely BECAUSE of the sort of attitude that you demonstrate that the
disabled are a "burden" on society, which is the same thing as saying
they
are worthless, unworthy and ought to be hidden away someplace where we
don't
have to look at them and don't have to deal with them, and don't have
to
expose our children to them.
===================

I demonstrate *no* attitude. So far I have described actual events. You
have advocated shunning PC language in favor of "telling it like it
is". That's all I've done.

I didn't say anything at all about "burden on society". You chose to
read that into my comments. Please recall, that's what you admonish
others for.

I said they were, in some instances, a burden on the learning
environment in classrooms. They inhibit the ability of other pupils to
learn (and the ability of the teacher to teach). Further, as KMAN
points out, the mainstreamed classroom may be completely inappropriate
for the child with disabilities as well. His description of "nose
picking and pecker player" was particularly poignant, because I've seen
both.

I stand by my statement "they are, in some instances, a burden on the
learning environment in classrooms." I challenge you to demonstrate
otherwise.

frtzw906

"BCITORGB" wrote in message
oups.com...
Scott texplains:
=================
The whole reason that "mainstreaming" is being mandated in many places
is
precisely BECAUSE of the sort of attitude that you demonstrate that the
disabled are a "burden" on society, which is the same thing as saying
they
are worthless, unworthy and ought to be hidden away someplace where we
don't
have to look at them and don't have to deal with them, and don't have
to
expose our children to them.
===================

I demonstrate *no* attitude. So far I have described actual events. You
have advocated shunning PC language in favor of "telling it like it
is". That's all I've done.

I didn't say anything at all about "burden on society". You chose to
read that into my comments. Please recall, that's what you admonish
others for.

I said they were, in some instances, a burden on the learning
environment in classrooms. They inhibit the ability of other pupils to
learn (and the ability of the teacher to teach). Further, as KMAN
points out, the mainstreamed classroom may be completely inappropriate
for the child with disabilities as well. His description of "nose
picking and pecker player" was particularly poignant, because I've seen
both.

I stand by my statement "they are, in some instances, a burden on the
learning environment in classrooms." I challenge you to demonstrate
otherwise.

frtzw906

I guess one issue with phrasing it that way is that a learning environment
is for learners (all of them).

What is really happening is that the Grade 6 class is designed to deliver a
curriculum to advance the Grade 6 students to Grade 7. This means that if
you have people working at a Grade 1 level, they are being denied an
appropriate curriculum, and any efforts to provide them an appropriate
curriculum will in turn deny the Grade 6 students what they need.

What it all boils down to is everyone should have a curriculum that meets
their needs.

Scott asserts:
=============
Not in any sane educational system. In any place where there are *real*
teachers; qualified, dedicated and understanding, even "difficult"
children
are not ejected from the system merely because they have emotional or
cognitive difficulties to overcome. Teaching difficult, damaged
students is
hard, but it's immensely rewarding too when a child who was about to be
given up as lost suddenly finds his or her way out of the darkness,
with the
help of a TEACHER.
============

I don't necessarily disagree. However, from the perspective of a
teacher with 30 kids in her class, the immediate responsibility is to
the majority. That is, if one particular student is disrupting the
learning environment for 29 others, the "one" student needs to be
isolated. Quite likely, this student requires special attention (both
counselling and teaching) that cannot normally be given in a
classroom.

You've made the case for special treatment for gifted students. I don't
disagree. I also make the case for special treatment for children with
cognitive difficulties.

frtzw906

Scott says:
==============
This is where private schools can again excel by hiring and properly
compensating
the best and brightest teachers we have.
=============

Interesting. This may be the case in the USA. In the private schools
around my community, these teachers earn less and their compensation
packages are inferior to their colleagues in the public sector.

Scott reflects:
===============
I've often wondered why it is that we will pay doctors hundreds of
thousands
of dollars a year to prescribe Valium and cough syrup, but we won't pay
the
people who have the most influence on our children's lives, other than
the
parents, a decent, living wage.
=============

I've never had a problem paying my GP what he earns -- he *earns* it.
However, I'd be happy to rephrase your statement and substitute
"lawyers" for "doctors".

frtzw906

KMAN refines my point (Thanks!):
================
What is really happening is that the Grade 6 class is designed to
deliver a
curriculum to advance the Grade 6 students to Grade 7. This means that
if
you have people working at a Grade 1 level, they are being denied an
appropriate curriculum, and any efforts to provide them an appropriate
curriculum will in turn deny the Grade 6 students what they need.

What it all boils down to is everyone should have a curriculum that
meets
their needs.
===================

You are right: "a learning environment is for learners (all of them). "

We've opted for -- for a myriad of reasons -- a rather "industrial"
model of education (most jurisdictions) for reasons of efficiency.
Constant assaults on the funding of education just exacerbate the need
for further efficiencies. The notion of "individualized" instruction
takes a beating when classroom sizes escalate from about 22 per class
to 35 per class in less than 10 years. It *is* possible to teach 35 (or
more) pupils in a classroom, but the students had better be relatively
homogeneous if that's your objective. That pretty-much rules out
mainstreaming.

frtzw906

Scott thinks:
=============
Funny, I always thought that the goal was to figure out why the student
was
being disruptive, solve that problem and find ways to motivate the
student
so he becomes a scholar.
=============

Right. And you're not going to be able to do that in a classroom of 35
pupils with at *least* 5 special needs (from gifted to disabled)
mainstreamed into the mix.

The average classroom teacher, given the average mix I describe above,
is unable to deliver the quality you desire. However, if some of the
special needs pupils were afforded the special programs they require,
their problems could be diagnosed and solved/dealt with.

frtzw906

Scott does an interesting about-turn on "disabled":
==============
Do you know what the cure for "Attention Deficit Hyperactivity
Disorder"
used to be?

SMACK! "Now shut up, sit down and study, or you'll get another, and
worse!"

Seemed to work pretty well for most students for, oh, a couple of
hundred
years. Note that this corporal punishment is not to be meeted out to
the
disabled student who is incapable of control, but to the OTHER students
who
are allowing themselves to be distracted by what ought to be ignored.
================

So, you're suggesting that the cure for chemical or hormonal
"disabilities" are "smacks upside the head". Hmmmm...... And the kid is
supposed to know, from the SMACK, why his mind doesn't work like
others' minds?

So, Scott, exactly where are you able to draw the line and distinguish
between what you call "the disabled student who is incapable of
control" and those with ADHD?

And, further, why do you distinguish? Is it just because the ADHD kid
*looks* "normal"? You feel it is OK to pick on the disabled so long as
they don't look like they are? Boy, oh, boy... you asked me to consider
my motives... I think the shoe is on your foot.

frtzw906