"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?

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).

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 4/5/05 1:06 AM:

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.

Um. Right. You need to give the students with disabilities instruction that
meets their needs. Which is why mainstreaming them in a Grade 6 class makes
no sense.

Thanks for finally getting it!!!

Scott recommends:
============
Hire another teacher or put the disabled students in a Grade 1 math
class.
============

Oh yeah, I totally forgot about the budget surplus.

frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott recommends:
============
Hire another teacher or put the disabled students in a Grade 1 math
class.
============

Oh yeah, I totally forgot about the budget surplus.

It's not a matter of budgets, it's a matter of social priorities.

--
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

Scott:
==============
Hire another teacher or put the disabled students in a Grade 1 math
class.
============

Oh yeah, I totally forgot about the budget surplus.

It's not a matter of budgets, it's a matter of social priorities.
===================

WE AGREE!

More butter, less guns. It's a classic.

frtzw906

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 4/5/05 5:32 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott recommends:
============
Hire another teacher or put the disabled students in a Grade 1 math
class.
============

Oh yeah, I totally forgot about the budget surplus.

It's not a matter of budgets, it's a matter of social priorities.

Cough. Sputter. Cough

Did SCOTT WEISER just say that?

He's becoming...gasp...a SOCIALIST right before our eyes!!!!

Put Scott in charge of the school system, and each person with an
intellectual disability will be mainstreamed with their own personal
teacher! If the school needs 483 teachers for 600 students, so be it! It's a
social priority!

Now howsabout ensuring access to health care for every child in
America...BEFORE your "a teacher for everyone" program kicks in?

KMAN is stunned (as am I):
==============
It's not a matter of budgets, it's a matter of social priorities.

Cough. Sputter. Cough

Did SCOTT WEISER just say that?

He's becoming...gasp...a SOCIALIST right before our eyes!!!!
================

A very wise Canadian (by birth and youth), John Kenneth Galbraith
(later American ambassador to India, among other achievements) once
observed that just about EVERYBODY is an advocate for free enterprise
until such time as it comes to whatever their personal endeavor is.
Then, Galbraith noted, we could all find reasons why OUR particular
little niche in society needed special protection from the rigors of
the marketplace.

Methinks our Scotty reflects just that. Police? A *very* left-wing
approach to policing. Persons with disabilities (he hasn't told us what
his particular connection is to this field)? Money and social/community
support is not object!

Odd, isn't it?

frtzw906