A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 4/5/05 5:32 PM:

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.

Cough. Sputter. Cough

Did SCOTT WEISER just say that?

He's becoming...gasp...a SOCIALIST right before our eyes!!!!

Social priorities is not socialism.


Put Scott in charge of the school system, and each person with an
intellectual disability will be mainstreamed with their own personal
teacher! If the school needs 483 teachers for 600 students, so be it! It's a
social priority!

Well, only if they can afford it and are willing to pay for it. I also
recognize that it is the taxpayers who are in charge of things, and if The
People don't set education as a social priority, they have every right to
end up with ignorant children. That's democracy for you!


Now howsabout ensuring access to health care for every child in
America...BEFORE your "a teacher for everyone" program kicks in?

I'm not opposed to providing public health care for poor children. However,
if you can pay for it, or can afford private insurance to cover it, you
should pay for it. Only if you can demonstrably and verifiably not pay for
it should your children get public medical assistance.

--
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:
================
Poppycock. There are no power issues here, there is simple human
compassion
and friendship. Your argument presupposes a selfish motive in the
teaching
of compassion.
================

EVERY relationship has a power component. It may cut both ways, but it
still is power.

Oh, BTW, Scott, I think that on most of these issues regarding persons
with disabilities, we (you, KMAN, and I) agree. You know what? That's
OK. You don't have to try to squeeze an argument out of a discuission
when there's none to be had. It can evolve into just that, a
discussion, if you let it.

frtzw906

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

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.

So? These are children, and they don't have the right to refuse to
participate in educational programs, even when those programs require
their
active participation in teaching other students, or helping other students
who need help. It helps create a sense of community and responsibility for
others, which is something that is sorely lacking in today's selfish
society.

It's not mentoring when neither party is willing or makes the choice.

The non-disabled student is not trained in supporting the individual with a
disability in an appropriate helper role and will serve the purpose of
teaching the individual with a disability that they are not competent and
need to be assigned a non-disabled person to make their decisions for them.

I also advocate mandatory national service upon graduation from high
school,
either in the Civilian Conservation Corps (or other like public works
entity) or military service.

That's a very different idea altogether. For example, having a voluntary
service requirement means finding an agency with a volunteer program,
receiving appropriate training and supervision, and supporting someone who
has made a choice to receive that support.

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.

Hogwash. Disabled people know they are disabled and are well aware of the
limitations they face and when they require assistance. Nobody is
suggesting
forcing assistance on anyone who is able to do something for themselves.
You
suggest that a student whose wheelchair is stuck in a hole ought to be
left
there without assistance, even if the occupant is incapable of
communicating
a desire for assistance.

There is a huge difference between having an attendant to assist with such
situations at one's request. This is not what I am talking about. I am
talking about those students who are forcibly "mainstreamed" into an
inappropriate curriculum.

Certainly if a disabled person wishes to do
something themselves, their wishes should be respected, and they should
always be encouraged to attempt self-sufficiency, but when help is
required,
there's nothing wrong with engaging other students in helping them.

Frocing them to do so is inappropriate. You are not picking up a piece of
poo from the schoolyard. It's a human being. If someone doesn't want to help
another human being, forcing them to do so is humliating for the person with
a disability and only teaches the person being forced to project their anger
onto an innocent party.

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.

Poppycock. There are no power issues here, there is simple human
compassion
and friendship. Your argument presupposes a selfish motive in the teaching
of compassion.

Forcing someone to perform a task against their will has nothing to do with
the teaching of compassion. It might possibly help someone to develop a
sense of duty, which of course can mean a lot of things.

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

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.

LOL!

How brilliant!

Take kids who have trouble at home and beat them at school!

I didn't say "beat them." But as to discipline, somebody's got to do it, or
the kids grow up to be criminals. Even young children can distinguish
between unprovoked physical abuse and just punishment for wrongdoing.


That'll learn
'em to concentrate!

Most of the time, yes.

And also that violence is acceptable,

Violence is acceptable, in proper context. The unlawful violence against me
in junior high school stopped when I stood up to a bully, took my lumps, and
beat the crap out of him in self-defense after he wantonly attacked me
without warning or provocation. After that fight, I never had another
problem with any of my peers trying to bully me. But, it also taught me that
it's a really good idea to do everything possible to avoid a fight, because
even winning a fight *hurts.* I haven't been in a *single* fistfight since
then, including during my tenure as a police officer, where I was always
able to verbally convince people that fighting with me would be a very bad
idea because one way or another, the law was going to win. More than 40
years of successful non-violence directly resulted from one single incidence
of the lawful and appropriate use of physical force in self-defense. That's
a lesson that *all* children ought to learn.

When I worked as an EMT in a hospital ER, the people we saw most often from
bar fights were the *winners.* They usually broke bones in the hand as a
result of the punch that ended the fight, and ended up in a cast.

Consider appropriate corporal punishment, both at home and in schools, as
prophylactic self-defense by society against the inevitable violence
perpetrated by undisciplined children who grow up into undisciplined adults.

after all, school
is a good and fine social institution, and they use violence, so it's OK for
me too!

Context is everything. Moreover, violence is an inherent part of human
nature. Learning to control one's behavior because the painful consequences
of not doing so is an important lesson to learn, because no matter who you
are, there's always somebody bigger, badder and more violent out there who
can hurt you if you **** them off. Children who don't understand that they
must learn to control their behavior or they may suffer *even worse*
violence are in grave danger.

Smacking a child's hand or giving them a swat on the bottom to enforce
obedience is not, contrary to liberal permissive dogma, going to turn them
into psychopathic killers. Not doing so, however, stands a very good chance
of turning them into uncontrollable, wild, selfish and violent adults who
don't recognize any limitations on their behavior. That fact is perfectly
clear. One needs only look at the decline of civility and the burgeoning
juvenile crime rates to see this.


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.

I agree with you on this point. Drugs are being unbelievably overprescribed.
By SMACKING the kids is not the answer. Obviously.

Why is it obvious to you? How do you deny thousands of years of corporal
discipline that resulted in generation after generation of rational,
peaceful and well-behaved adults?


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.

Ridiculous. That's the recipe for a volcano that will erupt (internally,
externally, or both). It just teaches the kid that when you have a problem,
you lash out at it.

Balderdash. The most violent teens on the planet are those who have *never*
been disciplined. Teaching self-control is a necessary part of any child's
upbringing, and teaching a child that authority has teeth, and that defiance
may have painful consequences is absolutely necessary if the child is to
grow up into a responsible adult.

Heck, even the teacher hits me, what's wrong with me
hitting a kid that I don't like?

The answer is quite simple: You are not a teacher, and you do not have any
authority to administer corporal punishment. Even small children are capable
of distinguishing between punishment administered for wrongful behavior and
wanton assault.


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.

There are a proportion of kids diagnosed ADHD who experience a life-changing
experience with medication.

I'd say *all* of them do. The question is whether or not the changes are
positive or negative. The vast, vast majority of the time, the changes are
demonstrably negative and extremely harmful to the child's future.

The dosage needs to be monitored closely with
the intent of reducing it as soon as possible, and the goal of eliminating
it.

In 90% of the cases, the dosage should be zero.

The medication should be combined with strategies for the teacher,
parents, and child. The strategies should be tried first before medication
is even a consideration.

Yup. And corporal punishment is one of the prime strategies that should be
applied LONG before medication is even considered.


That said, I agree with much of what you say (regarding misdiagnosis and
slapping of labels on kids so they can be dealt with through medications)
but I think your focus on the need for the child to have a smack is way off.
They need people around them who can set boundaries and help establish
routines and structure that are appropriate.

And how, exactly, do you set "boundaries" with an out-of-control child who
refuses to acknowledge parental (or teacher) authority, no matter what
punishments short of corporal punishment are applied?

And then there's the issue of how you teach a child to stay away from
danger.

Telling a two year old that something is "hot" is only marginally useful
until they understand what "hot" means. In my home, we have a wood stove
insert to heat the house. There are no barriers, no guard rails, nothing to
keep a child from touching the hot stove. And yet not one of the children
has ever suffered a serious burn, because they learn very quickly not to
touch (or even get near) the stove when it's lit. Has there been the
occasional burned finger? Yes. But not more than once per child. Is allowing
a child to burn his finger so he understands the concept of "hot" violent?
To many parents, probably so, but to us, children have to learn to live in
the real world, which is filled with real perils, which requires that they
be absolutely and reliably obedient to parental commands. Unless we are
willing to let them experiment with dangers that can severely injure or kill
them, we have to find ways to teach them the painful consequences of
carelessness or disobedience by using techniques that demonstrate the
physical pain involved in doing such things while protecting them from any
real harm. Wrapping children in bunting so as to keep them from any pain is
a disservice to them. Corporal punishment is the way that rational adults
teach the very real consequences of misbehavior in ways that are
uncomfortable and unpleasant, but harmless.

Thus, when teaching the two year old not to run out in the street, a
bare-butt spanking that makes the consequences of disobedience much more
real, immediate and painful than the abstract concept of "you might get hit
by a car" is perfectly justifiable, reasonable, rational and effective.

Likewise, smacking the back of the hand of a disruptive student who has
refused polite requests to settle down to work is perfectly reasonable
because it is harmless, but it makes the consequences of disobedience more
unpleasant than those of obedience.

When I was about 4, my dad caught me putting paperclips in the wall sockets.
I didn't respond to lectures on the subject, so he bought a crank-type
telephone generator and gave me a couple of very unpleasant but harmless
shocks. Then he told me what was in the telephone box was "little
electricity," and that what was in the wall socket was "big electricity." I
got the message instantly, and never ventured near the wall sockets with a
paperclip again. It was a valuable and well-crafted lesson that made it
absolutely certain I wouldn't be in danger of death.

But, if a parent today did the same thing, he would undoubtedly be arrested
for "child abuse" merely because he subjected his child to some minor pain
out of concern for his life. So, instead of children who understand the
dangers of AC line voltage and current, we have plastic plugs which any
three year old can remove and a generation of kids at risk for
electrocution.

Sorry, but life is full of danger and pain, and there's nothing wrong with
instilling discipline and obedience through reasonable and appropriate
corporal punishment in order to prevent greater, potentially fatal harm at a
later time. Never has been, never will be, so long as it's done with the
proper motives and in the proper proportion.

And please don't bother trying to forward the specious argument that any
corporal punishment is, or inevitably leads to, genuine physical abuse,
because it's not true. For example, I don't run around the house with a
cattle-prod zapping the two year old every time he disobeys just because my
father used an electrical shock to reinforce a vital safety lesson.
--
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 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

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

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 5:32 PM:

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.

Cough. Sputter. Cough

Did SCOTT WEISER just say that?

He's becoming...gasp...a SOCIALIST right before our eyes!!!!

Social priorities is not socialism.

No! But you want to force taxpayers to support social needs!


Put Scott in charge of the school system, and each person with an
intellectual disability will be mainstreamed with their own personal
teacher! If the school needs 483 teachers for 600 students, so be it!
It's a
social priority!

Well, only if they can afford it and are willing to pay for it.

Good luck with that!

I also
recognize that it is the taxpayers who are in charge of things, and if The
People don't set education as a social priority, they have every right to
end up with ignorant children. That's democracy for you!

Great!


Now howsabout ensuring access to health care for every child in
America...BEFORE your "a teacher for everyone" program kicks in?

I'm not opposed to providing public health care for poor children.
However,
if you can pay for it, or can afford private insurance to cover it, you
should pay for it. Only if you can demonstrably and verifiably not pay for
it should your children get public medical assistance.

Good luck with that!

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

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.

LOL!

How brilliant!

Take kids who have trouble at home and beat them at school!

I didn't say "beat them." But as to discipline, somebody's got to do it,
or
the kids grow up to be criminals. Even young children can distinguish
between unprovoked physical abuse and just punishment for wrongdoing.

Corporal punishment is usually administered in aid of the person
administering it. The myth of the detached robotic corporal punisher dishing
out emotionally detached consequences is just that...a myth.

That'll learn
'em to concentrate!

Most of the time, yes.

Yup, concentrate on revenge. And who they are going to beat in the
schoolyard just like the teacher beat them.

And also that violence is acceptable,

Violence is acceptable, in proper context.

A classroom is not the proper context.

The unlawful violence against me
in junior high school stopped when I stood up to a bully, took my lumps,
and
beat the crap out of him in self-defense after he wantonly attacked me
without warning or provocation. After that fight, I never had another
problem with any of my peers trying to bully me. But, it also taught me
that
it's a really good idea to do everything possible to avoid a fight,
because
even winning a fight *hurts.* I haven't been in a *single* fistfight since
then, including during my tenure as a police officer, where I was always
able to verbally convince people that fighting with me would be a very bad
idea because one way or another, the law was going to win. More than 40
years of successful non-violence directly resulted from one single
incidence
of the lawful and appropriate use of physical force in self-defense.
That's
a lesson that *all* children ought to learn.

When I worked as an EMT in a hospital ER, the people we saw most often
from
bar fights were the *winners.* They usually broke bones in the hand as a
result of the punch that ended the fight, and ended up in a cast.

Consider appropriate corporal punishment, both at home and in schools, as
prophylactic self-defense by society against the inevitable violence
perpetrated by undisciplined children who grow up into undisciplined
adults.

It doesn't work that way. Kids who already have problems end up getting
beaten by their teachers, thus teaching them that violence and aggression is
how the world works, and the message definitely gets passed on.

after all, school
is a good and fine social institution, and they use violence, so it's OK
for
me too!

Context is everything. Moreover, violence is an inherent part of human
nature. Learning to control one's behavior because the painful
consequences
of not doing so is an important lesson to learn, because no matter who you
are, there's always somebody bigger, badder and more violent out there who
can hurt you if you **** them off. Children who don't understand that they
must learn to control their behavior or they may suffer *even worse*
violence are in grave danger.

Teach them not to be violent by hitting them. Interesting. Have you ever
heard about cycles of abuse?

Smacking a child's hand or giving them a swat on the bottom to enforce
obedience is not, contrary to liberal permissive dogma, going to turn them
into psychopathic killers.

Nope. But it will teach them that physical force is an appropriate way to
deal with problems. It will also make them very angry.

Not doing so, however, stands a very good chance
of turning them into uncontrollable, wild, selfish and violent adults who
don't recognize any limitations on their behavior. That fact is perfectly
clear. One needs only look at the decline of civility and the burgeoning
juvenile crime rates to see this.

It is a rather juvenile leap to attribute these problems to a failure of
teachers to beat their students.

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.

I agree with you on this point. Drugs are being unbelievably
overprescribed.
By SMACKING the kids is not the answer. Obviously.

Why is it obvious to you? How do you deny thousands of years of corporal
discipline that resulted in generation after generation of rational,
peaceful and well-behaved adults?

LOL. Which generation are we talking about? You mean the generations where
wife-beating was an accepted social practice?

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.

Ridiculous. That's the recipe for a volcano that will erupt (internally,
externally, or both). It just teaches the kid that when you have a
problem,
you lash out at it.

Balderdash. The most violent teens on the planet are those who have
*never*
been disciplined.

Not in my considerable experience. Do you have some research to indicate
that violent teens come from peaceful environments? You do realize that
there are disciplined families that have never raised a hand to a child,
right?

Teaching self-control is a necessary part of any child's
upbringing, and teaching a child that authority has teeth, and that
defiance
may have painful consequences is absolutely necessary if the child is to
grow up into a responsible adult.

Being beaten teaches children to beat others. Are you saying that there are
no responsible adults who were not beaten by their parents and teachers? How
silly.

Heck, even the teacher hits me, what's wrong with me
hitting a kid that I don't like?

The answer is quite simple: You are not a teacher, and you do not have any
authority to administer corporal punishment. Even small children are
capable
of distinguishing between punishment administered for wrongful behavior
and
wanton assault.

Actually, you hear those exact words all the time. The teacher does it, so
why shouldn't I?

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.

There are a proportion of kids diagnosed ADHD who experience a
life-changing
experience with medication.

I'd say *all* of them do. The question is whether or not the changes are
positive or negative. The vast, vast majority of the time, the changes are
demonstrably negative and extremely harmful to the child's future.

With proper medical care this never has to happen.

The dosage needs to be monitored closely with
the intent of reducing it as soon as possible, and the goal of
eliminating
it.

In 90% of the cases, the dosage should be zero.

Could be.

The medication should be combined with strategies for the teacher,
parents, and child. The strategies should be tried first before
medication
is even a consideration.

Yup. And corporal punishment is one of the prime strategies that should be
applied LONG before medication is even considered.

Only if you want a child with even more problems who will end up with even
more medication.


That said, I agree with much of what you say (regarding misdiagnosis and
slapping of labels on kids so they can be dealt with through medications)
but I think your focus on the need for the child to have a smack is way
off.
They need people around them who can set boundaries and help establish
routines and structure that are appropriate.

And how, exactly, do you set "boundaries" with an out-of-control child who
refuses to acknowledge parental (or teacher) authority, no matter what
punishments short of corporal punishment are applied?

I find out what is going on.

And then there's the issue of how you teach a child to stay away from
danger.

You can do this without smacking people.

Telling a two year old that something is "hot" is only marginally useful
until they understand what "hot" means. In my home, we have a wood stove
insert to heat the house. There are no barriers, no guard rails, nothing
to
keep a child from touching the hot stove. And yet not one of the children
has ever suffered a serious burn, because they learn very quickly not to
touch (or even get near) the stove when it's lit. Has there been the
occasional burned finger? Yes. But not more than once per child. Is
allowing
a child to burn his finger so he understands the concept of "hot" violent?
To many parents, probably so, but to us, children have to learn to live in
the real world, which is filled with real perils, which requires that they
be absolutely and reliably obedient to parental commands. Unless we are
willing to let them experiment with dangers that can severely injure or
kill
them, we have to find ways to teach them the painful consequences of
carelessness or disobedience by using techniques that demonstrate the
physical pain involved in doing such things while protecting them from any
real harm. Wrapping children in bunting so as to keep them from any pain
is
a disservice to them. Corporal punishment is the way that rational adults
teach the very real consequences of misbehavior in ways that are
uncomfortable and unpleasant, but harmless.

I never once burned myself on a stove but also was never smacked to learn no
to do so. I have worked with many vulnerable people with limited cognitive
abilities and have never smacked them to help them learn not to burn
themselves on a stove. And none of them ever has.

Thus, when teaching the two year old not to run out in the street, a
bare-butt spanking that makes the consequences of disobedience much more
real, immediate and painful than the abstract concept of "you might get
hit
by a car" is perfectly justifiable, reasonable, rational and effective.

Being beaten by your parent is not a logical consequence to running on the
street. It only teaches that your parent is unstable and lacks the parenting
skills to help you develop boundaries.

Likewise, smacking the back of the hand of a disruptive student who has
refused polite requests to settle down to work is perfectly reasonable
because it is harmless, but it makes the consequences of disobedience more
unpleasant than those of obedience.

It's not harmless at all. I meets the needs of the teacher. It is a strategy
for the weak of mind, and demonstrates a lack of discipline by the person in
authority.

When I was about 4, my dad caught me putting paperclips in the wall
sockets.
I didn't respond to lectures on the subject, so he bought a crank-type
telephone generator and gave me a couple of very unpleasant but harmless
shocks. Then he told me what was in the telephone box was "little
electricity," and that what was in the wall socket was "big electricity."
I
got the message instantly, and never ventured near the wall sockets with a
paperclip again. It was a valuable and well-crafted lesson that made it
absolutely certain I wouldn't be in danger of death.

But, if a parent today did the same thing, he would undoubtedly be
arrested
for "child abuse" merely because he subjected his child to some minor pain
out of concern for his life. So, instead of children who understand the
dangers of AC line voltage and current, we have plastic plugs which any
three year old can remove and a generation of kids at risk for
electrocution.

Oddly enough, I've also never electrocuted myself. But what you are
describing above is quite different from administering a rap on the hand to
bring about classroom compliance.

Sorry, but life is full of danger and pain, and there's nothing wrong with
instilling discipline and obedience through reasonable and appropriate
corporal punishment in order to prevent greater, potentially fatal harm at
a
later time. Never has been, never will be, so long as it's done with the
proper motives and in the proper proportion.

Those are mythical motives and mythical proportions.

And please don't bother trying to forward the specious argument that any
corporal punishment is, or inevitably leads to, genuine physical abuse,
because it's not true. For example, I don't run around the house with a
cattle-prod zapping the two year old every time he disobeys just because
my
father used an electrical shock to reinforce a vital safety lesson.

I'm sure your father and you are special exeptions. It's not like you walk
around with a gun waiting for the day you can shoot someone.

"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.