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