Scott proposes a model tat contradicts earlier comments:
==================
It depends on the individual student, the particular class, and the
specific
needs of the disabled student. It may well require additional teaching
aides
to help the disabled student keep up. It may require special teaching
techniques and tools. It may even require modifying the *whole*
curriculum
so that the "normal" students participate in ways which help the
disabled
students through. Peer mentoring has had some success.
==============

I'm not entirely opposed to this. However, may I remind you that you
thought it entirely appropriate for wealthy parents, of brighter kids,
to take those kids out of the public school environment. Your point was
that they have every obligation to look after the best interests of
their child.

Let's go with that proposition.

What if I decide that it is NOT in my child's best interests to mentor
someone else? You claim the move to a private school, to "escape" the
public school environment, is appropriate for wealthy people. Where's
my child's right to "escape" and to have an individualized curriculum?

frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott proposes a model tat contradicts earlier comments:
==================
It depends on the individual student, the particular class, and the
specific
needs of the disabled student. It may well require additional teaching
aides
to help the disabled student keep up. It may require special teaching
techniques and tools. It may even require modifying the *whole*
curriculum
so that the "normal" students participate in ways which help the
disabled
students through. Peer mentoring has had some success.
==============

I'm not entirely opposed to this. However, may I remind you that you
thought it entirely appropriate for wealthy parents, of brighter kids,
to take those kids out of the public school environment. Your point was
that they have every obligation to look after the best interests of
their child.

Let's go with that proposition.

What if I decide that it is NOT in my child's best interests to mentor
someone else? You claim the move to a private school, to "escape" the
public school environment, is appropriate for wealthy people. Where's
my child's right to "escape" and to have an individualized curriculum?

I never suggested that any child should be compelled to attend public school
if private schools are an option, I merely state that for those who must,
perforce, attend public school, they ought to be required to assist those in
need as a part of the curriculum.

--
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:
=================
I never suggested that any child should be compelled to attend public
school
if private schools are an option, I merely state that for those who
must,
perforce, attend public school, they ought to be required to assist
those in
need as a part of the curriculum.
================

Good thing I was an ornery-enough SOB to raise **** so as to curtail
such practises as far as they concerned my kids.

Hey! Come to think of it, it was more like a private school after I got
through with the principal. Isn't it great what bossy parents can do?
GRIN

frtzw906

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 4/5/05 5:24 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott proposes a model tat contradicts earlier comments:
==================
It depends on the individual student, the particular class, and the
specific
needs of the disabled student. It may well require additional teaching
aides
to help the disabled student keep up. It may require special teaching
techniques and tools. It may even require modifying the *whole*
curriculum
so that the "normal" students participate in ways which help the
disabled
students through. Peer mentoring has had some success.
==============

I'm not entirely opposed to this. However, may I remind you that you
thought it entirely appropriate for wealthy parents, of brighter kids,
to take those kids out of the public school environment. Your point was
that they have every obligation to look after the best interests of
their child.

Let's go with that proposition.

What if I decide that it is NOT in my child's best interests to mentor
someone else? You claim the move to a private school, to "escape" the
public school environment, is appropriate for wealthy people. Where's
my child's right to "escape" and to have an individualized curriculum?

I never suggested that any child should be compelled to attend public school
if private schools are an option, I merely state that for those who must,
perforce, attend public school, they ought to be required to assist those in
need as a part of the curriculum.

Ah. That has nothing to do with "mentoring." That is one person being forced
to "help" another person who has not requested the help.

This is not only highly inappropriate, but dangerous. It helps teach the
person with a disability that non-disabled people are their superiors, that
they are deficient beings who must rely on non-disabled people, that they do
not make their own decisions about what support they want and who will
provide it, etc and so on. All part of what contributes to making them an
extremely vulnerable population. It also teaches the non-disabled student
that it is appropriate and normal for them to assume a position of power
over people with disabilities.

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 4/5/05 5:24 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott proposes a model tat contradicts earlier comments:
==================
It depends on the individual student, the particular class, and the
specific
needs of the disabled student. It may well require additional teaching
aides
to help the disabled student keep up. It may require special teaching
techniques and tools. It may even require modifying the *whole*
curriculum
so that the "normal" students participate in ways which help the
disabled
students through. Peer mentoring has had some success.
==============

I'm not entirely opposed to this. However, may I remind you that you
thought it entirely appropriate for wealthy parents, of brighter kids,
to take those kids out of the public school environment. Your point was
that they have every obligation to look after the best interests of
their child.

Let's go with that proposition.

What if I decide that it is NOT in my child's best interests to mentor
someone else? You claim the move to a private school, to "escape" the
public school environment, is appropriate for wealthy people. Where's
my child's right to "escape" and to have an individualized curriculum?

I never suggested that any child should be compelled to attend public school
if private schools are an option, I merely state that for those who must,
perforce, attend public school, they ought to be required to assist those in
need as a part of the curriculum.

Ah. That has nothing to do with "mentoring." That is one person being forced
to "help" another person who has not requested the help.

So? These are children, and they don't have the right to refuse to
participate in educational programs, even when those programs require their
active participation in teaching other students, or helping other students
who need help. It helps create a sense of community and responsibility for
others, which is something that is sorely lacking in today's selfish
society.

I also advocate mandatory national service upon graduation from high school,
either in the Civilian Conservation Corps (or other like public works
entity) or military service.


This is not only highly inappropriate, but dangerous. It helps teach the
person with a disability that non-disabled people are their superiors, that
they are deficient beings who must rely on non-disabled people, that they do
not make their own decisions about what support they want and who will
provide it, etc and so on.

Hogwash. Disabled people know they are disabled and are well aware of the
limitations they face and when they require assistance. Nobody is suggesting
forcing assistance on anyone who is able to do something for themselves. You
suggest that a student whose wheelchair is stuck in a hole ought to be left
there without assistance, even if the occupant is incapable of communicating
a desire for assistance. Certainly if a disabled person wishes to do
something themselves, their wishes should be respected, and they should
always be encouraged to attempt self-sufficiency, but when help is required,
there's nothing wrong with engaging other students in helping them.

All part of what contributes to making them an
extremely vulnerable population. It also teaches the non-disabled student
that it is appropriate and normal for them to assume a position of power
over people with disabilities.

Poppycock. There are no power issues here, there is simple human compassion
and friendship. Your argument presupposes a selfish motive in the teaching
of compassion.

--
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:
================
Poppycock. There are no power issues here, there is simple human
compassion
and friendship. Your argument presupposes a selfish motive in the
teaching
of compassion.
================

EVERY relationship has a power component. It may cut both ways, but it
still is power.

Oh, BTW, Scott, I think that on most of these issues regarding persons
with disabilities, we (you, KMAN, and I) agree. You know what? That's
OK. You don't have to try to squeeze an argument out of a discuission
when there's none to be had. It can evolve into just that, a
discussion, if you let it.

frtzw906

"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 4/5/05 5:24 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott proposes a model tat contradicts earlier comments:
==================
It depends on the individual student, the particular class, and the
specific
needs of the disabled student. It may well require additional teaching
aides
to help the disabled student keep up. It may require special teaching
techniques and tools. It may even require modifying the *whole*
curriculum
so that the "normal" students participate in ways which help the
disabled
students through. Peer mentoring has had some success.
==============

I'm not entirely opposed to this. However, may I remind you that you
thought it entirely appropriate for wealthy parents, of brighter kids,
to take those kids out of the public school environment. Your point was
that they have every obligation to look after the best interests of
their child.

Let's go with that proposition.

What if I decide that it is NOT in my child's best interests to mentor
someone else? You claim the move to a private school, to "escape" the
public school environment, is appropriate for wealthy people. Where's
my child's right to "escape" and to have an individualized curriculum?

I never suggested that any child should be compelled to attend public
school
if private schools are an option, I merely state that for those who
must,
perforce, attend public school, they ought to be required to assist
those in
need as a part of the curriculum.

Ah. That has nothing to do with "mentoring." That is one person being
forced
to "help" another person who has not requested the help.

So? These are children, and they don't have the right to refuse to
participate in educational programs, even when those programs require
their
active participation in teaching other students, or helping other students
who need help. It helps create a sense of community and responsibility for
others, which is something that is sorely lacking in today's selfish
society.

It's not mentoring when neither party is willing or makes the choice.

The non-disabled student is not trained in supporting the individual with a
disability in an appropriate helper role and will serve the purpose of
teaching the individual with a disability that they are not competent and
need to be assigned a non-disabled person to make their decisions for them.

I also advocate mandatory national service upon graduation from high
school,
either in the Civilian Conservation Corps (or other like public works
entity) or military service.

That's a very different idea altogether. For example, having a voluntary
service requirement means finding an agency with a volunteer program,
receiving appropriate training and supervision, and supporting someone who
has made a choice to receive that support.

This is not only highly inappropriate, but dangerous. It helps teach the
person with a disability that non-disabled people are their superiors,
that
they are deficient beings who must rely on non-disabled people, that they
do
not make their own decisions about what support they want and who will
provide it, etc and so on.

Hogwash. Disabled people know they are disabled and are well aware of the
limitations they face and when they require assistance. Nobody is
suggesting
forcing assistance on anyone who is able to do something for themselves.
You
suggest that a student whose wheelchair is stuck in a hole ought to be
left
there without assistance, even if the occupant is incapable of
communicating
a desire for assistance.

There is a huge difference between having an attendant to assist with such
situations at one's request. This is not what I am talking about. I am
talking about those students who are forcibly "mainstreamed" into an
inappropriate curriculum.

Certainly if a disabled person wishes to do
something themselves, their wishes should be respected, and they should
always be encouraged to attempt self-sufficiency, but when help is
required,
there's nothing wrong with engaging other students in helping them.

Frocing them to do so is inappropriate. You are not picking up a piece of
poo from the schoolyard. It's a human being. If someone doesn't want to help
another human being, forcing them to do so is humliating for the person with
a disability and only teaches the person being forced to project their anger
onto an innocent party.

All part of what contributes to making them an
extremely vulnerable population. It also teaches the non-disabled student
that it is appropriate and normal for them to assume a position of power
over people with disabilities.

Poppycock. There are no power issues here, there is simple human
compassion
and friendship. Your argument presupposes a selfish motive in the teaching
of compassion.

Forcing someone to perform a task against their will has nothing to do with
the teaching of compassion. It might possibly help someone to develop a
sense of duty, which of course can mean a lot of things.

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 4/5/05 5:24 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott proposes a model tat contradicts earlier comments:
==================
It depends on the individual student, the particular class, and the
specific
needs of the disabled student. It may well require additional teaching
aides
to help the disabled student keep up. It may require special teaching
techniques and tools. It may even require modifying the *whole*
curriculum
so that the "normal" students participate in ways which help the
disabled
students through. Peer mentoring has had some success.
==============

I'm not entirely opposed to this. However, may I remind you that you
thought it entirely appropriate for wealthy parents, of brighter kids,
to take those kids out of the public school environment. Your point was
that they have every obligation to look after the best interests of
their child.

Let's go with that proposition.

What if I decide that it is NOT in my child's best interests to mentor
someone else? You claim the move to a private school, to "escape" the
public school environment, is appropriate for wealthy people. Where's
my child's right to "escape" and to have an individualized curriculum?

I never suggested that any child should be compelled to attend public
school
if private schools are an option, I merely state that for those who
must,
perforce, attend public school, they ought to be required to assist
those in
need as a part of the curriculum.

Ah. That has nothing to do with "mentoring." That is one person being
forced
to "help" another person who has not requested the help.

So? These are children, and they don't have the right to refuse to
participate in educational programs, even when those programs require
their
active participation in teaching other students, or helping other students
who need help. It helps create a sense of community and responsibility for
others, which is something that is sorely lacking in today's selfish
society.

It's not mentoring when neither party is willing or makes the choice.

You wrongly presume that neither party is willing, and you incorrectly
presume that one has to "make the choice" to be a mentor. No such
restriction is found in the definition of the word.


The non-disabled student is not trained in supporting the individual with a
disability in an appropriate helper role and will serve the purpose of
teaching the individual with a disability that they are not competent and
need to be assigned a non-disabled person to make their decisions for them.

Balderdash. The whole point is to TEACH the mentor how to mentor while also
teaching the disabled student how to be mentored. Mentoring has nothing to
do with "making their decisions for them," it is simply defined as "tutoring
or coaching." It's extremely common for more advanced students to be called
upon to mentor less advanced students, or students who are having difficulty
with a particular aspect of the curriculum, regardless of the ability of the
mentored student. You suggest that any hint or implication to a disabled
student who is struggling that they are disabled and struggling by way of
giving them a mentor is demeaning. It's not. It's a perfectly ordinary form
of didacticism.


I also advocate mandatory national service upon graduation from high
school,
either in the Civilian Conservation Corps (or other like public works
entity) or military service.

That's a very different idea altogether. For example, having a voluntary
service requirement means finding an agency with a volunteer program,
receiving appropriate training and supervision, and supporting someone who
has made a choice to receive that support.

That's why I want it to be mandatory. Young people need to be taught that
freedom is not free, and that to enjoy the benefits of civilized society,
one must participate in maintaining that society.


This is not only highly inappropriate, but dangerous. It helps teach the
person with a disability that non-disabled people are their superiors,
that
they are deficient beings who must rely on non-disabled people, that they
do
not make their own decisions about what support they want and who will
provide it, etc and so on.

Hogwash. Disabled people know they are disabled and are well aware of the
limitations they face and when they require assistance. Nobody is
suggesting
forcing assistance on anyone who is able to do something for themselves.
You
suggest that a student whose wheelchair is stuck in a hole ought to be
left
there without assistance, even if the occupant is incapable of
communicating
a desire for assistance.

There is a huge difference between having an attendant to assist with such
situations at one's request. This is not what I am talking about. I am
talking about those students who are forcibly "mainstreamed" into an
inappropriate curriculum.

We've already agreed that it would be wrong to do so, so you are evading the
issue.


Certainly if a disabled person wishes to do
something themselves, their wishes should be respected, and they should
always be encouraged to attempt self-sufficiency, but when help is
required,
there's nothing wrong with engaging other students in helping them.

Frocing them to do so is inappropriate.

Why?

You are not picking up a piece of
poo from the schoolyard. It's a human being.

Which makes requiring his/her peers to assist him/her when necessary all the
more desirable and necessary. We force children to pick up poo, or trash, or
any number of other things, including toys. So what?

If someone doesn't want to help
another human being, forcing them to do so is humliating for the person with
a disability and only teaches the person being forced to project their anger
onto an innocent party.

Wrong. NOT teaching children to help others in need (as you suggest is
proper policy) is destroying the very fabric of our society. "Forcing" a
student to assist another student (disabled or otherwise) is not wrong, it's
a necessary part of teaching children to be responsible adults. You imply
that "forcing" a two-year-old to eat his peas causes the child to "project
his anger" onto an innocent party. Maybe so, but the point is that neither
the two-year-old nor the disabled child nor the older child assigned to
mentor him are in charge of things, and they can, and should be required to
do many things that they don't like doing, because it teaches them, among
other things, discipline, self-control, self-reliance, obedience, altruism,
humility, compassion and concern for others. Such things are a necessary
part of every child's education. It is the lack of such education that has
resulted in a generation of selfish, self-centered, undisciplined, uncaring,
dependent, disobedient, arrogant, uncompassionate children who are a scourge
on our society.

As for the disabled person, particularly a disabled child, it's hardly
uncommon for ego to get in the way of reality, and it's sometimes necessary
to teach disabled children things they don't want to learn, just as it's
necessary to "force" all children to learn things they don't think they need
to know because they are, well, ignorant children. When talking about
educating children, almost everything adults do is "forcing" the child to do
something they don't want to do because they'd rather be vegetating in front
of the TV watching Spongebob Squarepants.

Tough. Children, including disabled children, aren't in charge and their
wants, likes and dislikes are of but little import when it comes to their
educations. They need to do as they are told, whether they like it or not.


All part of what contributes to making them an
extremely vulnerable population. It also teaches the non-disabled student
that it is appropriate and normal for them to assume a position of power
over people with disabilities.

Poppycock. There are no power issues here, there is simple human
compassion
and friendship. Your argument presupposes a selfish motive in the teaching
of compassion.

Forcing someone to perform a task against their will has nothing to do with
the teaching of compassion.

Wrong. Forcing a child to feed his gerbil, even when he doesn't want to, has
absolutely everything to do with teaching compassion, and the oftentimes
direct result of not having compassion, which is that creatures die when
compassion is missing.

It might possibly help someone to develop a
sense of duty, which of course can mean a lot of things.

Nothing wrong with that. We need a LOT more instilling of a sense of duty in
our children.

--
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 4/12/05 6:36 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 4/5/05 5:24 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott proposes a model tat contradicts earlier comments:
==================
It depends on the individual student, the particular class, and the
specific
needs of the disabled student. It may well require additional teaching
aides
to help the disabled student keep up. It may require special teaching
techniques and tools. It may even require modifying the *whole*
curriculum
so that the "normal" students participate in ways which help the
disabled
students through. Peer mentoring has had some success.
==============

I'm not entirely opposed to this. However, may I remind you that you
thought it entirely appropriate for wealthy parents, of brighter kids,
to take those kids out of the public school environment. Your point was
that they have every obligation to look after the best interests of
their child.

Let's go with that proposition.

What if I decide that it is NOT in my child's best interests to mentor
someone else? You claim the move to a private school, to "escape" the
public school environment, is appropriate for wealthy people. Where's
my child's right to "escape" and to have an individualized curriculum?

I never suggested that any child should be compelled to attend public
school
if private schools are an option, I merely state that for those who
must,
perforce, attend public school, they ought to be required to assist
those in
need as a part of the curriculum.

Ah. That has nothing to do with "mentoring." That is one person being
forced
to "help" another person who has not requested the help.

So? These are children, and they don't have the right to refuse to
participate in educational programs, even when those programs require
their
active participation in teaching other students, or helping other students
who need help. It helps create a sense of community and responsibility for
others, which is something that is sorely lacking in today's selfish
society.

It's not mentoring when neither party is willing or makes the choice.

You wrongly presume that neither party is willing

You didn't speak of any process whereby the parties in question have a say
in this "mentoring."

and you incorrectly
presume that one has to "make the choice" to be a mentor. No such
restriction is found in the definition of the word.

I think most people's understanding of a mentorship relationship is that the
two people have chosen to be in the relationship.

The non-disabled student is not trained in supporting the individual with a
disability in an appropriate helper role and will serve the purpose of
teaching the individual with a disability that they are not competent and
need to be assigned a non-disabled person to make their decisions for them.

Balderdash. The whole point is to TEACH the mentor how to mentor while also
teaching the disabled student how to be mentored.

Ah, basically teaching the non-disabled student to boss people with
disabilities, and teaching people with disabilities to be bossed.

Absolutely the worst possible suggestion, unless your goal is to make people
with disabilities even more vulnerable than they are.

Mentoring has nothing to
do with "making their decisions for them," it is simply defined as "tutoring
or coaching."

Actually, even using standard dictionary definitions, the key to a mentoring
relationship is trust. While trust might possibly emerge from an imposed
relationship, it seems to me it is much more likely to come from a
relationship where the two people actually choose to be together.

It's extremely common for more advanced students to be called
upon to mentor less advanced students, or students who are having difficulty
with a particular aspect of the curriculum, regardless of the ability of the
mentored student. You suggest that any hint or implication to a disabled
student who is struggling that they are disabled and struggling by way of
giving them a mentor is demeaning. It's not. It's a perfectly ordinary form
of didacticism.

The reason you are wanting to force this mentoring relationship - and the
reason the person is struggling - is they are being subjected to someone
else's curriculum. This is not the same as a student getting a 65 in Grade
12 chemistry getting some peer help (not what I would call mentoring) from a
95 student so they can bring their grade up to 70.

That has nothing to do with a student who has numeracy at a Grade 1 level
and reads at a Grade 2 level suffering through Grade 12 biology.

I also advocate mandatory national service upon graduation from high
school,
either in the Civilian Conservation Corps (or other like public works
entity) or military service.

That's a very different idea altogether. For example, having a voluntary
service requirement means finding an agency with a volunteer program,
receiving appropriate training and supervision, and supporting someone who
has made a choice to receive that support.

That's why I want it to be mandatory. Young people need to be taught that
freedom is not free, and that to enjoy the benefits of civilized society,
one must participate in maintaining that society.

Great. But a child with a disability is not a guinea pig, and teachers in
schools rarely have appropriate training, let alone some student that the
teacher (supposedly and laughedly) has time to "train" to be a mentor.

This is not only highly inappropriate, but dangerous. It helps teach the
person with a disability that non-disabled people are their superiors,
that
they are deficient beings who must rely on non-disabled people, that they
do
not make their own decisions about what support they want and who will
provide it, etc and so on.

Hogwash. Disabled people know they are disabled and are well aware of the
limitations they face and when they require assistance. Nobody is
suggesting
forcing assistance on anyone who is able to do something for themselves.
You
suggest that a student whose wheelchair is stuck in a hole ought to be
left
there without assistance, even if the occupant is incapable of
communicating
a desire for assistance.

There is a huge difference between having an attendant to assist with such
situations at one's request. This is not what I am talking about. I am
talking about those students who are forcibly "mainstreamed" into an
inappropriate curriculum.

We've already agreed that it would be wrong to do so, so you are evading the
issue.

I could only evade the issue - as you see it - if I knew what the issue is
and how you see it. Which I don't.


Certainly if a disabled person wishes to do
something themselves, their wishes should be respected, and they should
always be encouraged to attempt self-sufficiency, but when help is
required,
there's nothing wrong with engaging other students in helping them.

Frocing them to do so is inappropriate.

Why?

It is the wrong message to send. It is telling the person with a disability
that they need a non-disabled person "assigned" to them in order to get by.
I know many adults with disabilities who have suffered tremendously from
hearing and believing that message. They end up as dependent, self-doubting,
self-hating adults. And the non-disabled person learns and helps to
reinforce exactly that same view. "Teacher says I have to help Billy because
he's a retard." Great!

You are not picking up a piece of
poo from the schoolyard. It's a human being.

Which makes requiring his/her peers to assist him/her when necessary all the
more desirable and necessary. We force children to pick up poo, or trash, or
any number of other things, including toys. So what?

You see no probleim in treating poo and people with disabilities the same
way?

If someone doesn't want to help
another human being, forcing them to do so is humliating for the person with
a disability and only teaches the person being forced to project their anger
onto an innocent party.

Wrong. NOT teaching children to help others in need (as you suggest is
proper policy) is destroying the very fabric of our society.

You don't "teach" anything by forcing. You are aware that there are children
who like to help others, and not because they were forced to do so, right?

"Forcing" a
student to assist another student (disabled or otherwise) is not wrong

It is horribly wrong.

it's
a necessary part of teaching children to be responsible adults.

It is teaching the person with a disability to doubt their own value and
surrender power to non-disabled persons, and it is teaching the non-disabled
person to assume that role. There is no mutual respect to be developed from
"Teacher says I have to help you."

You imply
that "forcing" a two-year-old to eat his peas causes the child to "project
his anger" onto an innocent party.

?

Maybe so, but the point is that neither
the two-year-old nor the disabled child nor the older child assigned to
mentor him are in charge of things

They should be. People with disabilities in particular need to lear
non-compliance and how to have a voice and what it feels like to have that
voice respected. There is a reason why they are so extremely vulnerable to
sexual abuse and other assaults. Because they are taught - through
hairbrained schemes like forced mentorships and mainstreaming - that they
are powerless and their place on earth is to do what non-disabled people
tell them to do.

and they can, and should be required to
do many things that they don't like doing, because it teaches them, among
other things, discipline, self-control, self-reliance, obedience, altruism,
humility, compassion and concern for others. Such things are a necessary
part of every child's education. It is the lack of such education that has
resulted in a generation of selfish, self-centered, undisciplined, uncaring,
dependent, disobedient, arrogant, uncompassionate children who are a scourge
on our society.

Perhaps it is living in a selfish, self-centred, undisciplined, uncaring,
depdent, disobedient, arrogant, uncompassionate society that was prodeuced
selfish, self-centred, undisciplined, uncaring, depdent, disobedient,
arrogant, uncompassionate children that you speak of.

As for the disabled person, particularly a disabled child, it's hardly
uncommon for ego to get in the way of reality, and it's sometimes necessary
to teach disabled children things they don't want to learn, just as it's
necessary to "force" all children to learn things they don't think they need
to know because they are, well, ignorant children. When talking about
educating children, almost everything adults do is "forcing" the child to do
something they don't want to do because they'd rather be vegetating in front
of the TV watching Spongebob Squarepants.

Tough. Children, including disabled children, aren't in charge and their
wants, likes and dislikes are of but little import when it comes to their
educations. They need to do as they are told, whether they like it or not.

LOL. Heil Weiser!

All part of what contributes to making them an
extremely vulnerable population. It also teaches the non-disabled student
that it is appropriate and normal for them to assume a position of power
over people with disabilities.

Poppycock. There are no power issues here, there is simple human
compassion
and friendship. Your argument presupposes a selfish motive in the teaching
of compassion.

Forcing someone to perform a task against their will has nothing to do with
the teaching of compassion.

Wrong. Forcing a child to feed his gerbil, even when he doesn't want to, has
absolutely everything to do with teaching compassion, and the oftentimes
direct result of not having compassion, which is that creatures die when
compassion is missing.

Compassion is a combination of understanding of suffering and the wish to
relieve that suffering. This is not taught by saying "help that person
because I say so." That simply teachers the child that you have power of
them, and while you might think that has value, it certainly has nothing to
do with compassion.

It might possibly help someone to develop a
sense of duty, which of course can mean a lot of things.

Nothing wrong with that. We need a LOT more instilling of a sense of duty in
our children.

Perhaps so. But it has nothing to do with compassion. You can teach someone
to dutifully murder other people. This is accomplished by exerting power
over them and having them in turn exert power over someone else. Sort of
like your mentorship program.