"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
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.

I'm talking about an millions of students...all those who deserve a more
appropriate curriculum than one that is designed for a different purpose and
need.

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.

Yea, you did.

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.

It's not one extreme example. I am talking about all the millions of kids
that deserve a curriculum designed for their needs, not one that is tailored
to the needs of others.

"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.

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

Why am I thinking of Stanley Milgram right now?

Could it be.... teaching people the importance of obeying authority....
naaahhh!

Funny thing is, my children are very well-mannered and well-behaved
(almost to a fault) but I've always asked them to question authority
(not necessarily verbally, but at least intellectually). In fact, I
*never* want them to "accept" authority without question!


frtzw906

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 4/6/05 4:36 PM:

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.

Mainstreaming of any student who cannot benefit from the "mainstream"
curriculum is inappropriate.

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.

The mainstreaming of students into a setting with an inappropriate
curriculum results in exclusion. High school is not forever. Forcing a
student with a disability into a class that is not meeting their learning
needs is humiliating for that student and does not "include" them with the
other students.

Giving a student a curriculum that meets their needs, supports achievement,
and results in a greater ability to participate in the community is the path
to the greatest possible level of inclusion.

in article , BCITORGB
at wrote on 4/6/05 7:10 PM:

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

Why am I thinking of Stanley Milgram right now?

Could it be.... teaching people the importance of obeying authority....
naaahhh!

Funny thing is, my children are very well-mannered and well-behaved
(almost to a fault) but I've always asked them to question authority
(not necessarily verbally, but at least intellectually). In fact, I
*never* want them to "accept" authority without question!


frtzw906

The real danger is in teaching compliance rather than respect.

"I sit quietly so you won't hit me" is not respect. That is fear, resulting
in compliance. There is no internal motivation to change the behaviour, it
is through external threat only that the change is achieved.

This type of behavioural management teaches people to be victims and
victimizers.

Someone who is having trouble focusing in class who gets a smash on the back
of the hand is being forced to comply. There is no learning or respect or
understanding. Just compliance. And that is what that child is learning -
comply, or else. And this is training for being a victim. The next person of
authority who seeks their compliance may have the intention to sexually
assault them. And the child has been taught that refusal to comply results
in a beating, and that they are powerless. So the comply.

They also learn to seek compliance from others, using the same technique as
the authority figure that taught them how to do it. It could be younger kids
in the schoolyard or siblings at home. And eventually a wife and kids.

KMAN observes:
=================
Someone who is having trouble focusing in class who gets a smash on the
back
of the hand is being forced to comply. There is no learning or respect
or
understanding. Just compliance.
================

And there's plenty of research on the use of force, to ensure
compliance, which indicates that, give half a chance, the "victim" will
turn around and return the favor.

The effect of force for purposes of compliance is generally
"short-term" compliance where "short-term" is defined as "so long as
the party using the force is percieved to be in a more powerful
position".

The moment the teenager, being forced into compliance by the father,
reckons he's tougher than his old man, the old man had better watch his
step, 'cause he's gonna get a really good hiding to make up for all the
ones he dished out.

frtzw906

KMAN 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!!!!

========================
And here's what's interesting as well. Consider if, in the context of
this discussion of persons with disabilities, I had responded to Scott's
suggestions that, "Tough luck on the parents of the disabled child! They
made the decision to have that child. Why is that *my* problem?! Why
should the classrooms in which my children are required to learn, be
burdened with pupils who are a hindrance and slow up the whole learning
process?"

I don't feel that way. I wouldn't say it.

BUT.... Where does Scott get off showing such empathy for persons with
disabilities when, just a few days ago, in the discussion of universal
health care and the plight of the poor, he took a different tack. I
recall phrases like "Why is it my problem that the poor decided to have
children they couldn't support?!"

WOW! The turmoil in Scott's head over these issues must be intense. Such
logical inconsistency must border on the painful.

frtzw906





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!

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

in article Vog5e.919297$Xk.332506@pd7tw3no, frtzw906 at
wrote on 4/7/05 4:06 PM:

KMAN 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!!!!

========================
And here's what's interesting as well. Consider if, in the context of
this discussion of persons with disabilities, I had responded to Scott's
suggestions that, "Tough luck on the parents of the disabled child! They
made the decision to have that child. Why is that *my* problem?! Why
should the classrooms in which my children are required to learn, be
burdened with pupils who are a hindrance and slow up the whole learning
process?"

I don't feel that way. I wouldn't say it.

BUT.... Where does Scott get off showing such empathy for persons with
disabilities when, just a few days ago, in the discussion of universal
health care and the plight of the poor, he took a different tack. I
recall phrases like "Why is it my problem that the poor decided to have
children they couldn't support?!"

WOW! The turmoil in Scott's head over these issues must be intense. Such
logical inconsistency must border on the painful.

frtzw906

His attitudes as displayed during the health care debate certainly seemed
focused on a simple "survival of the fittest" type of attitude. This does
not, it seems to me, fit with his attitude about education, which seems
instead to be a heavily exaggerated type of social engineering.

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


"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.

You wrongly presume that neither party is willing, and you incorrectly
presume that one has to "make the choice" to be a mentor. No such
restriction is found in the definition of the word.


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.

Balderdash. The whole point is to TEACH the mentor how to mentor while also
teaching the disabled student how to be mentored. Mentoring has nothing to
do with "making their decisions for them," it is simply defined as "tutoring
or coaching." It's extremely common for more advanced students to be called
upon to mentor less advanced students, or students who are having difficulty
with a particular aspect of the curriculum, regardless of the ability of the
mentored student. You suggest that any hint or implication to a disabled
student who is struggling that they are disabled and struggling by way of
giving them a mentor is demeaning. It's not. It's a perfectly ordinary form
of didacticism.


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.

That's why I want it to be mandatory. Young people need to be taught that
freedom is not free, and that to enjoy the benefits of civilized society,
one must participate in maintaining that society.


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.

We've already agreed that it would be wrong to do so, so you are evading the
issue.


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.

Why?

You are not picking up a piece of
poo from the schoolyard. It's a human being.

Which makes requiring his/her peers to assist him/her when necessary all the
more desirable and necessary. We force children to pick up poo, or trash, or
any number of other things, including toys. So what?

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.

Wrong. NOT teaching children to help others in need (as you suggest is
proper policy) is destroying the very fabric of our society. "Forcing" a
student to assist another student (disabled or otherwise) is not wrong, it's
a necessary part of teaching children to be responsible adults. You imply
that "forcing" a two-year-old to eat his peas causes the child to "project
his anger" onto an innocent party. Maybe so, but the point is that neither
the two-year-old nor the disabled child nor the older child assigned to
mentor him are in charge of things, and they can, and should be required to
do many things that they don't like doing, because it teaches them, among
other things, discipline, self-control, self-reliance, obedience, altruism,
humility, compassion and concern for others. Such things are a necessary
part of every child's education. It is the lack of such education that has
resulted in a generation of selfish, self-centered, undisciplined, uncaring,
dependent, disobedient, arrogant, uncompassionate children who are a scourge
on our society.

As for the disabled person, particularly a disabled child, it's hardly
uncommon for ego to get in the way of reality, and it's sometimes necessary
to teach disabled children things they don't want to learn, just as it's
necessary to "force" all children to learn things they don't think they need
to know because they are, well, ignorant children. When talking about
educating children, almost everything adults do is "forcing" the child to do
something they don't want to do because they'd rather be vegetating in front
of the TV watching Spongebob Squarepants.

Tough. Children, including disabled children, aren't in charge and their
wants, likes and dislikes are of but little import when it comes to their
educations. They need to do as they are told, whether they like it or not.


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.

Wrong. Forcing a child to feed his gerbil, even when he doesn't want to, has
absolutely everything to do with teaching compassion, and the oftentimes
direct result of not having compassion, which is that creatures die when
compassion is missing.

It might possibly help someone to develop a
sense of duty, which of course can mean a lot of things.

Nothing wrong with that. We need a LOT more instilling of a sense of duty in
our children.

--
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:


"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!

Of course. I'm not an anarchist. "That to secure these liberties,
governments are instituted among men" is not a call to socialism, but it is
a recognition that people must be governed. And for government to function,
the people have to pay for it. Thus, levying taxes is perfectly correct. The
question is WHO authorizes the extraction of taxes to support government
programs, and HOW they go about doing so.



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!

Then they get ignorant, uncontrollable children. Petard hoist.


--
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