"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.

KMAN refines my point (Thanks!):
================
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.
===================

You are right: "a learning environment is for learners (all of them). "

We've opted for -- for a myriad of reasons -- a rather "industrial"
model of education (most jurisdictions) for reasons of efficiency.
Constant assaults on the funding of education just exacerbate the need
for further efficiencies. The notion of "individualized" instruction
takes a beating when classroom sizes escalate from about 22 per class
to 35 per class in less than 10 years. It *is* possible to teach 35 (or
more) pupils in a classroom, but the students had better be relatively
homogeneous if that's your objective. That pretty-much rules out
mainstreaming.

frtzw906

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

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 4/5/05 1:17 AM:

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.

I "skipped a grade" and was also put in an "enrichment" class. Had similar
problems...I had strong communication abilities and was able to (not
deliberately) fool all sorts of teachers into thinking I was further ahead
in math and science. They always felt I was "underachieving" in those
subjects. But what happened was I missed out on learning a lot of
fundamentals by moving ahead too quickly. I taught myself the fundamentals
as an adult because I wanted to be able to teach them to others. My math is
pretty decent now, but I wouldn't be teaching a physics class :-)