Deri, as Bobby said, this assumes that the special ed teachers  
actually teach mind-challenging classes.    Mine didn't until the  
sixth grade, when I had a teacher who was alarmed at  how poorly we  
were prepared to go out and academically compete in the real world.   
So she pulled together a group of the kids in her class whose parents  
were planning to send them to "regular schools" the following year,  
and drilled us and challenged us to excel.  I am still grateful Mrs.  
Holzer to this day for pushing us to do the work, not just baby-sit  
us to the end of our elementary school terms.

The special ed attitude of the day seemed to be "the most important  
thing is to get them on their feet and the rest will follow."   I  
remember that kids who couldn't walked seemed to be regarded as lazy  
or deemed incompetent, which of course was not the case at all.  But  
by the time I left elementary school, the attitude shifted to a more  
realistic view and I recall the state issuing new standards at some  
point for special education.

Kat

On Oct 9, 2005, at 9:39 PM, Deri James wrote:

> On Monday 10 Oct 2005 00:59, Kathleen Salkin wrote:
>
>>
>
> Hi Kat,
>
> Sorry I have to disagree here, you make a good point about the  
> importance of
> education for children with disabilities, but I fail to see why its so
> important to "mix" with able-bodied kids. Are you argueing that  
> somehow
> mixing with non disabled people is better than mixing with the  
> disabled, that
> a disabled kid can learn more by mixing with the able bodied?
>
> I would have thought that the important issue is whether it is a  
> good school,
> not whether it contains able bodied kids. Usually a better  
> education can be
> found in small class sizes, with dedicated teachers, using approprate
> assistive technologies, these are more often the norm in special  
> education
> schools than the main stream.
>
> I sometimes think the panacea of "inclusion" in education is primarily
> advantageous for the taxpayer (its much cheaper to shove a few  
> ramps into a
> local high school and hire a few extra "teaching assistants" than  
> pay for a
> kid to board at a purpose built school with class sizes of 7 or 8).
> Secondarily it may have an advantage for the non disabled (they may  
> learn its
> rude to stare!!). But where is there an advantage for the disabled  
> kid?
>
> There seems to be a presumption that if you do not put disabled  
> kids in
> "regular" schools they won't learn the necessary social skills for  
> life after
> school. This doesn't stack up either, since its reinforcing a  
> misconception
> that the interactions which occur within a large group of disabled  
> kids is
> somehow not as good as interacting with a similar sized group of  
> non disabled
> kids. Of course, integration with the rest of society is a worthy  
> goal, and
> good Special Ed schools should address that, but it should not  
> become the
> only focus.
>
> I would posit that the yard stick for measuring success in the  
> field of
> disabled education, should be less based on whether "little willy"  
> goes to
> the local high school, but more on whether "little willy" has  
> received the
> best education for him to reach his full potential.
>
> Of course, in my case, the best Special Ed money (the State) could  
> buy, didn't
> stop me becoming an opinionated lunatic!!!
>
> Cheers
>
> Deri
>