Being Insensitive...
Barbara Horton, of Hyattsville, MD had some excellent comments to make about the idea of mixing developmentally challenged and normal children in the classroom, in today's Washington Times letters to the editor.
Contrary to "Everyone learns from Inclusion" (Family Times, Sunday), inclusion is one of those concepts that sounds as if it should work but doesn't. Inclusion is a well-meaning but misguided attempt to democratize the schools by mainstreaming disabled children with non-disabled ones. I can state from personal experience that mixing children of vastly different developmental abilities only slows and frustrates normal students while reminding disabled children that they are not normal and don't have a hope of becoming like the others.
I remember my mom telling me about her mother's response when the public school system decided to mainstream retarded kids. She said "If you mix clean water and dirty water together, you just get more dirty water." My own experiences with mainstreaming say the same. You cannot expect your standard 14 year old kid to deal well with an overexcited mentally retarded student. Being assaulted in the hallway by a developmentally disabled student is both upsetting to normal students, and also exposes the developmentally disabled student to pain and humiliation. One of the mainstreamed students at my high school was in the habit both of hitting random people for no reason, and for taking your food from you. Needless to say, this didn't teach us a lot of compassion for developmentally disabled students, especially when such behavior was never punished. We were instead told by administrators that there was nothing they were allowed to do about it, and we would just have to learn to put up with it.
In addition, regular classroom teachers already have enough trouble keeping their normal students in line, and quiet enough to learn their subjects. If you add into the mix, students who need additional attention and time - and frequently specialized instruction - to learn half the subject matter, all you are doing is shortchanging every other student in that class, for the sake of patting yourself on the back because you're so lily-white you're even blind to the difference between a child with an IQ of 70 and the freshman class of Harvard.
I'm not suggesting that anyone 'different' be kept in a barrel and fed through the bunghole... but you wouldn't put a student who hadn't mastered algebra in a calculus class, would you? If you will not hold developmentally disabled students to the same behavioral standards as the rest of the class population, then they do not belong in that class. If they cannot learn the material at roughly the same pace as the rest of the class, then they do not belong in that class. Teaching children how to socialize with different sorts of people may be a noble goal, but it isn't what elementary and high school are supposed to be for.
Showing posts with label Education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Education. Show all posts
Thursday, October 03, 2002
I don't give a damn how you feel... I care about what you do
The New York Times has an excellent article on self-esteem, and its effects that, while I enjoyed reading it, I spent a good deal of time saying to myself "someone had to do a study to find this out?"
In an extensive review of studies, for example, Dr. Nicholas Emler, a social psychologist at the London School of Economics, found no clear link between low self-esteem and delinquency, violence against others, teenage smoking, drug use or racism, though a poor self-image was one of several factors contributing to self-destructive behaviors like suicide, eating disorders and teenage pregnancy.
High self-esteem, on the other hand, was positively correlated with racist attitudes, drunken driving and other risky behaviors, Dr. Emler found in his 2001 review. Though academic success or failure had some effect on self-esteem, students with high self-esteem were likely to explain away their failures with excuses, while those with low self-esteem discounted their successes as flukes.
It always perplexed me that it never seemed to occur to academics and touchy-feel-good sorts that telling child that they're perfect and wonderful, no matter what a screw-up they are, might have bad results. With the loss of concepts like shame and personal responsibility, we have also lost useful tools in constraining bad behaviour in society.
Yet more old-fashioned strategies for making one's way in the world, like learning self-control, resisting temptation or persisting in the face of failure have received little study, in part because the attention to self-esteem has been so pervasive.
"My bottom line is that self-esteem isn't really worth the effort," Dr. Baumeister said. "Self-control is much more powerful.
There's the kicker, right there. We've been paying so much attention to how children FEEL, we've forgotten to pay any attention to how they're DOING.
The New York Times has an excellent article on self-esteem, and its effects that, while I enjoyed reading it, I spent a good deal of time saying to myself "someone had to do a study to find this out?"
In an extensive review of studies, for example, Dr. Nicholas Emler, a social psychologist at the London School of Economics, found no clear link between low self-esteem and delinquency, violence against others, teenage smoking, drug use or racism, though a poor self-image was one of several factors contributing to self-destructive behaviors like suicide, eating disorders and teenage pregnancy.
High self-esteem, on the other hand, was positively correlated with racist attitudes, drunken driving and other risky behaviors, Dr. Emler found in his 2001 review. Though academic success or failure had some effect on self-esteem, students with high self-esteem were likely to explain away their failures with excuses, while those with low self-esteem discounted their successes as flukes.
It always perplexed me that it never seemed to occur to academics and touchy-feel-good sorts that telling child that they're perfect and wonderful, no matter what a screw-up they are, might have bad results. With the loss of concepts like shame and personal responsibility, we have also lost useful tools in constraining bad behaviour in society.
Yet more old-fashioned strategies for making one's way in the world, like learning self-control, resisting temptation or persisting in the face of failure have received little study, in part because the attention to self-esteem has been so pervasive.
"My bottom line is that self-esteem isn't really worth the effort," Dr. Baumeister said. "Self-control is much more powerful.
There's the kicker, right there. We've been paying so much attention to how children FEEL, we've forgotten to pay any attention to how they're DOING.
Monday, September 09, 2002
Liberal Nimby Hypocrisy
Best of the Web also links to this letter to the editor in the Washington Post where some liberal tried to explain - without sounding like a total hypocrite - why she was sending her daughter to private school.
The choice quote, of course, is this: For a card-carrying liberal, I was surprisingly unapologetic about our decision. Why should I sacrifice our daughter's future to an abstract principle? I wasn't up to battling the school system about class size, curriculum and extracurricular activities. And by the time any changes could be made, our daughter would have already missed out on a vibrant education.
She continues on to whine about how she feels uncomfortable about her decision, since she can't talk about her daughter's exclusive private schooling with her neighbors, because she feels they'd resent her since they can't afford it. No where in the letter does she mention if, as a result of her inner battle, she has come out in favor of public schooling alternatives such as vouchers. My bet is that Opinion Journal gets it right though, when they say: Here in a nutshell is the definition of an American liberal: one who is willing to sacrifice the future of other people's children to an abstract principle.
Best of the Web also links to this letter to the editor in the Washington Post where some liberal tried to explain - without sounding like a total hypocrite - why she was sending her daughter to private school.
The choice quote, of course, is this: For a card-carrying liberal, I was surprisingly unapologetic about our decision. Why should I sacrifice our daughter's future to an abstract principle? I wasn't up to battling the school system about class size, curriculum and extracurricular activities. And by the time any changes could be made, our daughter would have already missed out on a vibrant education.
She continues on to whine about how she feels uncomfortable about her decision, since she can't talk about her daughter's exclusive private schooling with her neighbors, because she feels they'd resent her since they can't afford it. No where in the letter does she mention if, as a result of her inner battle, she has come out in favor of public schooling alternatives such as vouchers. My bet is that Opinion Journal gets it right though, when they say: Here in a nutshell is the definition of an American liberal: one who is willing to sacrifice the future of other people's children to an abstract principle.
Wednesday, September 04, 2002
Further Proof that the Only Good Marxist was Groucho
Noel Ignatiev, a marxist professor from Harvard, is arguing for the abolishment of the white race. Cute. However, he, like just about every other self-hating loony on the market seems to have forgotten that there is no such thing as a white race. There are Homo Sapiens, the only race of humans on the planet. Its not like we have homo euroweenius, homo priviledged whitius and homo oppressed darkius... we all fit under the same umbrella, and the only people who are interested in making distinctions between the groups based on the color of our skin are closeted bigots who insist on pointing out our surface differences at every opportunity. They 'feel' for the poor and oppressed, using a basic underlying assumption that just because someone is black, they're automatically unable to compete in the real world, or succeed without special help. If only everyone else in the priviledged 'white' world (never mind that there are plenty of poor white folks out there too) could simply understand blacks' basic inferiority, and adjust to it, instead of holding equal expectations for them, then racisim would end.
Mr. Ignatiev publishes a journal called "Race Traitor". He's incorrect in his title. It should be "Race Baiter" instead.
Noel Ignatiev, a marxist professor from Harvard, is arguing for the abolishment of the white race. Cute. However, he, like just about every other self-hating loony on the market seems to have forgotten that there is no such thing as a white race. There are Homo Sapiens, the only race of humans on the planet. Its not like we have homo euroweenius, homo priviledged whitius and homo oppressed darkius... we all fit under the same umbrella, and the only people who are interested in making distinctions between the groups based on the color of our skin are closeted bigots who insist on pointing out our surface differences at every opportunity. They 'feel' for the poor and oppressed, using a basic underlying assumption that just because someone is black, they're automatically unable to compete in the real world, or succeed without special help. If only everyone else in the priviledged 'white' world (never mind that there are plenty of poor white folks out there too) could simply understand blacks' basic inferiority, and adjust to it, instead of holding equal expectations for them, then racisim would end.
Mr. Ignatiev publishes a journal called "Race Traitor". He's incorrect in his title. It should be "Race Baiter" instead.
Monday, August 19, 2002
Win some, you lose some...
The students at UNC Chapel Hill who objected to being assigned a study of islam have lost their suit. The summer reading class will be allowed to stand.
Well, you win some, you lose some... and I'd be more upset, but the above article states something that previously wasn't pointed out in any of the news accounts I've seen before: this isn't actually a graded assignment. You can ignore it completely if you wish, it won't hurt you. Therefore, even if the college is saying its required, since it doesn't hurt you to ignore it, and there's already an alternative assignment for you, I no longer care. Students' religious freedom seems to be adequately protected in this instance.
I just hope there are a couple of folks in those study discussions who will actually speak straight, and start a good debate.
The students at UNC Chapel Hill who objected to being assigned a study of islam have lost their suit. The summer reading class will be allowed to stand.
Well, you win some, you lose some... and I'd be more upset, but the above article states something that previously wasn't pointed out in any of the news accounts I've seen before: this isn't actually a graded assignment. You can ignore it completely if you wish, it won't hurt you. Therefore, even if the college is saying its required, since it doesn't hurt you to ignore it, and there's already an alternative assignment for you, I no longer care. Students' religious freedom seems to be adequately protected in this instance.
I just hope there are a couple of folks in those study discussions who will actually speak straight, and start a good debate.
Wednesday, August 14, 2002
Wednesday, August 07, 2002
Lies, damned Lies and Statistics, and Journalists!
*sigh* The school voucher issue has always been one I pay attention to, namely because, in the absence of freedom from government interference in my child's education, I want an escape route at the least.
The Supremes declared school vouchers that allow children to attend religious as well as non-sectarian private schools was constitutional. Go them! Unfortunately, there a lot of folks, namely democrats and their journalists that still don't get it. And they report the news in such a way as to try and make sure no one else gets it, either.
Take Exhibit A: This AP News article I pulled from the Washington Post this morning titled "AP Poll Tracks Support For Vouchers." The opening paragraph is disengenious enough to really tick me off:
Americans tend to favor the idea of school vouchers that help send low income children to private or parochial schools, says an Associated Press poll, at least until they hear that could decrease the money available for public schools.
Then support dwindles rapidly.
Well... the AP newsfeed was kind enough to also publish an article explaining how they arrived at their poll results. The actual question people responded to was:
Would you support or oppose that [school vouchers for lower income kids] if it meant there would be less money for the public schools?
Little bit different spin there, folks. The poll asked about IF, the article cites it as if the issue was WHEN. The fact is, since money is allotted to public schools based on the number of children attending, and the amount of school vouchers is roughly half of what each school receives in funding per child, public schools DO NOT RECEIVE LESS MONEY IF A STUDENT TAKES A VOUCHER. In point of fact, when a student takes a voucher, the school is essentially getting an extra two thousand dollars, without having to take on an extra student.
The reason public schools are so opposed to vouchers is that they have a quite justifiable fear that parents would herd their children out of those crappy public schools in droves if they could. And the teachers are right, parents would. And oh no! That would mean that public school teachers might actually have to teach and get results in order to stem the tide of students escaping their greedy brainwashing clutches.
*sigh* The school voucher issue has always been one I pay attention to, namely because, in the absence of freedom from government interference in my child's education, I want an escape route at the least.
The Supremes declared school vouchers that allow children to attend religious as well as non-sectarian private schools was constitutional. Go them! Unfortunately, there a lot of folks, namely democrats and their journalists that still don't get it. And they report the news in such a way as to try and make sure no one else gets it, either.
Take Exhibit A: This AP News article I pulled from the Washington Post this morning titled "AP Poll Tracks Support For Vouchers." The opening paragraph is disengenious enough to really tick me off:
Americans tend to favor the idea of school vouchers that help send low income children to private or parochial schools, says an Associated Press poll, at least until they hear that could decrease the money available for public schools.
Then support dwindles rapidly.
Well... the AP newsfeed was kind enough to also publish an article explaining how they arrived at their poll results. The actual question people responded to was:
Would you support or oppose that [school vouchers for lower income kids] if it meant there would be less money for the public schools?
Little bit different spin there, folks. The poll asked about IF, the article cites it as if the issue was WHEN. The fact is, since money is allotted to public schools based on the number of children attending, and the amount of school vouchers is roughly half of what each school receives in funding per child, public schools DO NOT RECEIVE LESS MONEY IF A STUDENT TAKES A VOUCHER. In point of fact, when a student takes a voucher, the school is essentially getting an extra two thousand dollars, without having to take on an extra student.
The reason public schools are so opposed to vouchers is that they have a quite justifiable fear that parents would herd their children out of those crappy public schools in droves if they could. And the teachers are right, parents would. And oh no! That would mean that public school teachers might actually have to teach and get results in order to stem the tide of students escaping their greedy brainwashing clutches.
Thursday, August 01, 2002
Wednesday, July 10, 2002
Freedom of Religion, but from Christianity
So some parent's group is suing a California school district for making their kids pretend to be muslims.
Of course, the teacher, in the article, states quite clearly that this program was voluntary. She claims to have sent out information explaining what would go on in the class, and that nothing that would qualify as "playing islam" was required for the grade.
That's all fine and dandy. I'm all for voluntary investigation of other religious practices. What strikes me as odd about this, is that its from the same state that ruled that the pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional because even voluntarily uttering the word God counts as coercing non-christian students. Funny, that the school district defends their practice of indoctrinating 12 year olds into a terrorist religion, but considers reciting the pledge coercive.
So some parent's group is suing a California school district for making their kids pretend to be muslims.
Of course, the teacher, in the article, states quite clearly that this program was voluntary. She claims to have sent out information explaining what would go on in the class, and that nothing that would qualify as "playing islam" was required for the grade.
That's all fine and dandy. I'm all for voluntary investigation of other religious practices. What strikes me as odd about this, is that its from the same state that ruled that the pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional because even voluntarily uttering the word God counts as coercing non-christian students. Funny, that the school district defends their practice of indoctrinating 12 year olds into a terrorist religion, but considers reciting the pledge coercive.