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

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 4/5/05 10:16 PM:

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.

Actually, I'm not. As you know, I've already agreed with you that (as an
example) a person with a physical disability with the same or better
intellectual capacity as their non-disabled peers belongs in the same
classroom as their non-disabled peers. Obviously and unquestionable.

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

You are being dishonest.

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 4/5/05 10:16 PM:

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.

Actually, I'm not. As you know, I've already agreed with you that (as an
example) a person with a physical disability with the same or better
intellectual capacity as their non-disabled peers belongs in the same
classroom as their non-disabled peers. Obviously and unquestionable.

This elides the grey area issue of a student who does not have the "same or
better intellectual capacity" as their peers but who is sufficiently
advanced to benefit from the social interactions and instruction, even if he
or she is not at the head of the class. Because it can be extremely
difficult to accurate gauge the intellectual capacity of a person afflicted
with brain damage that impairs communication, but not cognition, it's
discriminatory to judge too quickly that a particular child is not able to
benefit from the curriculum. Thus, it's perfectly reasonable to presume in
favor of the hidden capabilities of a student and work hard to ensure that
they benefit from both the social and academic benefits of being with their
peers, unless and until it can be conclusively demonstrated that they are so
far behind that both they and their peers are suffering as a result of the
attempt to mainstream the disabled student.

I do not agree with your implicit metric that a disabled student must be
able to participate on an equal level in the classroom. I see nothing wrong
with placing a disabled student who will require *more* assistance and
specialized tutoring in order to keep up in the classroom, and in doing so
require the other students to learn to "reasonably accommodate" their peer's
disabilities.

There is, however, a limit. On that we can agree. It's how you discover that
limit that's important. I argue for giving the benefit of the doubt to the
disabled student and not excluding them unless it is quantifiably clear that
they cannot benefit from any aspect of the classroom environment *and* they
are being so disruptive that it's impossible to teach the other children.
Both aspects of this test must be met, after a considerable period of
adjustment and attempts at accommodation, before any student is denied
access to the public schools.


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

You are being dishonest.

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

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 4/5/05 10:16 PM:

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.

Actually, I'm not. As you know, I've already agreed with you that (as an
example) a person with a physical disability with the same or better
intellectual capacity as their non-disabled peers belongs in the same
classroom as their non-disabled peers. Obviously and unquestionable.

This elides the grey area issue of a student who does not have the "same
or
better intellectual capacity" as their peers but who is sufficiently
advanced to benefit from the social interactions and instruction, even if
he
or she is not at the head of the class. Because it can be extremely
difficult to accurate gauge the intellectual capacity of a person
afflicted
with brain damage that impairs communication, but not cognition, it's
discriminatory to judge too quickly that a particular child is not able to
benefit from the curriculum. Thus, it's perfectly reasonable to presume in
favor of the hidden capabilities of a student and work hard to ensure that
they benefit from both the social and academic benefits of being with
their
peers, unless and until it can be conclusively demonstrated that they are
so
far behind that both they and their peers are suffering as a result of the
attempt to mainstream the disabled student.

By the time of high school the diagnosis of intellectual disability will not
be in doubt and the neither will the need for an appropriate curriculum. If
the person is not at an academic level that makes it possible to pursue
post-secondary education, then their high school years are their last chance
for formal education to help them with their life ahead. They deserve to
have that time focused on their needs, not picking their nose in a class
that has nothing to do with them except offer them the "opportunity" to sit
in the same space as non-disabled people.

I do not agree with your implicit metric that a disabled student must be
able to participate on an equal level in the classroom. I see nothing
wrong
with placing a disabled student who will require *more* assistance and
specialized tutoring in order to keep up in the classroom, and in doing so
require the other students to learn to "reasonably accommodate" their
peer's
disabilities.

If they can in fact benefit appropriately from the curriculum with help, by
all means.

There is, however, a limit. On that we can agree. It's how you discover
that
limit that's important. I argue for giving the benefit of the doubt to the
disabled student and not excluding them unless it is quantifiably clear
that
they cannot benefit from any aspect of the classroom environment *and*
they
are being so disruptive that it's impossible to teach the other children.

This should be fully identified by Grade 8, if not, there is incompetence at
play.

Both aspects of this test must be met, after a considerable period of
adjustment and attempts at accommodation, before any student is denied
access to the public schools.

Who is being denied access to public schools?!?!?

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

You are being dishonest.

How so?

By pretending from time to time that you don't know what type of
disabilities I am talking about.