Scott incorrectly states:
===============
You falsely assume that all disable students are equal, and that all of
them
are incapable of comprehending chemistry and that all of them do
nothing but
pick their noses. This is merely ignorant bigotry.
================

KMAN does nothing of the sort. You just keep reading it that way.
Surely from everything he's said thus far, you can't believe that of
him.

frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott incorrectly states:
===============
You falsely assume that all disable students are equal, and that all of
them
are incapable of comprehending chemistry and that all of them do
nothing but
pick their noses. This is merely ignorant bigotry.
================

KMAN does nothing of the sort. You just keep reading it that way.
Surely from everything he's said thus far, you can't believe that of
him.

I merely analyze his statements here, which so indicate.
--
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 10:15 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott incorrectly states:
===============
You falsely assume that all disable students are equal, and that all of
them
are incapable of comprehending chemistry and that all of them do
nothing but
pick their noses. This is merely ignorant bigotry.
================

KMAN does nothing of the sort. You just keep reading it that way.
Surely from everything he's said thus far, you can't believe that of
him.

I merely analyze his statements here, which so indicate.

I've stated unequivocally that there are students with disabilities who
benefit from the same curriculum as non-disabled peers. You are deliberately
misconstruing my position, and started doing so the moment your own
arguments were shown to be lacking. This is around the time you got all
snark about the idea that you weren't getting enough credit for your
knowledge on this topic.

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 4/5/05 10:15 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott incorrectly states:
===============
You falsely assume that all disable students are equal, and that all of
them
are incapable of comprehending chemistry and that all of them do
nothing but
pick their noses. This is merely ignorant bigotry.
================

KMAN does nothing of the sort. You just keep reading it that way.
Surely from everything he's said thus far, you can't believe that of
him.

I merely analyze his statements here, which so indicate.

I've stated unequivocally that there are students with disabilities who
benefit from the same curriculum as non-disabled peers.

But you consistently argue a debate about general "mainstreaming" policy
within the narrow framework of one particular student who may not benefit.

You are deliberately
misconstruing my position, and started doing so the moment your own
arguments were shown to be lacking. This is around the time you got all
snark about the idea that you weren't getting enough credit for your
knowledge on this topic.

Not really. I'm simply not allowing you to set policy based on one extreme
example. I'm arguing for nuance and erring on the side of inclusiveness,
while you seem to be arguing on the side of exclusion.

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

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 4/5/05 10:15 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott incorrectly states:
===============
You falsely assume that all disable students are equal, and that all of
them
are incapable of comprehending chemistry and that all of them do
nothing but
pick their noses. This is merely ignorant bigotry.
================

KMAN does nothing of the sort. You just keep reading it that way.
Surely from everything he's said thus far, you can't believe that of
him.

I merely analyze his statements here, which so indicate.

I've stated unequivocally that there are students with disabilities who
benefit from the same curriculum as non-disabled peers.

But you consistently argue a debate about general "mainstreaming" policy
within the narrow framework of one particular student who may not benefit.

I'm talking about an millions of students...all those who deserve a more
appropriate curriculum than one that is designed for a different purpose and
need.

You are deliberately
misconstruing my position, and started doing so the moment your own
arguments were shown to be lacking. This is around the time you got all
snark about the idea that you weren't getting enough credit for your
knowledge on this topic.

Not really.

Yea, you did.

I'm simply not allowing you to set policy based on one extreme
example. I'm arguing for nuance and erring on the side of inclusiveness,
while you seem to be arguing on the side of exclusion.

It's not one extreme example. I am talking about all the millions of kids
that deserve a curriculum designed for their needs, not one that is tailored
to the needs of others.

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

I've stated unequivocally that there are students with disabilities who
benefit from the same curriculum as non-disabled peers.

But you consistently argue a debate about general "mainstreaming" policy
within the narrow framework of one particular student who may not benefit.

I'm talking about an millions of students...all those who deserve a more
appropriate curriculum than one that is designed for a different purpose and
need.

No, you're trying to use a single example as a model for millions of others.
You have absolutely no idea what an "appropriate curriculum" is for *any*
disabled student, not even your example. How could you? You don't know any
of them and you don't know WHAT they need.

I'm simply not allowing you to set policy based on one extreme
example. I'm arguing for nuance and erring on the side of inclusiveness,
while you seem to be arguing on the side of exclusion.

It's not one extreme example. I am talking about all the millions of kids
that deserve a curriculum designed for their needs, not one that is tailored
to the needs of others.

Problem with your theory is that in many cases, the curriculum tailored for
the "needs of others" is perfectly appropriate for the disabled. That they
may need *other* programs targeted at specific, individual needs of a
specific disable student is irrelevant to the greater need that *all*
children have for a basic education and socialization.

--
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 7:28 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

I've stated unequivocally that there are students with disabilities who
benefit from the same curriculum as non-disabled peers.

But you consistently argue a debate about general "mainstreaming" policy
within the narrow framework of one particular student who may not benefit.

I'm talking about an millions of students...all those who deserve a more
appropriate curriculum than one that is designed for a different purpose and
need.

No, you're trying to use a single example as a model for millions of others.
You have absolutely no idea what an "appropriate curriculum" is for *any*
disabled student, not even your example. How could you? You don't know any
of them and you don't know WHAT they need.

Since most people with intellectual disabilities have numeracy and literacy
skills at an elementary school level, none of them need Grade 12 chemistry.
This is not really so complicated. The "mainstream" curriculum is about
following prescribed units of study and getting grades for post-secondary
education at college or university. There is an entirely different reality
for people with intellectual disabilities and forcing them to waste their
time on someone else's curriculum is waste and neglect.

I'm simply not allowing you to set policy based on one extreme
example. I'm arguing for nuance and erring on the side of inclusiveness,
while you seem to be arguing on the side of exclusion.

It's not one extreme example. I am talking about all the millions of kids
that deserve a curriculum designed for their needs, not one that is tailored
to the needs of others.

Problem with your theory is that in many cases, the curriculum tailored for
the "needs of others" is perfectly appropriate for the disabled.

Not for people with intellectual disabilities or any other type of
disability that calls for a different curriculum.

That they
may need *other* programs targeted at specific, individual needs of a
specific disable student is irrelevant to the greater need that *all*
children have for a basic education and socialization.

1) They are not receiving a basic education, they are wasting precious time
on someone else's curriculum that does not meet their needs

2) They are being socialized into uselessness by sitting in a classroom that
is designed to meet someone else's needs and being humiliated in the process

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 4/6/05 4:36 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 4/5/05 10:15 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott incorrectly states:
===============
You falsely assume that all disable students are equal, and that all of
them
are incapable of comprehending chemistry and that all of them do
nothing but
pick their noses. This is merely ignorant bigotry.
================

KMAN does nothing of the sort. You just keep reading it that way.
Surely from everything he's said thus far, you can't believe that of
him.

I merely analyze his statements here, which so indicate.

I've stated unequivocally that there are students with disabilities who
benefit from the same curriculum as non-disabled peers.

But you consistently argue a debate about general "mainstreaming" policy
within the narrow framework of one particular student who may not benefit.

Mainstreaming of any student who cannot benefit from the "mainstream"
curriculum is inappropriate.

You are deliberately
misconstruing my position, and started doing so the moment your own
arguments were shown to be lacking. This is around the time you got all
snark about the idea that you weren't getting enough credit for your
knowledge on this topic.

Not really. I'm simply not allowing you to set policy based on one extreme
example. I'm arguing for nuance and erring on the side of inclusiveness,
while you seem to be arguing on the side of exclusion.

The mainstreaming of students into a setting with an inappropriate
curriculum results in exclusion. High school is not forever. Forcing a
student with a disability into a class that is not meeting their learning
needs is humiliating for that student and does not "include" them with the
other students.

Giving a student a curriculum that meets their needs, supports achievement,
and results in a greater ability to participate in the community is the path
to the greatest possible level of inclusion.

in article , BCITORGB
at wrote on 4/5/05 5:53 PM:

Scott incorrectly states:
===============
You falsely assume that all disable students are equal, and that all of
them
are incapable of comprehending chemistry and that all of them do
nothing but
pick their noses. This is merely ignorant bigotry.
================

KMAN does nothing of the sort. You just keep reading it that way.
Surely from everything he's said thus far, you can't believe that of
him.

frtzw906

Quite so. I have stated, quite specifically (as Scott is aware) that there
are students with disabilities who have the same or better intellectual
capacity as non-disabled peers and obviously they belong in the same
classroom since they will benefit from the same curriculum.

As I have also explained, perhaps more than a dozen times, for those who do
not have the intellectual capacity to benefit from the "mainstream"
curriculum, it is a totally appropriate reaction to space out or act out
when being humiliated on a daily basis by having to sit through day after
day of curriculum that is for someone else and you are just there filling up
space.

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , BCITORGB
at wrote on 4/5/05 5:53 PM:

Scott incorrectly states:
===============
You falsely assume that all disable students are equal, and that all of
them
are incapable of comprehending chemistry and that all of them do
nothing but
pick their noses. This is merely ignorant bigotry.
================

KMAN does nothing of the sort. You just keep reading it that way.
Surely from everything he's said thus far, you can't believe that of
him.

frtzw906

Quite so. I have stated, quite specifically (as Scott is aware) that there
are students with disabilities who have the same or better intellectual
capacity as non-disabled peers and obviously they belong in the same
classroom since they will benefit from the same curriculum.

As I have also explained, perhaps more than a dozen times, for those who do
not have the intellectual capacity to benefit from the "mainstream"
curriculum, it is a totally appropriate reaction to space out or act out
when being humiliated on a daily basis by having to sit through day after
day of curriculum that is for someone else and you are just there filling up
space.


And in this we can agree, as I have said. Where we disagree is where you
imply that most intellectually challenged kids fit this mold. Since you
seldom care to argue about the less obvious cases or draw fine distinctions,
I view your statements as being in the nature of a general policy of
"exclude them unless they are certain to be capable."

I tend to err on the side of "include them unless they are demonstrably
incapable."

If you can agree with that model, then we appear to have no real
disagreement.

--
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