Michele L. Papadopoulos wrote: > > Regarding mainstreaming special education students > > > It is not every teachers' responsibility to provide every child with > an education. > > In their push for inclusion, parents and advocates of mainstreaming > are not saying that their child is entitled to the same > > opportunities as "regular" children. They are saying that their > > children are entitled to more - a lot more - in terms of money, > > equipment, emotional energy and teaching time. > > I know that many special education students need "extra" attention, > but as theachers, that is our job (those of us who are studying to be > teachers also).
Whoa! Back the certification truck up here a minute. In Wisconsin, as I suppose in many of the states Special Education requires a "special license" with additional clock hours in _learning_ how to handle the difference of these special education students.
Now you and many others are advocating/saying that such training is unnecessary?
Many of us "older" teachers (and by that I mean those who have graduated as little as five years ago) had an opportunity to choose if we wanted to "specialize" in the field of "special education". I _as did many_ did not so choose.
Now _you can try to "guilt" me into doing what I chose not to_. Or _"mandate, legislate or revaluate" me into doing what I chose not to_. But to quote the character Anthony from Judith Viorst's well know children's book _Anthony and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day_ "You can't make me like it!" Nor can you make me do a good job.
_I'm not qualified_! That is what I am saying, and I know that I speak for others who feel as I do. Further you are now _turning back the clock_ 30 or years to a time where "special education" was unheard of, and _there were no special education teachers_ or classrooms.
Is this what you would consider to be progress? Is this what you would consider to be best for all children? Is this what you really want? I would hope not, but I fear it is true.
Inclusion is a legal fad. It is a monetary expediency. It is not as many other have pointed out sound educational practice. It is politically correct. A Social Panacea. It makes the _the child feel good_ for a while.It makes the _the parent feel good_ for a while. It makes the _the administration feel good_ for a while. It makes _some teachers feel good_ for a while.
After a while when it is realized that it has accomplished little or nothing measurable to change the outcomes for the special needs child it is stopped. How many Secondary students are in full inclusion classrooms in your school district? I know of none in mine, I checked! Why do you suppose that is?
The parents of these students demand the students get > more equipment because without this "special" equipment the students > do not get the type of education they need. Teachers teach a certain > way, but they also adapt to the needs of their students. This is one > more adaption that needs to be made.
It is much more than a simple adaptation. The thread has been that we are seeing more than just one student per classroom.
It is a Herculean task to expect one teacher to meet the needs of 28 or more children all at the same time. It is difficult enough to teach a new concept or ability to any group that is somewhat close in ability. It becomes hopeless for teachers who are faced with the challenges (behaviorally and academically) that have been described by example in this thread.
> Whether teachers like it or not, special ed students need special > attention. The students have a right to be taught in a specific way > so they can learn and prosper.
We are not arguing about that! The disagreement is about rights to be taught, it is about if it is proper for a classmate to provide those "specific ways" because the classroom teacher hasn't the time or resources!