|
|
Re: Inclusion research
Posted:
Feb 16, 1997 1:09 PM
|
|
In article <5e4g96$eog@ttacs7.ttu.edu>,
Donna Mettler <dmettler@ttmath.ttu.edu> wrote:
>Marc <marc@check.the.sig> 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.
>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.
If a student is LD, either that disability can be reasonable treated
without slowing down the class, or the student does not belong in
the class. As for the gifted, they should be advanced much more
rapidly; any institution which does not do this does not deserve
the title of "school".
As for the discipline problems, you are right. The school should
be obliged to teach the individual as an individual, not as a
member of an administratively defined group.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
|
|
