KMAN wrote:


Um, is this true? I find that extremely hard to believe, particularly in
Canada, because even here in the USA, it's illegal to discriminate on the
basis of physical disability. I sort of imagined it as being a hanging
offense in Canada.


Actually, Scott, you'll be happy to know (I assume) that in many ways the US
is well ahead of Canada in terms of the rights of people with disabilities.

I'm not sure, but BCITORGB might be talking about intellectual disabilities,
rather than physical disabilities.

==============
Correct, I was.
===============


frtzw906

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).

=========================
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.
====================



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.
===============================

frtzw906

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.

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? 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?

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

None of that is taught in a Grade 12 chemistry class, and in fact, you
probably could not come up with a more cruel environment. I submit very
little is being taught about socialization either. 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.

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?

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.

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.

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, 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. 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.

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. And it is the person with the
disability that suffers.

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.

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott wonders:
===========
Um, is this true? I find that extremely hard to believe, particularly
in
Canada, because even here in the USA, it's illegal to discriminate on
the
basis of physical disability. I sort of imagined it as being a hanging
offense in Canada.
==============

Well, Scott, you've admonished others more than once for not reading
carefully. Now I get to return the favor. At no point did I indicate
that the girl in question was "physically" disabled. She was, but
that's wasn't the issue. She was also severely mentally disabled. As
such, she would have been denied entrance to the private school on
academic grounds.

Well, I wonder if this is necessarily true of all private schools. Perhaps
for special private schools for the gifted, but I imagine that many private
schools would be happy to admit the disabled, because they understand that
being disabled is not the same thing as being worthless.


Scott asks:
==============
"ESL" meaning "handicapped" I presume?
===========

Not in my opinion. But the parents in this anecdote clearly felt that
the ESL numbers in the school constituted a "debit" (to use your
terminology) insofar as the overall learning environment in the
school/classroom was concerned. Interestingly, several of the ESL
students from Korea and China were the top students in math/arithmetic
and music.

Again, I don't know what "ESL" stands for, so I'm assuming it means
"handicapped or disabled."

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. It could just
as easily be that they simply felt a private school for their gifted
daughter would provide a much better education than a public school, without
actually denigrating the public school at all, much less based on the
population of "ESL" students. Evidently they thought the public school good
enough to serve one of their daughters, so I don't see how your conclusions
are justified, unless you have some specific statements that can be
attributed to specific individuals (names please) that support your claim.



Scotts asserts:
================
I see rational judgment and a concern both for their children and other
disabled children, because they evidently genuinely feel that the
public school environment provides a SUPERIOR educational AND SOCIAL
environment for their disabled daughter. I happen to agree with them.
============

Yet somehow you are unable to see that by taking their brighter
daughter (not gifted, just bright) out of the public school, they
diminished the very environment they felt it was important for their
disabled daughter to be exposed to.

Well, that's probably because you appear to be the only one who believes
this to be the case. Once again you demonstrate a willingness to use
children as political pawns in your "leveling out" of education in Canada.
No parent should give even a moment's consideration to your sort of
complaint because it denigrates the students who remain in the public school
system by implying that they are somehow inferior and without the presence
of "bright" or "gifted" children the "environment" of the school will be
diminished.

Most importantly, no parent should consider your complaints because no child
should be subject to the sort of politically-correct academic slavery you
suggest. 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. No child should be lumped into some generalized
classification for the purposes of egalitarianism and socialist
proletarianism.

Sorry, that's hypocritical.

No, it's entirely proper for them to put THEIR children's interests first.
It's their job. It's their most important job, in fact.



Scott, again displaying uncharacteristic, left-wing, concern for the
societal underdog, argues:
==================
"Mainstreaming" is specifically intended to get disabled children out
of isolation and get them involved in the community and society, where
they can both learn to cope with their disabilities in the real world
as well as learn to make friends
and dispel prejudices and preconceptions that are often part and parcel
of
"normal" childhood experience when "normal" children are isolated from
the
disabled.
==============

Yes.

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.

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.

The disabled are only a "burden" to the selfish. Where does that leave you?

If a "non-disabled" child were to exhibit
behaviors shown by many of the disabled children, they would be
immediately removed from the classroom and, eventualy expelled from the
school.

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.

Problem is, that in many public schools, we don't have teachers, we have
overpaid, under-qualified, unmotivated hacks who are uninterested in
actually being educators, but merely want to put in time for 8 months a year
so they can party in the summer. These kind of "teachers" ruin children and
schools. In many other public school, however, we have highly-qualified,
dedicated, motivated educators whose sole interest is to teach the young.
Unfortunately, they are both overworked and underpaid, and there are too few
of them. In both cases, the problem is the public school system itself. This
is where private schools can again excel by hiring and properly compensating
the best and brightest teachers we have.

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.


As a teacher-school-society we need to find accommodation for pupils of
all capabilities. However, it is an axiom of teaching that, if a pupil
consistently undermines the learning environment of the majority of
pupils, then that pupil must be removed.

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.

In the case of the disabled
child in the anecdote (and many, many others), the learning environment
was compromised by loud, random, unintelligible utterances that bore no
relationship to the matter being taught. This was complemented by
random physical outbursts of the child rattling her wheelchair and
otherwise thrashing about.

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.

It's a great pity that neither parents nor teachers will ignore all the
liberal touchy-feely crap the "experts" are handing out decrying the
practice of corporal punishment. Kids need to be *taught* to pay attention
and ignore distractions, and sometimes that means refocusing their attention
with a bit of discomfort and embarrassment. Children today are so grossly
over-stimulated, nearly every waking moment of their young lives, what with
TV, video games, ipods and soccer practice that they never have time to
simply learn to sit and think or read a book. There's rarely any quiet time
at home, and there's precious little study time in school, now that schools
are forcing more and more rote learning on kids so they can pass the state
standardized tests. Schools are unwilling to waste a second with quiet study
time, and parents don't enforce it either.

This makes actively teaching them to concentrate and exclude distraction all
the more important, and having a disabled child in your class is an
excellent way to learn this vital study skill.

This over-stimulation extends clear down to the cradle, where the drive to
make "baby geniuses" results in hour after hour of stimulation and instant
coddling and response to every whimper and cry. Some child rearing experts
warn that this constant attention and stimulation is extremely harmful,
particularly to very young children, who, being distracted all the time,
"never discover their toes," as one writer puts it. I'm a firm believer in
letting young children and babies cry for a good, long time, rather than
running to them every time they burp or whine. This causes them to learn to
amuse and control themselves, which is a valuable lesson indeed. It also has
the beneficial effect of teaching children that their parents are not at the
child's beck and call.

I've seen many examples of spoiled children who expect instant service no
matter how petty the complaint, and it causes nothing but trouble as they
grow up. Kids need to learn early that they are NOT in charge, and that the
world does NOT revolve around them and their desires. The sooner they learn
this, the better off they, and society as a whole, will be. Unfortunately,
it appears that discipline is a thing of the past in most homes and
virtually every public school. This is yet another benefit of private
schools...they can use discipline properly without having to be afraid that
some twit of a permissive parent will sue them for motivating their child to
proper behavior in the classroom.

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.

There can be no doubt that, notwithstanding the positive attributes of
mainstreaming, there are many "debits" (your word) that can be
attributed to it.

Not a one I can think of. Again, disable students are only a "debit" if you
choose view them as such. Open minded people understand that a challenge is
not a debit, it's an opportunity. In this case, it's a golden opportunity to
teach the other children in the class many good and necessary lessons:
Altruism, concentration, tolerance, acceptance, understanding,
accommodation, charity, love, and inclusiveness. All of those lessons are
easier to teach *because* the disabled girl is in their class, presenting
them with various dilemmas and challenges to overcome and things to learn
about being a good citizen and a good person. If you look at "mainstreamed"
disabled children in that light, it would be best if *every* class had such
people as members.

And then there's the benefits to the disabled child...

So, back to the parents in question: of course it is
hypocritical to expect others' children to try to learn in an
environment compromised by their disabled daughter's outbursts while
taking their brighter daughter to a private school simply because they
have the money to be able to do so. Sheer hypocrisy!

Nope, not at all. Her presence creates a wealth of opportunities to teach
children how to be better students, better citizens and better people. Not
everything you need to learn in school is covered by the Three R's.

I judge that the parents were being good parents and were demonstrating a
strong degree of altruism and commitment to the well-rounded education of
all of the children in the class, who stand to benefit enormously from
learning to understand others and cope with challenges posed by those not as
fortunate at they.

They were served up a heaping helping of lemons, so they made up a vat of
lemonade. Good for them!

--
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 frtzw906 wrote:

KMAN in making the case that an exodus of "wealthy" families from the
public school system will eventually leave it impoverished:


There will be less and less money. It will become like your
plan for health care for the poor...unless a charity provides it, there
won't be any.

Absolutely correct.

Only if they are allowed to by the government.

--
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 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.




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. If they are unchallenged by ordinary
educational curricula, they become bored and often disruptive and their
intellect suffers. 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, 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. In such classes, what socialization they learn is how
to interact socially with other disabled children, not with everybody else.
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.

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

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

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

© 2005 Scott Weiser

On 3-Apr-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

OK, let's look at the Westernworld: Finland. Canada.
============

Both socialist states. Socialism = bad.

Both higher than the US on every measure of quality of life,
human development index etc.

Mike

On 3-Apr-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

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

Look who's talking - Mr Irrelevant himself. You can't even
form an opinion that's consistent with the facts.

Mike

On 3-Apr-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Self-evidently, you cannot.

I just point out your lies and stupidity.

Mike

KMAN contributes:
===============
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.

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.

They also need a curriculum that meets their needs....

None of that is taught in a Grade 12 chemistry class... 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.
=================

WOW! KMAN, your insights are bang-on.

frtzw906