|
|
Re: Inclusion research
Posted:
Feb 4, 1997 8:46 PM
|
|
In article <32F78EE7.22E3@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu>,
Carri Mueller <clmuell@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu> wrote:
>catherine wrote:
>> > >Absolute drivel! I will never accept a concept of a "gifted" class
>> Please explain Da Vinci and Einstein. Please explain also how it is
>> helpful for the other 30 students in my class when the one "inclusion"
>> child acts out so badly the class order is destroyed. Because this behavior
>> is indicated in the child's IEP as a "handicapping condition", the child
>> may not be remoeved from the classroom simply because he throws furniture
>> at other students.
>> The notion that it is not possible for someone to be smarter than someone
>> else or that everyone should be in the same place at the same time is
>> counterproductive.
>I do not understand how you can say that having a special needs child in
>your classroom is counterproductive. I totally disagree. Having a
>child a child with a special need in your class is no different than
>having a child that learns slowly.
I agree completely. Every child should have the right to learn at his
or her speed, no matter how quickly or slowly anyone else learns.
It is precisely this which the present public schools will not consider.
If the schools were not a state monopoly but a private monopoly, they
would have been sued into bankruptcy as soon as they started the practice.
--
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
|
|
