"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
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.

That's fine, as long as you realize 100% of kids with intellectual
disabilities deserve a more appropriate curriculum than Grade 12 chemistry.

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

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.

That's fine, as long as you realize 100% of kids with intellectual
disabilities deserve a more appropriate curriculum than Grade 12 chemistry.

Why would I agree to that? It's entirely possible for some students with
intellectual disabilities to excel at Grade 12 chemistry.

--
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 7:25 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

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.

That's fine, as long as you realize 100% of kids with intellectual
disabilities deserve a more appropriate curriculum than Grade 12 chemistry.

Why would I agree to that? It's entirely possible for some students with
intellectual disabilities to excel at Grade 12 chemistry.

Can you point me to one?

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 4/12/05 7:25 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

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.

That's fine, as long as you realize 100% of kids with intellectual
disabilities deserve a more appropriate curriculum than Grade 12 chemistry.

Why would I agree to that? It's entirely possible for some students with
intellectual disabilities to excel at Grade 12 chemistry.

Can you point me to one?

Are you saying that it is impossible for a person with intellectual
disabilities to excel at grade 12 chemistry? Can prove this assertion?

--
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 4/13/05 7:33 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 4/12/05 7:25 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

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.

That's fine, as long as you realize 100% of kids with intellectual
disabilities deserve a more appropriate curriculum than Grade 12 chemistry.

Why would I agree to that? It's entirely possible for some students with
intellectual disabilities to excel at Grade 12 chemistry.

Can you point me to one?

Are you saying that it is impossible for a person with intellectual
disabilities to excel at grade 12 chemistry? Can prove this assertion?

Um.

An intellectual disability is commonly defined as an IQ or 70 or less with
sigificant difficulties in 2 or more adaptive skill areas. In terms of how
having an intellectual disability impacts on learning, it is almost
universal that people with intellectual disabilities have severe
difficulties with abstraction and sequencing, which partly explains why
literacy and numeracy skills seldom advance beyond the elementary level.

If you can find me just one example of a person with an intellectual
disability who excelled at Grade 12 chemistry, I could only guess that they
were misdiagnosed to beging with.