Marc <email@example.com> writes: > Michele L. Papadopoulos wrote: > > > > Whether techers 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. > > But when one student requires so much extra time that 35 others go > without, then it is not just a simple issue of changing teaching > styles. I cannot sacrafice the futures of 35 for the increased chance > of success it would bring one student. > > Marc Whitaker - http://www.users.cts.com/crash/m/marc > - firstname.lastname@example.org > ------------ > Bingo-but don't stick the responsibility for delaying a class soley on included children. The most disruptive children, who hold up learning far more than many with disabilities, usually have no labels at all. Some may have LD, some may be gifted and bored, some may be under extra stress at home-there are many excuses. But, if you're going to keep students with disabilities out of the mainstream classroom on the grounds that they require extra time and effort, than children who present discipline problems should be excluded as well.
> I mean the word proof not in the sense of the lawyers, who set > two half proofs equal to a whole one, but in the sense of a > mathematician, where half proof = 0, and it is demanded for > proof that every doubt becomes impossible. > > > Karl Friedrich Gauss (1777-1855) > In G. Simmons Calculus Gems, New York: McGraw Hill inc., 1992.