A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


"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.

Well, yes, that's rather the point. The person administering it is
authorized to do so in order to obtain obedience and proper conduct.

The myth of the detached robotic corporal punisher dishing
out emotionally detached consequences is just that...a myth.

Hardly. Billions of people for thousands of years have benefited from the
focusing effects of corporal punishment.


That'll learn
'em to concentrate!

Most of the time, yes.

Yup, concentrate on revenge.

Corporal punishment is not "revenge." It's punishment for wrongdoing
intended to instill discipline and understanding that misbehavior has
negative consequences, provided by persons in authority who have license to
maintain and teach discipline.

And who they are going to beat in the
schoolyard just like the teacher beat them.

Nobody, if the discipline policy is properly and rigorously enforced. The
reason we HAVE rampant schoolyard violence is BECAUSE there are no
substantial (and painful) consequences for inflicting unlawful and wanton
physical violence on classmates.


And also that violence is acceptable,

Violence is acceptable, in proper context.

A classroom is not the proper context.

Sure it is. More than just the physical discomfort, the psychological
effects of the acute embarrassment of being spanked before a roomful of your
peers is most effective at preventing repeat misbehavior. It also acts as an
object lesson to the other students in the class that such misbehavior will
not be tolerated.


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.

It absolutely works that way.

Kids who already have problems end up getting
beaten by their teachers,

Corporal punishment is not "beating" a student. It's physically harmless,
mildly uncomfortable, and highly embarrassing, nothing more.

thus teaching them that violence and aggression is
how the world works, and the message definitely gets passed on.

You sure don't give human children any credit for intelligence. Even a dog
can easily learn that getting swatted with a rolled-up newspaper for chewing
on slippers means "don't chew on the slippers," not "go out and bite
everything that moves."

Corporal punishment is not "violence and aggression," it's duly-deserved and
duly-administered punishment for misdeeds, and kids are quite adept at
discerning the difference between abuse and justified punishment.


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.

You need to learn to distinguish between justifiable violence and
unjustifiable violence. Most people comprehend the distinction.

Have you ever
heard about cycles of abuse?

Yup. But corporal punishment, properly applied in response to documented
misbehavior is not "abuse."


And the reason there are "cycles of abuse" is because those who abuse have
never learned that they are not allowed to use unjustified physical force
against others, and that there are penalties, often harsh ones, for doing
so.

The way to break the cycle of abuse is to teach the children that an
unjustified use of force against another will result in severe punishment.
Children are well equipped to understand by analogy, and the analogy of
corporal punishment is "you suffer uncomfortable and humiliating
consequences for wrongful behavior as a child, and the discomfort and
humiliation only gets more severe as you grow up and continue to misbehave."

Not teaching them this lesson, beginning VERY early, is a disservice to the
child and to society.


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.

Physical force is an appropriate way to deal with problems, depending of
course on the nature of the problem. Using justifiable physical force in
self-defense is a perfectly appropriate way to deal with an unlawful
assault, and children need to learn this, as well as learn the distinction
between self-defense and unlawful assault.

It will also make them very angry.

Tough. They'll get over it. Learning to control anger is yet another vital
lesson children must be taught. A disservice is done to children whenever
adults pander to them in order to curry favor and avoid making their
children angry or upset. Children must be TAUGHT to control their anger and
they must be TAUGHT how to analyze and redirect anger in proper, acceptable
ways. They will never learn this lesson if they are a) never angry, and/or
b) never disciplined for inappropriate displays of anger and resentment.



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.

Corporal punishment is not "beating." And I blame the parents far more than
I do educators, but educators are still responsible for failing in their
duty to properly teach and discipline 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?

Strawman argument. There is absolutely no credible correlation between
persons undergoing appropriate and justified corporal punishment as children
and their becoming "wife-beaters." Besides, you make a sexist strawman
argument as well.


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?

Who said anything about "peaceful environments?" Most undisciplined homes
are anything but "peaceful." They are usually utter chaos and violence at
all times. That's what happens when you let the kids run the house.

You do realize that
there are disciplined families that have never raised a hand to a child,
right?

Sure. But because that occurs, it does not follow that corporal punishment
creates abusers. You must also recognize that there are families that "never
raised a hand to a child" who ended up with violent, out-of-control
children. Watch any episode of "Nanny 911" or "Supernanny" for weekly
examples of undisciplined permissiveness resulting in uncontrollable,
violent children.


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.

Once again, corporal punishment is not "beating."



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?

Here's the answer: "You may not do so because you are not the teacher, you
are the student. You don't get to do many things a teacher does, and one of
those things is that you don't get to administer punishment for misdeeds,
whether the punishment is corporal or otherwise. That is not within the
sphere of your authority. If you presume to usurp the authority granted to
teachers, then YOU will be punished appropriately for overstepping the
bounds. When and if you grow up to be an adult with authority over others,
including perhaps children, then you may be authorized to administer
punishments. Until then, you may not do so."

The fact that an ignorant child may attempt to rationalize his bad behavior
and excuse the unauthorized use of force on another does not mean that
society is required to accept that rationalization. Instead, children should
be taught that punishment is administered by duly-appointed authorities
ONLY, and than any use of force against another, for any reason other than
in legitimate, justifiable self-defense, will be harshly punished.


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.

Yes, yes, it's possible to narcotize all children into a compliant stupor,
but that doesn't teach them anything, and once they get off the drugs, they
STILL won't have the ability to concentrate, and will be too old to learn
how, presuming that they don't end up on "Adult ADHD" medication for the
rest of their lives.


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.

Nah. Wayne just told me about an interview he did with the Commandant of a
prep-school military academy here in Colorado. When asked about ADHD
students, the Commandant said, "We don't have any. If they have a problem
when they get here, we cure them in about a week."



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.

How does that help the child to learn what boundaries are?


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

You can do this without smacking people.

Most of the time, yes. Sometimes, a smack is the proper technique.


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.

Neither did these kids. The point, which you evidently missed, is that
children are perfectly capable of correlating cause and effect, including
when corporal punishment is administered in response to disobedience.

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.

You miss the metaphor.


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.

Once again, corporal punishment is not "beating."

It only teaches that your parent is unstable and lacks the parenting
skills to help you develop boundaries.

Only to brainless liberal simps who deliberately ignore several thousands of
years of human history in child-rearing.


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.

Sure it is. In fact, it's helpful.

It meets the needs of the teacher.

Indeed. And the need of the teacher is "teach discipline, respect and
obedience."

It is a strategy
for the weak of mind,

No, that's the strategy of liberal permissive apologists.

and demonstrates a lack of discipline by the person in
authority.

Nah. Not disciplining children demonstrates a lack of discipline on the part
of authorities.


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.

Not really. The lesson is the same: "Does it hurt when you do that? Then
don't do that."


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.

Affirmed and supported by tens of thousands of years of human behavior and
efficaciously applied to billions upon billions of children over the
millennia. That's my kind of "myth."


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.

Nah, just ordinary people.

It's not like you walk
around with a gun waiting for the day you can shoot someone.

Quite right, I don't.
--
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:

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

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

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.

No, you're trying to use a single example as a model for millions of others.
You have absolutely no idea what an "appropriate curriculum" is for *any*
disabled student, not even your example. How could you? You don't know any
of them and you don't know WHAT they need.

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.

Problem with your theory is that in many cases, the curriculum tailored for
the "needs of others" is perfectly appropriate for the disabled. That they
may need *other* programs targeted at specific, individual needs of a
specific disable student is irrelevant to the greater need that *all*
children have for a basic education and socialization.

--
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 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!

Lucky you. Not everybody is so lucky. However, I'd wager that even you have
given your children a swat from time to time, not to mention the odd verbal
dressing-down or other punishment.

You see, young children aren't particularly logical creatures. They tend to
react on a very visceral basis to their needs, wants and desires, and become
upset when they do not receive instant gratification. Sometimes they become
very upset, to the point of hysteria. Other times, they become deliberately
disobedient IN ORDER to test your limits as a parent and to determine just
what they can get away with without suffering unpleasant consequences.

And they tend to do this starting at an age where "reasoning" with them can
be only marginally to entirely ineffective.

If you fail to teach them when they are young that obedience is not a matter
of personal choice or preference, they will be a detriment to society when
they grow up.

--
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 4/6/05 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.

That can be a problem. Still, if the choice is compliance or respect, I'll
take compliance.


"I sit quietly so you won't hit me" is not respect.

If that is the only thought process, you're correct, but most often, the
thought process is rather more complex.

That is fear, resulting
in compliance.

Well, depending on the need for compliance, compliance can come first, and
respect later. I don't need a two-year-old to respect me when I tell him not
to run out into the street, I need his instant, unquestioning obedience. If
fear of punishment causes that compliance, fine. At some later time, when
he's intellectually capable of understanding why I required unquestioning
obedience, I'll be happy to explain to him why, and hopefully he will be
able to see that he owes me respect because it was his safety that I was
concerned with. This is, in fact, the way it usually happens.

There is no internal motivation to change the behaviour, it
is through external threat only that the change is achieved.

Don't be silly. The internal motivation is: "Scott was extremely displeased
at my behavior and he punished me for it. Why would he do that? Hm, maybe
what I did was wrong or dangerous. Perhaps I should amend that behavior in
order to gain both approval from Scott and avoid further painful and
embarrassing punishment, not to mention avoiding the possibility of physical
harm."

The external threat stimulates the internal motivation. Children are pretty
good at picking up on adult approval and disapproval. That's how they learn
to survive, and always have.

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

That's the most asinine thing I've ever heard you say, and it's completely
without foundation or reason.


Someone who is having trouble focusing in class who gets a smash on the back
of the hand is being forced to comply.

Yup. They are also being taught that concentration is desirable and less
painful. Pure operant conditioning.

There is no learning or respect or
understanding.

Wrong. Even a rat can learn behaviors in response to operant conditioning,
so clearly there's learning going on. "If I do that, it hurts. I guess I
won't do that."

The understanding and respect comes later.

Just compliance.

Compliance first, understanding and respect later. It's a multi-step
process.

And that is what that child is learning -
comply, or else.

Yup. A lesson every child must learn. Then they learn *why* they must
comply, and they learn why it is that they were punished, and who, and when
they are subject to justifiable punishment. As a result, they learn proper
behavior, respect and how to successfully integrate into society. This is
not random brutalization we're talking about here, it's specific corporal
punishment administered for specific wrongdoing. Even small children
understand the cause and effect in getting a smack on the bottom for
disobeying a parent's safety instructions.

And this is training for being a victim.

Hogwash, poppycock AND balderdash!

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.

Nonsense.


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.

Specious nonsense.

--
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:

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".

Interestingly, there is ALWAYS someone in a "more powerful" position in
every person's life. If no one else, the government itself, which is
perfectly capable and willing of exercising any degree of force necessary to
obtain compliance, up to and including deadly force.

Learning how to audit your behavior in response to those in authority over
you is necessary if one is to be successful in life. That's why mandatory
universal military service is a very good idea.


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.

Funny how that rarely happens in families where corporal punishment is
properly administered. Could it be that as the child grows, he comes to
understand why his parent might have given him a licking? Could it be that
the man he becomes understands that his father was looking out for his best
interests when he was a child, and that by being firm, fair and consistent
in his administration of discipline, his father was setting and enforcing
boundaries on proper conduct that every child needs in order to grow up
properly?

I got only a couple of "really good hidings" from my father, and I richly
deserved each one, and I not only don't hold any animus towards him, I
reverently thank him for caring enough about me to discipline me when I was
being a total ****. That's a recognition I came to as a young adult, when I
finally realized that I wasn't supposed to be in charge because I didn't
know how to be in charge.

You resolutely refuse to distinguish between appropriate discipline and
random abuse. There is a huge difference.

--
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 frtzw906 wrote:

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.

Go ahead and say it, it'll expand your mind.


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.

Nah. You just don't understand my technique. Not surprising, only the
illuminati do.


--
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 6:36 PM:

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

You didn't speak of any process whereby the parties in question have a say
in this "mentoring."

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.

I think most people's understanding of a mentorship relationship is that the
two people have chosen to be in the relationship.

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.

Ah, basically teaching the non-disabled student to boss people with
disabilities, and teaching people with disabilities to be bossed.

Absolutely the worst possible suggestion, unless your goal is to make people
with disabilities even more vulnerable than they are.

Mentoring has nothing to
do with "making their decisions for them," it is simply defined as "tutoring
or coaching."

Actually, even using standard dictionary definitions, the key to a mentoring
relationship is trust. While trust might possibly emerge from an imposed
relationship, it seems to me it is much more likely to come from a
relationship where the two people actually choose to be together.

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.

The reason you are wanting to force this mentoring relationship - and the
reason the person is struggling - is they are being subjected to someone
else's curriculum. This is not the same as a student getting a 65 in Grade
12 chemistry getting some peer help (not what I would call mentoring) from a
95 student so they can bring their grade up to 70.

That has nothing to do with a student who has numeracy at a Grade 1 level
and reads at a Grade 2 level suffering through Grade 12 biology.

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.

Great. But a child with a disability is not a guinea pig, and teachers in
schools rarely have appropriate training, let alone some student that the
teacher (supposedly and laughedly) has time to "train" to be a mentor.

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.

I could only evade the issue - as you see it - if I knew what the issue is
and how you see it. Which I don't.


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?

It is the wrong message to send. It is telling the person with a disability
that they need a non-disabled person "assigned" to them in order to get by.
I know many adults with disabilities who have suffered tremendously from
hearing and believing that message. They end up as dependent, self-doubting,
self-hating adults. And the non-disabled person learns and helps to
reinforce exactly that same view. "Teacher says I have to help Billy because
he's a retard." Great!

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?

You see no probleim in treating poo and people with disabilities the same
way?

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.

You don't "teach" anything by forcing. You are aware that there are children
who like to help others, and not because they were forced to do so, right?

"Forcing" a
student to assist another student (disabled or otherwise) is not wrong

It is horribly wrong.

it's
a necessary part of teaching children to be responsible adults.

It is teaching the person with a disability to doubt their own value and
surrender power to non-disabled persons, and it is teaching the non-disabled
person to assume that role. There is no mutual respect to be developed from
"Teacher says I have to help you."

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

They should be. People with disabilities in particular need to lear
non-compliance and how to have a voice and what it feels like to have that
voice respected. There is a reason why they are so extremely vulnerable to
sexual abuse and other assaults. Because they are taught - through
hairbrained schemes like forced mentorships and mainstreaming - that they
are powerless and their place on earth is to do what non-disabled people
tell them to do.

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.

Perhaps it is living in a selfish, self-centred, undisciplined, uncaring,
depdent, disobedient, arrogant, uncompassionate society that was prodeuced
selfish, self-centred, undisciplined, uncaring, depdent, disobedient,
arrogant, uncompassionate children that you speak of.

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.

LOL. Heil Weiser!

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.

Compassion is a combination of understanding of suffering and the wish to
relieve that suffering. This is not taught by saying "help that person
because I say so." That simply teachers the child that you have power of
them, and while you might think that has value, it certainly has nothing to
do with compassion.

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.

Perhaps so. But it has nothing to do with compassion. You can teach someone
to dutifully murder other people. This is accomplished by exerting power
over them and having them in turn exert power over someone else. Sort of
like your mentorship program.

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 4/12/05 6:39 PM:

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.

Oho. So it's not quite so crystal clear where supporting social needs is
appropriate and where it becomes a horrific commie plot.



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.

Is that how we got you?

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?