Klarinet Archive - Posting 001168.txt from 2004/03

From: Karl Krelove <karlkrelove@-----.net>
Subj: Re: [kl] re: no one left behind
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 19:02:34 -0500


Nancy Buckman wrote:

> At 10:49 PM 3/17/2004, you wrote:
>
>> Nancy,
>>
>> (Chiming in on a subject I haven't really been following - apologies
>> if I'm re-hashing paths that have already been explored)
>
>
>
> Karl,
>
> As the parent of one of "those kids" who shouldn't be put in with the
> "smart" kids", I can tell you that you are dead wrong. My child had
> problems in school from day one. She couldn't rhyme in kindergarten,
> couldn't sound out words or memorize math facts in the early primary
> grades, repeated fourth grade, was unable to write without lines in
> middle school, couldn't memorize anything all through high school.
> She barely had the grades to graduate.
>
> However, she had an IQ of 166. She excelled at drawing and painting
> and making sculpture. She was and still is an excellent musician,
> making honor band from sixth grade on, every year through high
> school. The school system was furious at me for insisting that she be
> allowed to take music and art when she couldn't function in the other
> classes.

Well, this is part of the problem - and again, I missed the beginning of
the discussion - are we talking about one child who is very bright but
unable to keep up with less bright children in (a) specific subject
area(s) because of a specific learning style incompatibility, or are we
talking about a general policy of "including" kids who *can't* function
without (or even with) constant one-on-one attention just because
exposure to more able kids is good for them? You say in the snippet I
quoted that your daughter *couldn't* function in other classes but that
she was successful in art and music with other "regular" kids. Then
that's where she belonged, and I would support her right to that exact
placement. You didn't explicitly say what was done about your daughter's
other subject areas. But if she couldn't function successfully in the
other classes, then I also would also have wished for her to have more
individualized attention from a teacher who specialized in teaching
children "like her" instead of being "included" in regular classes
solely to allow her the benefits of "socialization." The cost in terms
of distraction of both the other kids' attention from their tasks and
the teacher's attention to the other kids is too high.

I guess, among other things, it's the implicit assumption in so many of
the posts I *have* read that segregated special ed classes are (or were)
necessarily dumping grounds in which kids were relegated to unproductive
custodial care while they got to be of age to leave school and proceed
immediately to public welfare and a life of dependence. Not every public
educator is as moronic as your daughter's high school government teacher.

Federal law guarantees (without contributing much financial support) a
Free and Appropriate Public Education to every American child. The
argument is always over what's appropriate. If a child *can* learn
what's being taught, he/she should be allowed the opportunity. If the
child *can't* learn what's being taught, it's not an appropriate place
for him/her. The relevant criterion is not (or shouldn't be) a label or
a scaled score on an IQ test, but whether or not a child is able to
function in a particular setting. And whether or not the child's
placement negatively affects other children's functioning.

Karl

---------------------------------------------------------------------
For help: email klarinet-owner@-----.org
Klarinet is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc. http://www.woodwind.org