A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott compassionately asserts:
====================
No, it's a game of compassion and diversity that every child needs to
learn,
if for no other reason than the "there but by the grace of God go I"
lesson.
==============

Except, as Scott has said in response to what started this sub-thread,
if you are wealthy enough to send your kid to private school where
there are no children with intellectual disabilities.

Yup, that's an issue. It's one of the considerations parents must take into
account when taking their children out of public school. Will doing so have
unintended negative consequences for my child in later life?

But, the point is that the decision is up to the parents, not the state.
--
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

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott:
===============
Well, thanks for at least clearing up the acronym issue.

Can you point me to any such published or verifiable remarks?
==============

Yes, we were having a beer while watching fireworks. When I enquired
about the brighter girl being at private school, that's the reason
given. Good enough for you?

Nope.

Name, address, phone number.

--
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

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott:
============
That falsely presumes that merely because a particular person is
intellectually limited, that this constitutes an actionable "hindrance"
of
the advancement of other students.
============

I made no such presumption. The context was a student (and many more
like her), who repeatedly interrupted classroom activities with violent
vocal and physical outbursts.

That's a hindrance!

Nope. It's an opportunity likely combined with a cry for help.
--
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

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott says:
=============
I say it's an opportunity. Besides, you're stereotyping all "disabled
children" with the broad brush.
===============

First, I established the nature of the disability and the nature of the
interruptions, so there was no broad brush -- I was specific.

No, you weren't. You have been extremely vague about the *specific* student,
but you have been attempting to tar *all* disabled students with that
particular brush during a discussion of general policy.


As an opportunity it wears thin real fast.... oh.... after about 2
days.

Only for the intellectually and compassion challenged.

--
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

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

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

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

The warm and fuzzy Scott opines:
===============
I will agree with the statement "in rare instances." For the most part,
most
"disabled" children can be successfully mainstreamed, in combination
with
additional special education. This is true because the profoundly
disabled,
who are the likely "pecker pullers" comprise only a small component of
the
disabled student population. The vast majority of students with
disabilities
both need and can benefit from mainstreaming. In those rare instances
where
it simply doesn't work out, some other plan is needed.
============

We agree.

This sub-thread started however, with the tale of two sisters, one of
whom was what you characterized as a "worst-case" scenario. The
subsequent discussion revolved around the hypocrisy of the parents,
leaving the "worst-case" scenario in the public school, for
less-wealthy pupils do deal with, while they took their brighter
daughter out of that environment and into a private school.

No, you've been trying to limit the scope of the discussion, and I've not
been allowing it. An anecdote in this context serves only as an
illustration, not a determinative example.

--
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

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott, confusing multiple issues:
================
Note that this corporal punishment is not to be meeted out to
the
disabled student who is incapable of control, but to the OTHER
students
who
are allowing themselves to be distracted by what ought to be ignored.
================

So, you're suggesting that the cure for chemical or hormonal
"disabilities" are "smacks upside the head". Hmmmm...... And the kid
is
supposed to know, from the SMACK, why his mind doesn't work like
others' minds?

Did you fail to read the sentence beginning with "Note" and ending with
"ignored?"
===================

You recommned a SMACK for ADHD students.

No, I recommend appropriate corporal punishment for students who haven't
been taught by their parents to be quiet, respectful and obedient to
authority and who haven't learned to concentrate. I deny that just because a
student is disruptive and unwilling to concentrate or obey, that the student
is *unable* to concentrate or obey due to some phony, concocted "diagnosis"
that is little more than a marketing tool for Ritalin.

Overcoming "ADHD" is something you *learn* to do, not something you can be
medicated into. Sometimes children need to be caused to focus, and corporal
punishment, in appropriate measure, can be an effective tool for obtaining
obedience and stimulating focus.

Most of the time, "ADHD" is nothing more than a sugar high caused by poor
nutrition and breakfast cereal combined with lax, permissive parenting that
spills over into the classroom.

--
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

A Usenet persona calling itself frtzw906 wrote:

Doctor Scott:
===========
Children with "ADHD" aren't "disabled," they are "under-disciplined" and
"unmotivated" to act appropriately. I frankly doubt such a thing as ADHD
even exists, except in the devious minds of drug-makers and their research
lackeys.

You ought to watch "Supernanny" sometime ...
==============

So you got your medical credentials from TV, did you?

Nope, thousands of years of human history.


Look, on many of the "types" you describe, our solutions may be quite
similar. However, I happen to know some very well-mannered kids who have
AD disorder. They just can't comprehend the way others can. They have a
disability.

Hogwash.


So, Dr Scott, how about other people who look "normal" but suffer from
mental illnesses; will a SMACK cure them as well?

Depends on the illness. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Even advocates for
mentally disabled children (such as those with CP) tell parents not to
coddle their children or tolerate misbehavior.


After all your advocating for the disabled, you've just completely lost
credibility. You're obviously just a sucker for the "look" of a person
with disabilities.

It's not their appearance, it's their behavior. I'm not saying that parents
or teachers should cane disabled children (or any children), I'm merely
saying that the current vogue of declaring unruly children to be suffering
from "ADHD" is entirely generated by bad-behavior, permissive-parenting
apologists and drug companies, and that this "disorder," if it exists at
all, which I doubt, only truly exists in an extremely small fraction of
children.

Thus, the current practice of medicating vast numbers of exuberant,
undisciplined children by schools is based in two things: The crippling fear
of educators to use corporal punishment to maintain order in the schools and
a desire to avoid the issue and the problem of disciplining children that
haven't been disciplined at home by applying the convenient "ADHD"
diagnosis. That way the school can wash its hands of the "problem child,"
demand that the child be medicated into a stupor, and blame their inability
to control students on a fictional "condition" the child supposedly suffers
from.

It's a giant racket, and a fraud, and it ought to be stopped.


How shallow.

You'd like to think so, but it ain't so.
--
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 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