Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#521
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#523
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#524
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#525
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#526
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#527
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#528
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#529
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#530
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
OT Bush propaganda against Kerry | General | |||
Bush fiddles while health care burns | General | |||
OT- Ode to Immigration | General | |||
OT-Think government-controlled health coverage will work? Think again! | General |