A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


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."

Why should they? They are students. They are given assignments and they are
expected to complete them.


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.

Certainly such relationships are possible, but it is not a requirement.


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.

Mentoring is not "bossing." It's "tutoring or coaching."


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

The goal is to teach both students. No compulsory school student has freely
"chosen" to be in a mentor relationship with a teacher. They are required to
submit to education, and their teachers "mentor" them. It's not demeaning or
harmful for disabled student to be subjected to teaching, whomever the
teacher may be.


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.

That's happenstantial trust. Trust is also built between people forced
together through the interactions they experience. People in the workforce
are thrust together quite often, and it is necessary for them to know how to
build trust with others, even others that they may not like at all. Learning
how to be trustworthy is a valuable lesson children need to learn, including
being trustworthy towards those you don't know well or necessarily like.


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.

No more so than any student is being "subjected" to a standardized
curriculum that is within their capabilities. Some people are better
students than others, and some students need additional tutoring in subjects
they may have some difficulty with. Unless you are proposing individualized
curricula for every student, which is something no public school can
possibly provide.

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.

Why is it not? A student having difficulty needs mentoring. It's how we
"personalize" the curriculum to the student's individual needs.


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.

Strawman argument.


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.

We're not talking about PhD level mentoring.


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.

Well, when they do, they do. That's life. You don't deal with a person's
disabilities by ignoring them to his or her detriment. Accepting disability
as an excuse to abandon a person to his own devices is just as wrong as
making them dependent on others when it's not necessary. The purpose of
mentoring is not to "assign" someone so the disabled person can "get by,"
it's to provide the extra assistance needed during the educational process
so that the disabled person can succeed and even excel and learn how to be
self-sufficient. Mentoring is not intended to be babysitting or a permanent
situation.

I know many adults with disabilities who have suffered tremendously from
hearing and believing that message.

That's too bad. But you swing the pendulum far too much the other way when
you suggest that disabled persons be left alone to struggle without needed
assistance.

They end up as dependent, self-doubting,
self-hating adults.

I don't see that as an issue for educational mentoring.

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!

Hogwash! Teaching the young mentor not to think of others as "retards" is
one of the primary learning opportunities for the mentor. While a child may
not like the idea that they need mentoring, that's just too bad. It's more
important that every attempt be made to get them successfully through the
educational process than it is to pander to their ego. Once they graduate,
they are free to reject any and all assistance if they so choose. And that
principle applies to ALL students, disabled or not.


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?

No, I have no problem with forcing children to pick up poo in the
schoolyard.


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.

Sure you do. You teach them that they don't always get to do just exactly as
they please, and that they will often be required to do things they don't
want to do. That's part of life.

You are aware that there are children
who like to help others, and not because they were forced to do so, right?

Right. It's always better to seek volunteers who are interested in mentoring
others, but it's also reasonable to *require* a student who has the
requisite knowledge to mentor other students even if they don¹t want to
because it provides an excellent double teaching opportunity. Teaching
others can be tremendously rewarding, and reluctant mentors may be reluctant
only because they aren't aware of this. Or, they may be shy, or lazy, or
uncaring. In all cases, requiring them to extend themselves to help others
is good social education and very often has enormous beneficial effects for
even reluctant mentors. Giving children a wide range of experience helps
them learn and helps them to explore themselves and their potentials. Kids
might not think they will like broccoli, but they ought to be forced to eat
it anyway. Once they are adults, they can choose not to eat it anymore.


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

It is horribly wrong.

Nope. It's both necessary and desirable.


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."

Hogwash. All any student has to do to avoid being mentored is to apply
themselves and do the work, and the mentoring will be unnecessary. If they
are having difficulty, however, then mentoring is an appropriate teaching
method for any student.


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.

They are CHILDREN. They don't get to be in charge of things until they are
grown up.

People with disabilities in particular need to learn
non-compliance and how to have a voice and what it feels like to have that
voice respected.

"Learn non-compliance?" You mean they need to learn to say "No"? Sure they
do, but not when saying no is detrimental to their health, safety, welfare
or education.

And there's nothing in the mentor relationship that keeps them from saying
"no," if they can do the work. If they can't, then they need help, whether
they want to admit it or not.

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.

Ridiculous. Disabled persons are only vulnerable as you suggest when they
are isolated and are NOT integrated into society, where expectations of
performance are set and adhered to, and they are expected to put forth
whatever effort is required to meet those performance standards.

They are vulnerable when they are keep isolated at home, are not educated to
the maximum extent possible, and are not taught the independence that comes
with individual effort and success.

Mainstreaming helps prevent such abuse.


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.

Indeed. My point exactly. That has to stop. Instilling self discipline is
the answer, and always has been.


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!

Obviously you haven't experienced the tyranny of undisciplined youth.


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.

One does not come to understand suffering or form a wish to relieve that
suffering unless one is intimately exposed to suffering. Forcing a child
into intimate relationship with a less fortunate person teaches them
compassion. Isolating children from those who suffer teaches them nothing.


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.

Now there's a particularly egregious example of the fallacies of non causa
pro causa, ignoratio elenchi and mediocrity.

--
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