Scott, clearly demonstrating that he hasn't a clue what it is like to
teach:
=====================
So, as regards your complaint about disabled students being a
distraction in
the classroom, I'm un-persuaded that your concern is legitimate. The
solution for other students exposed to this distraction is to be taught
to
ignore it and get on with their studies, however that needs to be
accomplished.
=================

In the case of my anecdote, I can assure you, no amount of
"concentrating" could have allowed one to ignore the utterances,
shrieks, bellows, howling, and general thrashing about. Impossible.

frtzw906

Scott asserts (likely not based on experience):
===================
The problem with "gifted" children tends to be that their
parents, in their zeal to advance their child's intellect,
unconsciously
isolate their gifted children from their peers, usually by focusing on
academics to the exclusion of socialization.

Kids simply do not grow up to be socially isolated all by themselves,
it
takes parental complicity.
==================

First, I don't think you know the difference between "bright" and
"gifted". I have two daughters: one is bright (very right) and the
other is gifted. There's a *huge* difference. Being gifted is, in a
manner of speaking, a disability.

Gifted kids view the world through different lenses and their
classmates' impression of them is very similar to their impression of
the child with other cognitive disabilities. In a small elementary
school, both groups of kids are very much alone.

As KMAN points out, kids need peer groups and friends who will invite
them to birthday parties and the like. I can assure you, the
socialization difficulties my daughter had at elementary school had
nothing to do with her parents. Her difficulties were those of a
disabled child. Once she was in high school, she found like-minded
students. Now that she's at university, she's got a wide social circle.
It's more about having peers that one can relate to than it is about
anything the parent do or do not do.

frtzw906

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

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

I'll stay out of this argument in general. (Though as a parent of an infant who will become a "special needs" student--and another
child who may well be gifted--I do find it very interesting.)

"Compensation" isn't necessarily financial. BCITORGB is right in that private schools (in Canada, anyway) pay their teachers less
then public ones. I know, since I went to one of Canada's top private schools. But most of the teachers wouldn't think of trading
their jobs for public school salaries. The compensation in this case is not financial, but rather in working conditions. (Note:
I'm referring only to academic-type private schools, although I'm sure there are also private schools for the disabled.) Not only
are there no mentally disabled students, there are also very few students who need that extra level of attention to "keep up".
Class sizes are kept reasonable. Kids from families willing to spend the big bucks on education were probably raised to be
interested in learning, and put that much more effort into their own education. Basically, there really is a good level of
teacher-student interaction. And the teachers benefit from that as much as the students do. And it's not just the quality of the
students--I recall having this discussion with one of my teachers--but also the quality of the parents. Having parents who are
actually interested and involved in their children's education is very rewarding to the teachers (and while it may sound foreign to
many of us, a large proportion of parents of children in public schools couldn't give a damn about the quality of the education, so
long as their kids are out of sight and mind for several hours every day).

-Paul

Paul reports:
==============
a large proportion of parents of children in public schools couldn't
give a damn about the quality of the education, so long as their kids
are out of sight and mind for several hours every day).
================

While I agree with much of what you say, this comment I'll disagree
with. Most parents, I believe, have a genuine concern for the welfare
and success of their children. I'll rephrase: "a very small proportion
of parents of children in public schools couldn't give a damn about the
quality of the education, so long as their kids are out of sight and
mind for several hours every day)."

But I'll take it a step further, and make the same claim of private
schools -- especially the boarding schools. "Out of sight, out of
mind".

I think this is even more the case with the significant number of
so-called "satellite" kids who now get enrolled in private schools (not
that that's not also an issue in the public schools -- particularly in
higher socio-economic neighborhoods).

frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 4/3/05 10:14 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself frtzw906 wrote:

KMAN picks up something I missed. Thanks:

As to the other daughter, being gifted, she is unlikely to have as many
problems with socialization


Are you nuts? That's one of the groups that has the most problems with
socialization! Worse than software engineers! (Although sometimes one in
the
same).

It's not the kids who have problems, it's the parents and schools which
create problems.


=========================
Exactly! As I mentioned, one of my daughters fits into the gifted
category. One of the most heart-wrenching experiences for me (I can't
even imagine how it must have been for her!) was picking her up from
school with a couple hundred kids playing on the playground and she,
always, by herself with no friends. High school was a relief. University
has been a godsend for her.
====================

This is why it's imperative that children be carefully socialized very
early, beginning when they are babies and toddlers, so that no matter how
bright they are, they are still well able to communicate and interact with
their peers. The problem with "gifted" children tends to be that their
parents, in their zeal to advance their child's intellect, unconsciously
isolate their gifted children from their peers, usually by focusing on
academics to the exclusion of socialization.

Kids simply do not grow up to be socially isolated all by themselves, it
takes parental complicity.

Actually, once kids reach adolescense, the fact that they were well
socialized at an early age seems to matter very little, in terms of the
experiences of gifted children and children with intellectual disabilities.
The high school experience results in abuse and isolation, even if
physically integrated with other kids.

I'll grant you that high school is a cruel place, but it's a lot less cruel
if a large proportion of the students have grown up with disabled
schoolmates. It takes time, of course, to change the culture.


and will experience socialization at her new
school as well, and will receive a better education. Keeping her in public
school would be unfair to her, particularly so if its done *because* she
has
a disabled sister.


Explain again.

The child who is gifted is better off in a specialized environment with
other people who are gifted, but the child who has a disability is not
better off in a specialized environment with other people who are disabled.

Why?

=================
Excellent question. Gifted minds need to know.
===============================

Because gifted students need specialized teaching and stimulation to fully
realize their *intellectual* potential.

And you don't think a student with an intellectual disability needs
specialized teaching and stimulation to fully realize his/her intellectual
potential?

I believe I said that just below. However, their needs are different.

Don't you think it would be even more important for that student
than the student who is gifted, given that the student who is gifted is
likely bound for many more years of formal educational opportunities, where
as the student who has an intellectual disability is likely to complete
their formal education at the end of high school?

It depends in part on the nature of the disability.


If they are unchallenged by ordinary
educational curricula, they become bored and often disruptive and their
intellect suffers.

What do you think is happening to the intellect of the student with an
intellectual disability who is forced to sit through an irrelevant
curriculum? What do you think is happening to their behaviour? How do you
think it impacts on them to be sitting in a classroom with a curriculum that
doesn't meet their needs, being bored, and being disruptive. Do you think
that earns them a whole pile of non-disabled peers who invite them out on
dates for Saturday night?

Nobody said it was easy. Still, mainstreaming disabled students is better
for them, and for their peers, and for society, than hiding them away in
"special" schools. We tried that model. It doesn't work.


At the same time, gifted children also need socialization
time with "ordinary" children, so that they can also learn how to come to
grips with their intellect and learn how to integrate into a society that
may try to exclude them out of jealousy or merely because they are the
"green monkey." Gifted children must learn how to put on social camouflage
so that they can associate successfully with those who may not be as
intellectually advanced. But these lessons are much easier for gifted
students to learn, in part because of their intellect, but also because they
can learn to "hide" their intellect when necessary. It's not like being in a
motorized wheelchair or having some physical deformity.

Disabled children also need specialized instruction to help compensate for
their disabilities

If you mean they need learning opportunities that are appropriate to their
needs, that is certainly true.

Yup.


but most of all they need socialization with others to
learn the skills of living in the world that they cannot receive in special,
disabled-only classes.

Do you have evidence that they learn these socialization skills through
being placed in classes where the curriculum is directed to everyone but
them?

It depends on the individual student, the particular class, and the specific
needs of the disabled student. It may well require additional teaching aides
to help the disabled student keep up. 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.

It's a matter of tailoring the classroom to the students, not tailoring the
students to the classroom, which is a fundamental paradigm shift for most
public schools.


In such classes, what socialization they learn is how
to interact socially with other disabled children, not with everybody else.

You might want to learn more about what goes on when students with
intellectual disabilities are placed in the mainstream classes, and see if
the results are as you expect.

You might want to not make assumptions about what I know about the subject.


What most students with intellectual disabilities need more than anything is
a peer group, just like the rest of us sought out in high school. They want
peers they can relate to and they want friends - real friends - who spend
time with them on weekends and during the summer.

Yup. I agree. And they find those peer groups not just among the disabled,
but among ordinary students in a non-discriminatory environment.


They also need a curriculum that meets their needs - learning how to use the
public transportation system and how to manage money.

Yup, but not until they are older. We're talking about young children here,
remember.

The need help with the
challenge of a world that deals in abstraction, places importantance on
sequencing, requires the ability to read the emotional states of others, and
the ability to understand various social contexts and apply appropriate
behaviours - all areas where people with intellectual disabilities
experience severe learning difficulties.

Yup. No argument there. They do need help in those areas beyond what an
ordinary student would.



None of that is taught in a Grade 12 chemistry class,

Correct. What's taught in Chemistry is chemistry. Plenty of disabled
students are capable of learning chemistry. Physics, too. Just look at
Stephen Hawking.

and in fact, you
probably could not come up with a more cruel environment.

Learning to deal with peer cruelty is also a necessary skill.

I submit very
little is being taught about socialization either.

That may be true, but that is the fault of the educators and the people who
oversee them (like the parents) not the student. So fix the problem.

What is happening is the
kid with the disabilitiy is picking his nose and playing with his pecker,
which is in my view a toally appropriate response to being in an environment
that has absolutely no relevance, and an environment where everyone else
there can see that you are totally out of place and is reaching all sorts of
disparaging conclusions about you.

I find the way that you stereotype all "kids with disabilities." Very
diverse of you.


This leaves them with a deficit that can cripple them for life, not just
physically or mentally, but socially. It leads to feelings of exclusion and
isolation because they never have the opportunity to meet and make friends
with non-disabled children.

Do you have evidence that this happens as a result of being placed in the
mainstream classroom?

Sure. It happens all the time.


To develop a friendship, mutual respect is required. It's hard to develop
the respect of your non-disabled peers if you are sitting in algebra class
doing self-stimulation to pass the time as concepts totally irrelevant to
you and of no benefit to your future are discussed, and the rest of the
class points at you and comes up with insulting nicknames.

Stereotyping. What about the "disabled" kid who is perfectly normal
intellectually, but was paralyzed in a car accident and can't move anything
below her neck? Do you think she is going to be "self-stimulating" rather
than learning algebra?

You really need to examine your anti-disability prejudices a bit.


Hiding the disabled away is also harmful to non-disabled children.

I agree. Don't hide them. Give them a curriculum that meets their needs and
make sure that their achievements are celebrated as loudly and proudly as
anyone else in the school.

You falsely presume that the only curriculum that they "need" is specialized
life-skills training. Disabled kids need to learn math, science, english and
all the things any child needs to learn.

Yes, they may need MORE help, and specialized life-skills training *in
addition* to their regular schooling, but that doesn't mean they should be
excluded from mainstream society.


It only
exacerbates the "green monkey" syndrome and makes it much harder for
non-disabled children to accept those who are different. It is to everyone's
benefit that children be required to associate with and create relationships
with disabled children as early as possible. The earlier the better, before
prejudices, bigotry and bias rear their ugly heads.

This works quite well in elementary school, but starting in middle school
and by the time of high school it doesn't work,

I disagree. How well it works in high school depends entirely on how much
importance parents, teachers, students and the community as a whole puts on
tolerance, diversity and empathy for the disabled.

and part of the reason is
simply that for the non-disabled students, the purpose of high school is to
move on to the next academic step (university or college) which is not the
destination for students with intellectual disabilities.

Most high schools are little more than a 4 year holding pattern wherein
children go through puberty and learn social skills. That being the case,
one of the skills they need to learn is how to get along with the disabled.
If they don't learn it then, they will grow up to be bigoted, intolerant
"abilitists" who stereotype, demean and marginalize the disabled.

They need a
curriculum that is focused on giving them the most tools possible to enjoy a
meaningful and contributing existence in the post-school world. Sitting in
classrooms and spacing out while someone else's curriculum is delivered
won't accomplish this.

Stereotyping.


Ensuring an inclusive school environment for all is very important, but
putting kids with disabilities into a classroom that is delivering a
curriculum that does not meet their needs for the misguided purpose of
offering "socialization" is a fool's game.

No, it's a game of compassion and diversity that every child needs to learn,
if for no other reason than the "there but by the grace of God go I" lesson.

And it is the person with the
disability that suffers.

Not necessarily. Not if the community is compassionate and supportive.


Now, if you are talking about a person who happens to use a wheelchair but
is perfectly capable of benefitting from the Grade 12 chemistry curriculum,
then by all means, that's where they belong, not in some separate classroom
doing the same work but separated from their non-disabled peers.

The problem with your argument is that it makes grossly erroneous
presumptions about "the disabled" and their abilities.

--
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 Michael Daly wrote:


On 3-Apr-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Self-evidently, you cannot.

I just point out your lies and stupidity.

Well, I grant you there's a point somewhere, but most likely it's on the top
of your head. And a sharp one it is, too.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott has a query about my anecdote:
==============
And when you say the parents "clearly felt that the ESL numbers
constituted
a debit," is that a presumption you made based on their putting their
gifted
daughter in private school, or did they make quotable statements to
that
effect? I suspect the former, and I question your assumptions.
==============

You suspect incorrectly: they made public statements regarding their
displeasure with the large number of ESL (English as Second Language)
students in the school.

Well, thanks for at least clearing up the acronym issue.

Can you point me to any such published or verifiable remarks?

--
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 correctly observes:
===============
Children must be treated as INDIVIDUALS, and their INDIVIDUAL best
interests should be served by their parents, to the best of their
ability,
without regard for other students, whose educations are the
responsibility
of their parents.
==============

You are correct -- partially. Whereas the school system is mandated to
serve the individualized needs of pupils, it is also required to
protect the entire student body (the system) from the negative actions
of students who hinder the advancement of others. Just as in any
society, the INDIVIDUAL'S freedoms and rights stop where those rights
and freedoms interfere with the rights and freedoms of others. So it is
in schools as well.

That falsely presumes that merely because a particular person is
intellectually limited, that this constitutes an actionable "hindrance" of
the advancement of other students.

That's one of the conundrums of public schools: They have to serve everyone,
and cannot, by their nature, serve each one as they may need or deserve.
Sounds like what's needed is private schools...

--
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 demonstrates that he's never spent any time in a school classroom
as an adult:
====================
And mainstreaming also places an undue and, at times, unfair burden
on
teachers and classmates.

Only if you believe that providing a proper educational and social
environment for someone who is already facing an enormous uphill battle
just
to survive is an "undue burden." Most people, and certainly most
socialist
egalitarianists, believe that helping the disabled is not an "undue
burden"
but is rather a mitzvah and a gift, and an opportunity to show charity
and
love and empathy and concern for those less fortunate, and a teachable
moment particularly for children (as well as ignorant, bigoted adults)
wherein the intrinsic value of every human being can be demonstrated
and the
rewards of altruistic service to others taught to impressionable youth.

====================

Scott, if you're trying to teach a lesson in arithmetic to a class of
Grade 3 pupils and are repeatedly disrupted by random vocal and
physical outbursts the, yes, that's an undue burden.

I say it's an opportunity. Besides, you're stereotyping all "disabled
children" with the broad brush.

A burden on the
teachers

That's what they get paid the big bucks for.

and the majority of the pupils,

They'll just have to learn to deal with it. That's what they're there to do,
isn't it?

who, I might add, also have a
right to an education individualized so as to maximize THEIR learning.

In a PUBLIC school? BWAHAHAHAHAHAH!


You pose an interesting dilemma. You veer away from the line taken by
most right-wing critics of the educational system. Most such critics
make the case that far too much time is taken up with mamby-pamby, soft
stuff like socialization, and that not enough hard-core maths, science,
reading et al are taught. So, we need to decide, during math class,
should the primary focus be on the teaching of maths or should we
repeatedly take time out for "socializing" whenever we get a random,
irrelevant outburst?

No reason it can't be both. I simply don't agree with your implied thesis
that "normal" students are incapable of working through distractions.


I'm sympathetic to the socialization argument. To a point. Once the
socialzation becomes an undue burden to the teachers and other pupils
(when their freedoms are being violated), then, I think, we've had
enough.

Well, there may be a limit, but you generalize far too much and try to use
it as an argument not to mainstream disabled students. As I said before,
each student is different, and will need different assistance.


--
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 says:
=========
To be fair, Scott may not realize that "blame it on ESL" is at the core
of
our public school apologistics (at least here in Ottawa).
=========

KMAN, I was referring to Scott assuming I had made up this bit about
ESL; he suggested that perhaps the parents hadn't actually said it.
They had.

The issue of non-english speaking students is an *entirely different
argument* from that of disabled students.


--
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