About Us

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 4/12/05 7:28 PM:

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.

Since most people with intellectual disabilities have numeracy and literacy
skills at an elementary school level, none of them need Grade 12 chemistry.
This is not really so complicated. The "mainstream" curriculum is about
following prescribed units of study and getting grades for post-secondary
education at college or university. There is an entirely different reality
for people with intellectual disabilities and forcing them to waste their
time on someone else's curriculum is waste and neglect.

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.

Not for people with intellectual disabilities or any other type of
disability that calls for a different curriculum.

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.

1) They are not receiving a basic education, they are wasting precious time
on someone else's curriculum that does not meet their needs

2) They are being socialized into uselessness by sitting in a classroom that
is designed to meet someone else's needs and being humiliated in the process

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 4/12/05 7:28 PM:

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.

Since most people with intellectual disabilities have numeracy and literacy
skills at an elementary school level, none of them need Grade 12 chemistry.

How generous of you to pigeon-hole every disabled person and dictate to them
what their "needs" are.

This is not really so complicated. The "mainstream" curriculum is about
following prescribed units of study and getting grades for post-secondary
education at college or university. There is an entirely different reality
for people with intellectual disabilities and forcing them to waste their
time on someone else's curriculum is waste and neglect.

Challenging them to succeed at a standardized curriculum is not wasteful nor
neglectful.

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.

Not for people with intellectual disabilities or any other type of
disability that calls for a different curriculum.

As I said before, you cannot possibly know what anybody "needs" by way of
curriculum, because there is an infinite number of variables involved and
each person is different.

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.

1) They are not receiving a basic education, they are wasting precious time
on someone else's curriculum that does not meet their needs

How do you know?

2) They are being socialized into uselessness by sitting in a classroom that
is designed to meet someone else's needs and being humiliated in the process

How do you know?

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 4/13/05 7:35 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 4/12/05 7:28 PM:

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.

Since most people with intellectual disabilities have numeracy and literacy
skills at an elementary school level, none of them need Grade 12 chemistry.

How generous of you to pigeon-hole every disabled person and dictate to them
what their "needs" are.

I'm not pigeon-holing anyone, I referred to a very specific population,
which by definition would not experience success at Grade 12 chemistry.

This is not really so complicated. The "mainstream" curriculum is about
following prescribed units of study and getting grades for post-secondary
education at college or university. There is an entirely different reality
for people with intellectual disabilities and forcing them to waste their
time on someone else's curriculum is waste and neglect.

Challenging them to succeed at a standardized curriculum is not wasteful nor
neglectful.

It is both, and severly so. They can have just as many challenges as
non-disabled students and still have a curriculum that meets their needs and
has relevance to their current and future life.

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.

Not for people with intellectual disabilities or any other type of
disability that calls for a different curriculum.

As I said before, you cannot possibly know what anybody "needs" by way of
curriculum, because there is an infinite number of variables involved and
each person is different.

Within the intellectual disability category, it is not difficult to see how
inappropriate the "mainstream" curriculum is, since it is designed to meet
entirely different needs for an entirely different purpose.

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.

1) They are not receiving a basic education, they are wasting precious time
on someone else's curriculum that does not meet their needs

How do you know?

Because they have an intellectual disability. This means they are not going
to benefit from high school course with literacy and numeracy requirements
designed for transition to college and university. They deserve their own
curriculum so that they can be challenged and develop to the greatest extent
possible for life after high school.

2) They are being socialized into uselessness by sitting in a classroom that
is designed to meet someone else's needs and being humiliated in the process

How do you know?

See above.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
OT Bush propaganda against Kerry	basskisser	General	125	October 4th 04 09:22 PM
Bush fiddles while health care burns	Harry Krause	General	71	September 17th 04 10:21 PM
OT- Ode to Immigration	Harry Krause	General	83	July 27th 04 06:37 PM
OT-Think government-controlled health coverage will work? Think again!	NOYB	General	25	March 15th 04 08:04 PM

Menu

About Us