Education Suggestions
- on 04.11.05
- General
- 10 Comments
- Digg
- Del.icio.us
I found these suggestions on Extreme Wisdom. I pulled out these because I agree with them.
|
1. Bring back ability grouping. Let the horses run and the others catch up. Get the droning boredom out of the classroom.
2. Abolish Special Education Mainstreaming. It is a foul experiment devoid of reason and rationality. (The extent to which it assists the “special ed. kid” is the extent to which it destroys the learning for the other 25 kids in the room – not that this matters to Marxist “equalizers.”) 3. Recognize the limits of class size reductions. 15 might be better than 20, but not to the degree that we have to bankrupt states & localities. Do 15 /class early and 20+ above 5th grade and civilization will survive (it was doing better when curricula was challenging and there were 30 kids/class. |
My oldest is a great example of how item 1 would be beneficial to my oldest. She was just given more work and got bored. Stimulate the kids minds and they will flourish.
Number 2 is very accurate. My brother is Autistic. He was not mainstreamed. He had special classes. With these classes he was able to actually graduate high school This would not have happened if he had been mainstreamed.
There are financial limitations. If you do not mainstream special needs kids, the class size can be larger. If you allow teachers to punish children when they are disruptive, you can increase the class size.
Would a look at the Federal mandates for inclusion be legal, feasible and practical? Mainstreaming has put a tremendous strain on a teachers ability to control a resonable class size and I question whether the special needs child is really having his or her special need met.
verses…..
Abolish Special Education Mainstreaming. It is a foul experiment devoid of reason and rationality. (The extent to which it assists the “special ed. kid†is the extent to which it destroys the learning for the other 25 kids in the room – not that this matters to Marxist “equalizers.”)
do you see the difference yet, lennie? (i agree with the substance but i’m appalled that you would bring it up in such an inciteful manner; who could possibly respect that quote from extreme wisdom…dogs and fleas, lennie…)
You have said you agree with the substance of not mainstreaming Special Needs kids. Could you please give me your opinion on 1 and 3? We should be debating the issues and merits of ideas not the manner in which they are brought forth.
dogs and fleas, lennie. because of the insane way you chose to bring this subject to light, only fellow lunatics will want to debate it with you. had you brought the EXACT SAME MESSAGE to light in a CONSTRUCTIVE fashion, i believe that many would have taken you seriously and joined the debate; WE might even have solved some problems. if you can admit that makes some sense, we can move forward, otherwise, i’ll pass; i need no itch to scratch.
as for 1 & 3, i have some incredibly CONSTRUCTIVE input to support your argument, but you need to find a CONSTRUCTIVE way to ask first; otherwise, i just get emotional (is that want you want?)
I agree with Lennie but would add that there is a need for increased discipline. Teachers without the tool of discipline (Yes, I mean corporal punishment) lack control of their classrooms. Along with this you could throw out the ridiculous rules which all end with zero tolerance. This would apply to kids taking aspirin, whispering the word “bomb” or making lists of names of classmates they don’t like. By increasing discipline in the classroom, the need for the zero tolerance “nuclear option” is greatly diminished. School admins with a spine and a brain would help on this account too.
Carl, you just proved my point though. It does matter where the ideas/suggestions come from to many people. I got complaints that I took things out of context. This time I copied it exactly and still I am getting complaints. Do you see my point? Also, do you know or have an idea of why Extreme Wisdom states things the way he does? He’s a radio host. It’s his job to get a controversy going at times to stimulate his audience to call in. He would not be a good host if he didn’t do that. He would not have an audience or a show very long if everyone agreed with him. His job is to make you think and get the real issues behind the rhetoric.
We need to move past the rhetoric and look at the substance, not how things are brought up. Yes, that does make a difference in some respects. But since we are adults, we should be able to look past certain statements. We all come from different viewpoints. We all interpret eveything differently. It will be almost impossible to say anything truly constructive without making someone mad at some level. That is why debates on substance are valuable. You get past the rhetoric. Adults should be able to do this more easily than our children. We have to teach them that lesson.
i guess at this point we just need to agree to disagree on the underlying topic; i still feel taht if you are truly interested in an exchange, you have to keep things civil. if we were discussing “mr. extreme wisdom”, the context quote would be appropriate and i think most would agree it’s showmanship. but to get on honest exchange on the actual substance, wouldn’t my earlier rephase in the form of a question be better? i don’t know…i do believe that such destructive banter, be it a quote in or out of context, won’t bring out the best exchange on the topic. i mean, lets face it… “a foul experiment”, “marxist equalizers”. most people wouldn’t even take the time to comment. i know i won’t. the same people that started the litigation and lobbying for inclusion protect our rights to have these open forums.
OK, forget the underlying topic them. Now,
1. Should students be greouped by ability?
2. Should special needs children be mainstreamed?
3. Do class sizes make a significant difference in results?
problem is, it’s the 1st 2 that make the 3rd a problem. we like to reminiss about the 60’s, but that’s when we put all the “specials” on the little bus and shipped ‘em off to SEDOL. and if you got out of line, we had corporal punishment.
enter the ACLU, more educated parents, 2 income families and DCFS. the push was on for inclusion and the ACLU had their backs. every child deserves a public education and if the parents want that in the regular classroom, that’s where it has to be. so the bottom line is, short of a armed revolution, inclusion and mainstreaming are here to stay; it’s a matter of civil rights.
so now we have a regular ed classroom teacher dealing with every imaginable special need, not to mention a little ESL to keep it interesting. so what do we do? reduce the class size so the teacher can manage it! one just led to the other.
now to make it worse, we hit the funding wall and make the classes bigger, take away the aids, reduce the special service personal and shorten the day!
so, should we go back to ability grouping? sure, but it’s not legal anymore. we try it with pull-out challenge programs, but those went away with the $$, too. should special ed get out of the mainstream? maybe, but its not legal anymore. and does class size make a difference? under these circumstances, absolutely!
“Does Federal Law Require Inclusion?
Two federal laws govern education of children with disabilities. Neither requires inclusion, but both require that a significant effort be made to find an inclusive placement. ”
See Wisconsin Education Association Council! website for case law and more detailed explanations.
yes…read the whole article…most of the parents that challenged attemps to EXCLUDE won their cases…the article also points out significant benefits to inclusion/mainstreaming…