Scott:
==============
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.
===================

WE AGREE!

More butter, less guns. It's a classic.

frtzw906

Scott:
=============
=======================
KMAN, your thoughts on these matters need to be published (are
they?). WOW!

Everything you describe, I've seen.

frtzw906
====================

Yo, dude, go look up the word "edit."
=================

Content!

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

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott:
==============
You're the only one suggesting that disabled kids be "stuck in a class
that
is not intended for their learning needs." I've never even hinted at
such a
plan.
==============

And KMAN hasn't said you did. He's just reporting on the realities.

No, he's reporting on one, single reality while trying to extend the
reasoning to the general case.

I'm arguing the general case, not a specific reality.

--
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:
===============
Thus are the vicissitudes of a public school education. When you suck
at the
public teat, you get the same pabulum everybody else does, and in
public
schools, the curriculum is quite often concocted to serve the lowest
common
denominator. Pity about that, but that's socialism for you.
================

Whoops! May I remind you one more time about the superior learning
outcomes for the Canadian school system.

Whatever the outcomes, they are not superior to most private educations.
--
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:
==============
Scholars truly interested in, and deserving of a college education
don't
usually get there through the public school system. When they do, it's
in
*spite* of the public schools, not because of them.
=============

Is that a true reflection of the American system, Scott?

Given the degree of scholarship I've seen in some recent college grads, that
would be my guess.


From a Canadian perspective you're wrong: The vast majority of
"Scholars truly interested in, and deserving of a college education
*do* usually get there through the public school system"

That's an open question.

--
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 to KMAN:
================
I'm talking about students with intellectual disabilitiesin high
school, and
have been throughout.

Yes, you've been trying manfully to divert the discussion, but I'm not
playing.
====================

Scott, the discussion you wish to have may/will be useful, but it is
disingenuous to accuse KMAN of trying to divert it. You're the one
doing the diverting (and that's OK, it just complicates the issue).

Wrong. I've always been arguing policy and the general case.

--
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:
==============
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.
=============

Have you so little regard for privacy?

No, for veracity.

--
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 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.

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 4/5/05 5:25 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott:
=============
I find the way that you stereotype all "kids with disabilities." Very
diverse of you.
===========

This sort of nit-picking does nothing to advance the discussion. Given
the context of the thread thus far, we all know full well the nature of
the disability KMAN is referring to.

But do "we" accept his attempt to narrow the discussion?

No, not I.

I haven't attempted to narrow anything. I openly and clearly agreed with you
that a person with a disability who has the intellectual capacity to
participate in the same curriculum as a non-disabled peer should,
unquestionably, be in the same classroom as those peers.

Thus, we can move on from any further discussion of people with physical
disabilities with the traits described.

We are left with a discussion about other types of disabilities, mainly
intellectual disabilities, which is, and has been, the topic I have been
discussing for some time, and you have responded to my posts knowing full
well that is the population I am talking about.