gino crocetti <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: >I don't mean to sound preachy, but the details of the class composition >and management are the determining factors in deciding what should be >done. > >In some circumstances, a fairly broad range of student work can be >included in a positive way within a class. One way is to have the more >advanced students help the others. Frequently, trying to understand the >difficulties of the other students greatly enlarges the "more advanced" >students understanding of the subject area (especially math) and human >nature. Having the advanced students work together can also work, but in >an integrated class, the teacher must be creative in guiding such a >group to enlarge (enrich) their understanding rather than simply going >ahead faster. Most texts make some gesture in this direction, but it is >rarely adequate.
But this is hypocritical. You are asking that the more advanced kids be denied learning as fast and as well as they can -- so that the less advanced kids can learn... faster and better!
It seems inclusion, or anything that demands the faster kids slow down so the slower kids can go faster, is inherently biased and hypocritical. The same argument for mainstreaming -- these kids are not getting as good an education without being in a regular classroom -- is being used to stop other kids, gifted ones for example, from getting as good an education. I'm all for challenging the special ed kids, having high expectations of them and giving them academically challenging work. That wasn't what you talked about -- you involved not letting the smart kids "simply go ahead faster", which many can do. On what justification?
I would rather we improve the education of the special ed kids without sacrificing the smarter kids. The disdain for the faster ability of the gifted, or even just above average, in the other post is very disturbing.
Why *not* let the fast kids advance as fast as they are obviously capable of? Why hold them back if you support mainstreaming special ed kids on the idea they had been held back otherwise?
>Both of these have limits, usually not approached in practice in my >opinion. Although throwing chairs (mentioned at one point) is not >acceptable, such dramatic actions by a student are usually based as much >on frustration and unmet needs as an inherent love of flying objects.
Yes, and it is but one way the other students are disrupted. Being always in the position of helping others rather than being allowed to progress at the speed you can and develop *yourself* is a reason why _smarter_ kids would throw chairs. But they don't. They simply stop working hard, stop trying and fail to develop _their_ potential.
Do you think this loss of potential is worth sacrificing when you didn't think so of other kids? Which kids are you willing to sacrifice and why not find a solution that doesn't require sacrificing anyone else's education?
Mainstreaming is not one such option -- it sacrifices the education of many others. It is based on a good idea -- stretch the potenial of all kids including the special ed who often get ignored. I'm fine with that. But when it happens in a way where the end result is sacrifice the smarter kids, slow *them* down, so they teach other kids in the class instead of getting the education *they** deserve, then we do not have a fair answer yet.
-- 18 Oct '96, the phrase "You Play Like a Girl" ==If equality is viewed took on an entirely different meaning-American ==as a loss, what does Basketball League inaugural game. GO LASERS! ==that tell you about the http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~cfairman/ ==previous situation?