A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


"BCITORGB" wrote in message
oups.com...
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. A burden on the
teachers and the majority of the pupils, who, I might add, also have a
right to an education individualized so as to maximize THEIR learning.

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?

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.

frtzw908

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?

Hire another teacher or put the disabled students in a Grade 1 math class.
--
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 4/3/05 2:00 AM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 4/1/05 11:12 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


If I may, for many a person with a disability, "handicapped" is like the
n-word to many a person with black skin. I realize no offense likely
intended frtzw906 :-)

I agree. I see his statement as being poorly thought out and articulated,
not calculatedly insulting.


Now to your point, that is exactly what will happen. It's so obvious...poor
people and/or those more difficult to work with will be left behind. What
is
the incentive of a profit-driven school to serve them? None.

The incentive is exactly the same as it is for any student: money.

So long as poor children are given a stipend by the government (collected
from society as a whole through taxation) to provide for schooling, they
will be just exactly as welcome as any other student.

Brilliant. And the motivation for rich people and people who don't have
children with disabilities to contribute to this is....?

The tax man comes and takes away their Benz, of course. I've said many times
that taxation for public education of the needy is appropriate.

Heehee. Who do you think decides what the tax man taxes? It ain't poor
people that get presidents elected. You may think taxation for public
education of the needy is appropriate, but once public education becomes
only for the poor, nobody else will want to pay for it, and the politicians
who want to get elected will get the message.

Yes, some students will be able to afford better schooling, but so what? The
intent is to provide an adequate education, not a perfect education, for all
children. Some children will excel, some will be average, and some will
fail. All will have a reasonable and fair opportunity to get a basic
education. No more ought to be expected by anyone.

I believe that all children should have equality of opportunity through
equal access to education to the greatest extent possible.

So, you believe that children who have the means to get a better education
than the public system provides should be denied that opportunity because
for them to seize that opportunity is discriminatory against poorer
children?

I think the public school system should get the resources and management it
needs to be good enough for anyone.

I realize this isn't going to happen. All that can be done is to advocate
for the strongest public system possible.

Indeed, such a private system is more egalitarian than what exists now
because it *requires* those who have the means to pay for their children's
education to do so, thus taking the burden of educating those children off
of the public, leaving that much more money available for the truly needy.

That's a cute theory, but that's not how the world works. Those wealthier
people who can afford to pull their kids out of the public system are not
going to want to keep paying into the public system just to be kind those
who don't have the same resources they do.

Then don't give them that option. Make them pay income taxes or better yet
consumer goods sales taxes just like everybody else and use part of the
revenue to fund public education. They can carp all they like, but they
still have to pay.

Heeheee. Your naivete is so cute sometimes! They can do better than
carp...then can get the taxes removed.

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 4/3/05 2:01 AM:

A Usenet persona calling itself frtzw906 wrote:



I find
that, as a society, we cause ourselves all sorts of headaches by trying
to impose "moral" values on everyone. Values that intrude into the
bedroom. Values that presume to know what people ought to (or not)
ingest. etc


Well, there are reasons for those imposed morals that have usually evolved
as a result of generations of ills and evils caused by libertine conduct and
a lack of moral training. Law is intimately connected to morality and has
always been. It's unavoidable that morality will be legislated, and it's
perfectly ethical for a society to do so in most cases.


=============
And often anathema to me.
=============

What makes you think that your opinions are either important or
determinative?

"Both socialist states. Socialism = bad"
-- Scott "I Wish I Was" Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

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.

I disagree. Your persona attitude comes through loud and clear. Please note
that I am not attributing this persona to you, the real person.

So far I have described actual events.

You've done a good deal of editorializing, not just stating facts.

You
have advocated shunning PC language in favor of "telling it like it
is". That's all I've done.

No problem. All I've done is challenge your persona's assertions.


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 see the implication, I state the observation.


I said they were, in some instances, a burden on the learning
environment in classrooms.

Well, now that you're finally *qualifying* your statement by admitting that
you're positing worst-case scenearios.

They inhibit the ability of other pupils to
learn (and the ability of the teacher to teach).

I deny both as a categorical truth. I don't believe that students cannot
learn to ignore distractions. In fact, I argue that providing them with
distractions *causes* them to learn to concentrate. Concentration leads to
better learning.

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.

As have I. Still, hiding them away because they pick their nose or pull
their pud is discriminatory. Clearly, what's needed is some additional
assistance for the disabled child so that he is not bored. Nobody said it
was easy, or cheap.


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

I will agree with the statement "in rare instances." For the most part, most
"disabled" children can be successfully mainstreamed, in combination with
additional special education. This is true because the profoundly disabled,
who are the likely "pecker pullers" comprise only a small component of the
disabled student population. The vast majority of students with disabilities
both need and can benefit from mainstreaming. In those rare instances where
it simply doesn't work out, some other plan is needed.


--
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:


"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.

In this we can agree. I never suggested that disabled students should be
"socially promoted." I find "social promotion" to be extremely harmful. I
know, I'm a victim of that system. I was "socially promoted" in math, even
after I *begged* to be kept back so I could learn the basics.

As a result, my math skills are abysmal.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

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

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott asserts:
=============
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.

Sounds like a budget problem to me. Sounds to me like private schools are
the answer.

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.

That would depend on the particular student.


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.

I have no problem with special treatment, but I do have a problem with
discriminatory, exclusionary treatment.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

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

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott says:
==============
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.

Maybe they suffer under the same sort of socialistic system you have for
health care....


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".

Works that way 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 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.

Form smaller classes.


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.

Hire more teachers.

Oh, yeah, you have to pay more taxes for that...oh well.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

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

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

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?

Did you fail to read the sentence beginning with "Note" and ending with
"ignored?"


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?

Oh, it's pretty clear most of the time. Those in wheelchairs with profound
mental disabilities are the "incapable of control" group. Unruly children
who have never learned that they are not in charge are in the other group.
It's pretty easy to identify the second group after even a short period of
observation.


And, further, why do you distinguish?

Because it's the difference between an actual mental disability and simple
lack of discipline and self-control. One can often be cured with a swift
kick in the ass, the other can't. Even a dog can be taught not to pee on the
carpet.

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?

Children with "ADHD" aren't "disabled," they are "under-disciplined" and
"unmotivated" to act appropriately. I frankly doubt such a thing as ADHD
even exists, except in the devious minds of drug-makers and their research
lackeys.

Funny how this "disability" was only identified after a generation of
undisciplined, over-stimulated children raised by incompetent,
mollycoddling, permissive parents started going to school, drug-company
researchers saw a golden opportunity to sell more prescription medications,
and school officials saw a way to drug unruly students into lethargic
zombiehood so they didn't have to deal with actually disciplining a child.

You ought to watch "Supernanny" sometime to see obvious examples of parental
failures in discipline that could very easily be "diagnosed" as ADHD by some
school bureaucrat. They do that, you know. A school bureaucrat can simply
*claim* that a child is "suffering from ADHD" based on his "expert" opinion,
and the vast majority of the time the parents believe it and their kids end
up drugged into a stupor.

I'd rather teach them to pay attention, thank you very much.


--
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, 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.

Funny, combat engineers and trauma physicians manage to concentrate with
laser-like precision under much worse conditions. How do you suppose they
learned to do this?
--
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