Scott asserts (incorrectly):
=============
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.

Well, there may be a limit, but you generalize far too much and try to
use
it as an argument not to mainstream disabled students. As I said
before,
each student is different, and will need different assistance.
=============

I've made NO argument not to mainstream. I've made arguments that there
are times when it is *not* appropriate.

frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott asserts (incorrectly):
=============
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.

Well, there may be a limit, but you generalize far too much and try to
use
it as an argument not to mainstream disabled students. As I said
before,
each student is different, and will need different assistance.
=============

I've made NO argument not to mainstream. I've made arguments that there
are times when it is *not* appropriate.

And yet you apply your arguments to the broader issues by omission and
implication. I don't deny that in extraordinary cases, a particular child
may not be able to successfully integrate into school society, but every
child deserves the *chance* to try.

I'm not going to argue a specific case with you because it's pointless to do
so. This is a discussion of general policies and ideas.

--
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