Conference moira::parenting

    	I am a firm believer in grouping children in school such
    that they share comparable abilities, attitudes, behavioral
    traits, and so on.  It is my belief that in such a narrow
    world, each class will move at a pace more or less appropriate
    for all the children in it.  I greatly discount the value of
    "diversity" in early classes (like before high school, possibly
    later).
    
    	If you have children whose ability, attitude, or behavior
    are far from the class norm in ANY direction, you are introducing
    a potential problem situation.  From an ability standpoint, the
    bright child will be bored, the other end will be lost.  From a
    behavior standpoint, the model student will be penalized by the
    antics of the behavioral problem child.
    
    	And yes, I know that in Massachusetts there is a significant
    move afoot to "mainstream" all but the most outrageously problematical
    students.  I have listened to all the arguments regarding the benefits
    of diversity - how the bright students help their "peers" with less
    natural ability.  I would ask WHY are the brightest students held back
    (make no mistake, they ARE held back) by this grand push for diversity?
    I would suggest that perhaps the main reason is that this is the
    least expensive way to operate a school system - pack the classes
    to large numbers, do NOT give special attention unless absolutely
    necessary (thus abandoning many of the slowest students), and try
    to teach to the middle of the road, for that's what every class
    becomes.  You end up with all of the distractions (behavioral
    problems and problems due to large classes) which hold back the
    quick learners AND abandon the slow learners.  But your costs are
    as low as possible.  In Massachusetts there is a simply HUGE body
    of law surrounding "special needs", and the costs often run over
    10% of a school district's budget.  I fully believe that the push
    for mainstreaming is partially motivated by the desire to reduce
    these costs - a backlash, if you will.
    
    	Those with children who have special needs will find that
    special classes are NOT a bad thing.  They may be your child's
    salvation.  Special classes mean EXTRA attention at the right
    level for the student.  Mainstreaming can be a disaster in the
    making.
    
    	I will now adjust my asbestos suit...
    
    Cheers!
    Dave Eklund
    

    
    I do not like inclusion at all. From what I see, inclusion
    causes the classes to progress at the slowest possible rate,
    the teachers have to work with the lowest common denominator.
    This is fine and dandy for average and below average children.
    But for bright and motivated youngsters, it is detrimental,
    as they are not sufficiently challenged. This may be a strong
    view, but I think that the smarter kids are being sacrificed
    in this scheme. Maybe that's why there are so many private
    schools in MA ;-).  
    
    
    Eva
    

    I agree with most of what you say, but I don't think it is done for
    cost reasons. I think that mainstreaming is done due to the currently
    in vogue focus on schools as a means of socialization and group therapy
    as opposed to education.
    
    The problems with the current system are legion. Mainstreaming
    introduces one benefit but many detriments (as you stated). Perhaps the
    biggest problem I have with mainstreaming and the elimination of
    grouping students by their potential is the squandering of talent such
    a system ensures. 12 years of development time are squandered by
    putting gifted and slow students in the same class. It's a tragic
    waste, and positions America poorly for future generations in the world
    economy. The fact of the matter is that artificially insulating our
    children from competition puts them at a disadvantage to other kids in
    other cultures. In the business world, there is no teacher to enforce
    fairness and mutual success. That's reality. We do our children a
    disservice by pretending reality is something else, only to give them a
    harsh wakeup the day after graduation.
    
    The benefit of mainstreaming can be accomplished by blending children
    of different differing scholastic aptitudes during non-scholastic
    classes like art, music and phys-ed. Classes like math and english and
    the sciences, etc should have students segregated according to ability.
    This facilitates the learning process for all students as it minimizes
    potential conflicts by keeping the students together. Students which
    are bored either because they are way ahead of the class or so far
    behind the class that they'll never catch up become behavior problems,
    which only prevents the remaining students from getting anything out of
    the class.
    
    Behavioral problem students should be removed from the classrooms and
    dealt with in a more authoritarian way. Students cannot learn when they
    are constantly subjected to interruption by disruptive students.
    Teachers cannot effectively teach when they constantly have to
    intercede to stop the latest antisocial display.
    
    >	Those with children who have special needs will find that
    >special classes are NOT a bad thing.  
    
     Actually they provide a more efficient and effective means of getting
    the children the assistance they need.
    
     The bottom line is that each child must be encouraged to develop
    their natural abilities to the extent their talent allows. We're
    failing in this regard, and it shows.
    
     The Doctah

    
    I'd like to see something different .....
    
    Jason is WAY ahead of his entire class in everything.  There was some
    talk of jumping him a grade.  But he's not putting forth the added
    effort to jump, and doesn't really want to be separated from his
    friends.  So, he does his work in 1/10 the time of the rest of the
    class, and then sits there and tries to not get in trouble.  If he were
    grouped with peers who were as quick as he is, he'd be learning 5-10
    times as much as he is.  I think we're starting to teach him how to be
    lazy, and that doing well in school really has no reward at all.
    
    

    
    One point I missed in my last reply is that with inclusion, there
    semms to be more incidents of smarter children being singled out
    and tormented with labels like "nerds". With grouping, being a
    "nerd" in a whole class of "nerds" is not a big deal, as the 
    children can support each other emotionally.
    
    Eva
    

I agree with most of what's been written here (possibly all -- I just 
didn't read every line :-).

However, I've also seen a scenario where I thought mainstreaming was
a very positive thing.  In my daughter's private preschool, kids
with special needs are in the same classroom with the "normal"
(I need a better term!!) kids.  Each special needs kid has their
own personal aide.  The teachers work with the class, the aides
assist their special needs kids when they need assistance.  Noelle
accepts physical disabilities and mental retardation as natural
occurances, and I think it's because of this exposure.  Of course,
class sizes are small and this helps too.

In general, I'm in favor of mainstreaming when it's done like this.
I am not in favor of mainstreaming as described in the previous
notes here.

- Deb

    
    My daughter is in a 1st grade inclusion class.  I picked it because
    the teacher is the best (in my opinion for my daughter) the school has to offer.
    I've been told that this can often be the case.   
    
    The class has 20 or 21 (keeps growing) students with high
    ability kids and low ability kids.  They have a BIG  mix. 
    They also have a fulltime aid.  
    
    I think the teacher does a good job pushing the high ability kids.  We
    had a real problem with this in the past. 
    
    I think the teacher and the fact that there are also a few 
    very bright children in the class makes it work for us.  The teacher is 
    sensative to children of different needs.  High ability children can 
    also have a different set of needs. 
    
    They NEED an aid and they NEED to limit the size.  Some of the behavior
    problems can be very extensive.   If you don't have an awsome teacher 
    with the right tools I think the brighter children would suffer. 
    Tools being..a small class, a fulltime assistant, special instruction for
    those who need it (they leave to work with aids) , an environment in which 
    this class as a whole is treated the same as the others in the school.
    There is only one inclusion class per grade in our school.      
    
    /Teri
    
    
    
       

    Bright kids are always a problem, as are any gifted kids because they
    are diverse in the "giftedness"  One thing with inclusion is that kids
    do learn to deal with other people.  Until about a year ago, my
    daughters' school had been a magnet school for children with autism. 
    the most able of the children with autism were mainstreamed into the
    normal class, although each child came in with his or her own aide,
    critical with children of autism.  Sometimes these kids don't see other
    kids as quite "real" and a child would lash out at the nearest object
    (mostly other kids) for a while.  However with guidance from the aides,
    teacher and reenforcement from the other kids, such outbursts dropped
    down to infrequent, according to Carrie, and Lolita, both of whom had
    had kids with autism, and other special needs children in their
    classrooms. 
    
    As far as the boredom factor with more advanced kids in a mixed
    situation, there are a number of things that can be done.  Carrie and
    Lolita both went to enrichment classes for their specific talents, and
    Carrie's teachers have let her tutor in lower grades when she has her
    work finished.  Lolita was given a chance for a peer counseling groupe,
    as well as advanced math.  
    
    disruptive kids?  There doesn't have to be a single mainstreamed child
    in a class for there to be disruptive students.  The gifted students
    (especially the bright and bored) can be every much if not more
    disruptive than a child with "behavioral problems"  As someone who has
    one of the B&B and whose teacher ignored the warning about keeping her
    sufficiently challenged last year, I feel I know (painfully) about
    this.  This year's teacher understands kids like Carrie, and life has
    been much smoother.
    
    meg

    This jumped out at me:
    
    .8> Carrie's teachers have let her tutor in lower grades when she has
      > her work finished.
    
    To this skeptic, Carrie's teachers are sounding like Cinderella's
    stepmother: "I'll let you peel this bushel of potatoes when you've
    finished your work"!  Now, I'm sure you worded it that way because
    Carrie *does* enjoy tutoring, but there may be other bright students
    who would see it as frustrating and/or the responsibility of the school
    system (not the unchallenged older students).
    
    I get the same creepy feeling about "letting" kids do door-to-door
    selling and "hop-a-thons" to raise money for the schools.  IMO this is
    gussied-up child labor (and I do cave in to it, somewhat; we do minimal
    selling on these drives, but I've always boycotted the hop-a-thon
    stuff).
    
    I vote for separate tracks for differing learning styles/skills/speeds,
    though the enrichment classes sound like "goodness" if you're dealing
    with an inclusion system.  (As long as these enrichment classes are
    within the normal school day and not "after school, no late buses"
    scheduling fiascos.)
    
    Leslie

    
    To be perfectly honest, I'd prefer my daughter be academically 
    challenged during school hours (which is not a whole lot). If 
    my daughter wants to help others after school hours, I don't 
    have a problem. I would be extremely upset if my daughter is
    made a teacher's helper, it is just not ethical in my books.
    
    
    Eva 

    Personally, I find this notion that "each child has his/her own aide"
    to be an incredibly inefficient use of resources. Obviously, special
    needs children need more resources per child than children without
    special needs, but does it really A) have to be to this extent and B)
    make sense to allocate our education resources this way? I don't
    believe that it does. If you want that level of resource deployment,
    you ought to have to pay (extra) for it. Quite frankly, I think it
    would be "better" for each child to have a personal trainer than for a
    whole class to have one gym teacher, but that doesn't mean it's
    efficient or effective use of resources.

    Mark,
    
    Have you ever known a child with severe autism?  They need their own
    aide, and often the aide is the firs person such a child will respond
    to.  
    
    For those who wonder, Carrie does enjoy tutoring other students and
    helping out in classrooms.  For her and for others it is an earned
    privilege, not a job, although she thinks teaching might be a good
    career choice.  She also enjoys volunteering in the library before
    school, but I guess doing things a child likes should be banned if it
    might help out another.  Yep, I have seen the light, unless it is a
    selfish good, it isn't good for the kid.  
    
    Sorry for my support of inclusion, and having my kids actually learn
    and also learn that others are different.  I guess I should put her in
    a private school where the only challenges are books, math, and more
    books and she won't be expected to interact with the same people she
    will live with in the real world.

    Meg,
    
    Do you know (exactly) how the school works her "extra time" and
    tutoring other kids??  This might be JUST the thing that Jason needs,
    but his "extra" time is very sporadic.  They do math, he finishes the
    math paper 10 mins early, they do english, same thing etc.  I can't
    imagine that 10-min intervals would be much more than disruptive.
    
    He does help out with other kids in the class, but most of the time the
    teacher has it under control, and she WANTS the other kids to have to
    figure it out.  Bored and bright - and keeping him from getting into
    trouble "in the meantime" is as much of an issue as Christopher's ADD.
    
    I could care less who's together -- I just want to see ALL the children
    challenged.  HOW that happens makes little difference to me.  ...and 
    certainly Jason could learn to be a little more 'giving' (-:
    
    -Patty
    

    RE: Inclusion
    
    Both of my kids of school age are in classes that have the "mix" of
    abilities within them.  My daughter is in 4th grade and I find that
    this mix is a benefit.  She is at the higher end of the class in most
    things.  Her class is also project based rather than the traditional
    lecture/practice based.  While I had some concerns about the mixture at
    first, I have turned around.  She is now at the point of progressing
    beyond many in certain areas and is reinforcing her basic skills and
    knowledge by helping with the others.  
    
    In my own experience, I find that teaching to others provides
    reinforcment and further understanding of topics for me.  I see this
    also in both my daughter as well as others who are at the same level. 
    I disagree with some who state that the gifted are held back when they
    work with the less gifted.  I truely believe that the basics and basis
    for future learning are strengthened.
    
    Dan

re .11:

Federal law (IDEA) requires the school system to provide a free and
appropriate education.  If the parents and the school system determine
that a one-on-one aide is needed, that's what the school system has to
provide.

>    Personally, I find this notion that "each child has his/her own aide"
>    to be an incredibly inefficient use of resources. Obviously, special
>    needs children need more resources per child than children without
>    special needs, but does it really A) have to be to this extent and B)
>    make sense to allocate our education resources this way? I don't
>    believe that it does. If you want that level of resource deployment,
>    you ought to have to pay (extra) for it. Quite frankly, I think it
>    would be "better" for each child to have a personal trainer than for a
>    whole class to have one gym teacher, but that doesn't mean it's
>    efficient or effective use of resources.

My wife is an aide for a severely handicapped / retarded student in the local
public school system.  If you combine my wife's salary and all the other
expenses to the school system, the cost to the district is still probably well
under $20K/year.  There is no possible way the student could be in school
without a presonal aide.  If they were not "mainstreamed", they would probably
have to be institutionalized -- what would the cost to the district of *that* be?

	-Neil

    Neil
    
    Institutional care for the severely retarded and/or autistic costs
    about the same as a prison inmate, about 40K/year + medical care.  
    
    Patty,
    
    Carrie was given about 30 minutes during other "seat work" for helping
    in another class, some days it has been longer.  Sometimes she does
    bring home work that could have been done during the seatwork time, but
    she generally whips through it, with the exception of long division,
    she hasn't quite caught on to the magic there, yet.  I expect it will
    come when she is allowed to use decimal points, instead of
    remainders or fractions.  (That's how it worked for me)  I think this
    has helped her in a better "work ethic" for her school work as well,
    too bad they didn't excercise this option with me :-)/2.  Life might
    have been easier for all involved.  Ir might be a good idea to talk to
    Jason's teacher about this.  Last year (4th grade) was not pleasant for
    Carrie, with a teacher who wanted her in the class all the time, but
    didn't come up with enough challenges for her and a few of her good
    friends.  They found ways to challenge themselves, with less than
    positive results.  In fairness it couldn't have been easy for the
    teacher either, when you have kids who are creative enough to find the
    edge of acceptable behavior without quite crossing the line.  (most
    days)  
    
    meg

While I am generally in favor of having such things as accelerated classes and
enrichment programs for talented students, I must agree with Dan in support of
students helping each other.  I concur that teaching someone else is one of the
best ways of solidifying your own knowledge.

One curriculum element in my daughter's elementary school is how to work
together as a team.  Sometimes the kids in the class go and read to kids in the
lower grades, sometimes they help other kids in the class, most often they work
together on projects.  There is training in the roles and responsibilities of
team members.  Given that most of us have to work together on teams very
frequently in our work lives, I consider this training and experience extremely
valuable.

My daughter and a couple of her friends had finished a project early sometime
last school year, and were given an assignment to write a book for a boy in the
class with some learning problems.  The result was extremely creative, well
done, some of their best work.  The group was very proud of their effort, and
the boy listed the book among his favorite books later in the year.

Just an example, but a good one I think, where mainstreaming was beneficial to
many.

						Brian

    
    I think my experience with inclusion in the elementary grades
    was not intolerable. However, as my daughter is in the middle
    school, where academics is more important than anything else 
    IMO, (as I assume she *has already learnt* about valuing difference
    in *5 years* of inclusion), inclusion is definitely holding 
    her back. Great, she is getting all A's with minimal efforts,
    but what does that mean to me? I would very much see her challenged
    and make B's, but that is not going to happen in this scheme as 
    the school considers getting the slower students up to par as the 
    highest priority. Like it or not, her SAT scores will suffer and
    it wouldn't make squat of a difference to the college admission if
    she has tutored other kids or relearnt over and over how to get
    along with other kids. If my daughter ever has the potential and
    desire to get into Harvard, MIT or Georgetown, but is held back because 
    of other kids in her class, I definitely will not be a happy camper. 
    As a result of this observation, we are looking into private high schools. 
    I am responsible for my own child's future, period. I will still 
    have to pay my MA taxes, of course ;-( ! 
    
    Eva

    >Have you ever known a child with severe autism?  They need their own
    >aide, and often the aide is the firs person such a child will respond
    >to.  
    
     If they really and truly require a full time personal aide, then find
    the money elsewhere. Don't siphon the money (solely) from the school
    budget. You are talking about a medical issue more than an educational
    issue.
    
    >Sorry for my support of inclusion, and having my kids actually learn
    >and also learn that others are different.  I guess I should put her in
    >a private school where the only challenges are books, math, and more
    >books and she won't be expected to interact with the same people she
    >will live with in the real world.
    
     Totally disingenuous. Your assertion that private schools do not teach
    those things, and implicit assertion that mainstreaming is the only
    means from point A to point B are without factual foundation. I don't
    suppose it's ever occurred to you that what works for you isn't the
    best solution for all other people at all other times in all other
    situations.

    
    I actually suspect that the bright kids whose parents cannot
    afford private schools are the ones paying dearly for this 
    inclusion scheme. In a sense, this scheme is contributing to
    the division of elites and under-educated classes. It makes
    it that much tougher to work oneself out of the ghettos, IMO.
    I don't think it takes 12 years to learn to get along with
    others, I'd be very happy if inclusion is only applied in
    the elemenatry school years. 
    
    
    Eva

    
    One of the things that I wonder about that I didn't see mentioned is - 
    does inclusion actually help the child with learning disabilities or 
    developmental challenges?   Or are we just on a plight to be "fair"?
    
    I try to volunteer in my son's first grade classroom about once a week
    and it is painfully obvious *to me* which students are way behind in
    their skills development.   My son has also commented that so-and-so
    can't read or can't spell (he's not being nasty - he usually brings
    this up when he's trying to negotiate with me to do less homework.)
    So, at least some of the kids *know*.   How do the remedial children 
    perceive themselves in the classroom - and how do we keep their
    self-esteem in the inclusion classroom?   If you don't "dumb down" 
    the learning process, I don't see how they can.   
    
    I don't think it's the gifted kids that stand the most to lose 
    however - I actually think it's kids in the middle.  Gifted 
    children typically have the drive and ambition both internally
    and in their home environment to strive for and maintain their
    excellence.  The middle and remedial kids work to a lower (not
    necessarily the lowest) common denominator.
    
    I do think that including physically-challenged children in the 
    classrooom is a big plus with no detriment to the academic 
    development of the classroom.  The kids readily see beyond the 
    physical disability to the person inside and I think that's a
    great benefit!  
    
    Just my two cents,
    
    Carol
     
       
          

    >I don't think it takes 12 years to learn to get along with
    >others, I'd be very happy if inclusion is only applied in
    >the elemenatry school years. 
    
     There's no reason not to mainstream for less academically oriented
    classes, such as music, art, etc. The advantage of this is that the
    children get to see that talents are distributed. When a child from a
    slower academic class demonstrates an aptitude in music or art, the
    kids can see that talent is not just about "smarts". This is beneficial
    because it is both humbling to the brighter students and a source of
    self-esteem and respect for the young artist, musician or athlete.

    re: .22
    
    I wouldn't be too concerned about developmental levels until the 2nd or
    3rd grade.  Children develop at different rates.  The first few grades
    will usually show the greatest variation in development.  This is for
    both academic and social development.
    
    In my own case, my son is older than most and much taller.  He's
    probably the least coordinated of the bunch when it comes to sports. 
    This is more because he's grown more quickly in size than he can
    handle.  This will even out over the next few years.  Even this year
    (2nd grade) is much better than last.  Academically he's a bit ahead of
    the others.
    
    Dan

As a parent of a soon to be 3 year old with Down's Syndrome, I have to admit
I've found this string to be somewhat disturbing.  In June, when he turns
3 he will be transitioning to a program where he will be playing(learning)
with both developmentally challenged and children with no developmental issues.  
We live in NH, and mainstreaming/inclusion are a natural progression from this
early environment.  From what I'm hearing, the inclusion experiences of parents
of both gifted and average abilities seem to be mostly negative in nature,
with a few exceptions.  I can't help but believe that if that is in fact
truly the case with the majority of inclusionary implementations, that
the developmentally challenged will of course suffer as well.  If the
parents of young students, feel their education is suffering due to inclusion,
then it's sure that attitude will come down through the students as well.
As such, it will more than likely stimulate prejudice rather than help
alleviate it.  I guess, I just thought we were getting closer to making 
mainstreaming a win-win situation.  But, it looks like we still have far to
go.  Can anyone out there with a "mainstreamed" child comment on whether
it's been positive or negative from your side of the equation ?  As with any
assistance program, it becomes the role of the parent in deciding what's 
best for their child.  I certainly don't want to be sending mine into a
Lion's Den of issues, but at the same time, want him to have the benefit of
experiencing as "normal" a childhood as possible

Sharon

    I have 4 kids...grades 1,2,3 and 4. Some are 'special needs', some
    are not.  One is VERY SMART (was reading very early, easily
    reads 5th or so grade books in 1st grade, easily grasps the
    subtle concepts of stories)...one can barely read and never
    has a clue as to what a story was about...one has serious
    organizational and 'attentional' issues....the other
    is an organization whiz (serious managerial ability/potential).

    Would I want the ones recieving special help walled off in a separate
    classroom?  NO WAY.  And I mean the smart ones as well as the
    others.  these kids are in class with their friends and specialists
    come in and observe and help small groups and they do a lot of stuff
    together and the classroom teacher provides some level of individual
    attention where its needed...for the smart ones and for the challenged
    ones.  My kid with attention issues has a real hard time writing, but
    when there's a class discussion on ANYTHING he clearly knows more than
    anyone in the room about whatever the subject is.  The workings of
    the locks of the canals in Venice?  Facts about Spiders?  Volcanos?
    He remembers everything he's ever heard or read or seen on TV.  and
    integrates it incredibly.  And he's special needs....

    This string bothers me too.  It's just discrimination based on
    your perception of your kids intelligence.  those with smart
    kids want them isolated from the rest.  those with 'normal' kids
    dont want them with 'those dummies'.

    fortunately, the kids dont see it that way.
    bob

    This string has bothered me as well. My daughter is only 2.5 years old
    now, but I hope that when she is in school, that she has a diverse set
    of classmates. 
    I think that schools should accomodate all children,
    not just those that are average and/or above average.
    And if a child has a disability and needs a special teachers aid, then
    so be it.  Give the kid whatever it takes so he or she can learn to best
    utilize her God given talents.
    And I hope that my daughter picks up on values that I think are
    important and that she will approach any and all kids regardless of 
    how smart they are or are not and view them as potential friends.
    My two cents,
    Nancy

re .25:
    I know 2 kids with Down's Syndrome in our school system.  One is in my
    son's 3rd grade clas (and was in his 2nd grade class last year as well).
    The other is the brother of a kindergarten classmate of my now-3rd grader.

    Inclusion has worked well for both these kids.  I've had some extended
    conversations with the second boy's mother (we tend to be waiting in the
    grade school lobby at the same time), and she definitely believes that
    inclusion is the best solution for her son.  My son likes having the first
    boy in his class, and I think it's been beneficial for him to see that
    this boy is limited in some ways, but quite capable in others.  He
    reminded David to bring home his violin one day, for example.  "He's
    got a better memory than I do, Mom!" said my son.

    Each boy has a full-time classroom aide, and they spend some amount of
    the day out of the classroom, either doing errands or doing stuff in
    the (tiny!) special needs room (physical therapy?  specialized academic
    material?  I'm not sure exactly what all).  These Down's Syndrome kids,
    and some other kids in the school with severe physical diabilities (can't
    walk unaided, have difficulty speaking, etc.) are well-known to all the
    students and staff, and seem to be universally loved.  I think everyone
    gains something by having them there, and I haven't seen any indication
    that their presence impedes the progress of the brightest kids.  (There
    are other factors that do have that effect, but I won't get started on
    that here.)
    
		cheryl

    >It's just discrimination based on your perception of your kids
    >intelligence.  those with smart kids want them isolated from the rest. 
    >those with 'normal' kids dont want them with 'those dummies'.
    
     Surely you can't believe this is an accurate synopsis of those whose
    opinions disagree with your own. Not to mention the fact that tossing
    the word discrimination around so indiscriminately cheapens the word
    and dilutes its meaning so when there really is discrimination the
    label has lost its impact.
    
     The last few notes seem to have ignored or forgotten the fact that
    there is a larger picture to consider. There is a fundamental reason
    why education is important not only to those being educated, but also
    to the country at large. It's no longer good enough to be barely more
    than functionally illiterate. We have entered a global economy, which
    means that our workers are no longer competing with workers across the
    state lines, they are now competing with workers from across the globe.
    As consumers, we think nothing of buying the product that presents the
    most efficacious compromise between quality, functionality and price no
    matter who produced it. That's the modern paradigm in which we as
    consumers operate. The flip side of that, of course, is that that is
    also the paradigm we as workers must operate in. The talk of "the
    global economy" is not just smoke. It's a very real issue, and one
    which certain industries have discovered more than others; it's why we
    have a "rust belt." So when we talk about education, we do have to keep
    in mind the fact that educating children is more than an academic
    exercise, it vital to our long term economic health and future standard
    of living.
    
     So when those of us who understand the relationship between education
    and the economy posit that we are not doing enough to prepare our
    children to face the increasingly difficult task of competing in the
    global marketplace, don't misinterpret that as merely "wanting to keep
    normal kids away from those dummies." That's a hugely insulting spin,
    not to mention contradicted by what has actually been written. The
    simple fact is that our children don't compare favorably to the
    children of other nations when tested head to head on basic subjects,
    and this is slowly translating into the business world. Like it or not,
    there is a relationship between this and things like company layoffs
    and outsourcing and moving jobs abroad.
    
     It is also a fact that we as a nation have finite resources with which
    to educate our children. Every other government program from defense to
    social security to medicare to congressional pensions to the FBI
    competes with education for federal funds. And a similar battle is
    waged over state and local funds. At some point we need to stop viewing
    education as an open ended, unquantified experiment and start measuring
    what we are getting for the resources we are committing. Furthermore,
    we need to assess where we need to be and create a plan to get us
    there, ever mindful of the restrictions that budgets and finite
    resources bring to bear. 
    
     It's very clear to just about anyone who honestly assesses the
    situation that our current education system falls far short of the
    mark. The current system allocates resources disproportionately at the
    low end, inadequately addresses the middle of the curve, and completely
    ignores its responsibility towards the upper end of the curve. This
    isn't about making the gifted kids rich at the expense of the others,
    it's about preparing ALL of our children for their roles in the global
    economy to the very best of our ability.
    
     Like I already said, inclusion is fine for non-academic subjects and
    those in which academic aptitude does not unduly impede the ability to
    bring the whole class along at a reasonable and consistent pace.
    Because everyone's talents are different, it is important that the
    smart kids see that the not so smart kids have talents and that the
    kids with other talents see that the academically gifted kids struggle
    at certain things, too. It's important to promote social interaction
    between all children, developmentally disabled, gifted, those with
    physical challenges and those that are simply average. But not to the
    exclusion of a full and proper education for students of all abilities.
    That should be the number one priority.
    
     The Doctah

    
    Heard on the news yesterday - in Mass the "organization" of school
    superintendents have problems with the current inclusion scheme.
    Their concern? Too much of the school budgets are going into special
    eds, I think the average figures are $4K+ per student with special 
    needs and $3K+ per student without special needs. Their conclusion?
    They do not have enough money to raise the standards of education 
    for the normal students, which isn't that great except in the wealthy
    suburbs and the exempt schools. Now, whether the facts are really
    as heard, I don't know, but there seems to be some issues here. 
    
    Now, I think how each parent feel about their situation depends on
    what he/she expect of his/her kid and of the public school system If 
    a parent thinks that getting an average education is fine, then 
    inclusion may not be a problem for him/her. If a parent thinks that 
    his/her kid is capable of entering Harvard or MIT on a scholarship, 
    then inclusion as is may be a big problem, it can make or break the 
    scholarship dream! 
    
    I think as children grow, their needs change with time. I think 
    inclusion is beneficial to all in the elementary years. I think
    starting in the middle school, academics is the most important
    issue if one plans on getting into a top college. If we look at
    the curriculum of the top private schools, we'll notice the emphasis.
    Now, of course, not everyone plans on sending their children to
    Georgetown or Harvard. However, does it mean that for those kids
    who have such potentials, they are not as important as the special
    needs children? I think there should be grouping in most of the
    academic subjects in the middle school and up, and inclusion for the
    arts, music, etc.
                                                    
     
    Eva

    
    Mark, a great note.
    
    To add to the economics and global market sides, the US economy 
    is anticipated to be service based in the future, which means that 
    the majority of jobs available will be service sector jobs, not 
    manufacturing, not engineering, but services. I, for one, do not 
    like the sound of it. Now, we can see this trend in action already 
    as more and more engineering jobs are moved offshore to countries 
    like India (yup, you got it, India, where there are plenty of well 
    educated engineers, who do not mind doing maintenance level work!). 
    There  are also migrant Indian engineers in the US, going from 
    contract to contract, after the gig they go home to their families 
    in India. What is wrong with this picture?! We are giving away our
    technology and our competitive edge. Our students are still lagging
    their Asian and European counterparts in the academics in all grades.
    THe US still has the best post secondary educations in the world,
    but one has to get into a college first!!! Being an average US student 
    means being a below average international student. So, how in the world
    can our children make a decent living when their time comes? We've
    already lost the paasenger car edge to the Japanese, we've already
    lost the low end electronics edge to the Japanese, we've lost most
    of the apparel, electronics, toys manufacturing to the Asians, Central
    and South Amercians, so what do we think our kids will do for a
    living if we don't try to push for better education for all, especially
    in math and science - areas where growth/inventions/progress can
    generate lots of better paid jobs and areas where we can hope to 
    maintain the edge.
    
    
     
    Eva

    
    And oh, one more thing, our kids will eventually be the ones
    responsible for our nations defense capability (read building those
    fighter jets and missiles and pay for them, no, it is not a happy 
    thought, but a crude reality), pay for our social security (if
    any $ is left), pay for the huge and ever growing interest on the 
    borrowed money (balanced budget, what's that?)...Wow, I better
    stop here before I can depressed thinking about it...As a parent,
    I certainly would try my very best to get the best education for
    my daughter, as *it will make her entire life much easier*. Am I
    too selfish or prejudice to do so? Don't all parents want their
    kid to have a decent life? 
    
    
    Eva  

>    Heard on the news yesterday - in Mass the "organization" of school
>    superintendents have problems with the current inclusion scheme.

I believe you mis-heard this...Their concern  is that regular ed kids
are getting short changed because too many Ed Reform $$ are getting
spent on Special Ed.  Their report said nothing about inclusion.

>    Their concern? Too much of the school budgets are going into special
>    eds, I think the average figures are $4K+ per student with special 
>    needs and $3K+ per student without special needs. 

It was much worse than that....from 1990 to 1995, statewide spending on
special ed increased an average of $4K per special ed student.  Spending
on regular ed kids went up only $305 per student.

Their request was that the costs of special ed be factored more strongly
into the Ed Reform funding formulas that drive how the state divides
up its school funding.

Some other interesting things in the article...the number of
kids in special ed has not gone up, and has gone down in many schools.
But the special ed kids are more disabled than in the past.  also, the
numbers of preshool children and foster care children needing
special services are on the rise.  Among possible causes for the
increase, more families living in  poverty, causing more child
abuse, drug use, and alcoholism.
bob

Did anyone see the news on TV last night (my son says it was channel 4, but
it may not have been) - a little girl in my son's class was supposed to have
been reading "Green eggs and ham" on the news. This girl is an "included" 
child and I have been meaning to write in this string for a while...

She has been with my son since kindergarten, there's always been a special
assistant in the class to help her. This assistant helps out in the class
in general when Morgan doesn't need help, so the class has a better student-
teacher ratio most of the time. The kids in the class like Morgan, help her
out, laugh with her when she thinks something is funny. I think my son is
a better person because of having Morgan around. He is one of the "bright"
students in class and his education has not suffered due to Morgan. He tells
me that Morgan can read now, and also write letters. This is 4th grade, and
most other kids are doing projects, book reports and division, no one else
is being held back because of her. 

Just my perspective as an individual: I am glad that Morgan is in my son's
class, and happy with the way things are going in his class. So is he.

-Pradnya-

    
    Thanks Bob for the correction.
    
    
    Eva

>It was much worse than that....from 1990 to 1995, statewide spending on
>special ed increased an average of $4K per special ed student.  Spending
>on regular ed kids went up only $305 per student.

I wonder how much of this is simply due to the lower student-teacher ratio
that special ed students have.

    
    Inclusion is working for us.  ALL class's should have low
    student teacher ratios.   Then the teacher can take the time to 
    make sure each student is working to their personal best.
    
    I know a lot of really bright people who could use some time
    learning to work with people of different abilities (adults).  
    
             Teri

    
    My husband teaches special ed kids with learning disabilities in
    a high school.  He says that the problem with inclusion in a
    high school is that a lot of special ed kids have serious behavior
    problems and are very disruptive in the classroom.  He says that
    this is a big deterrent to learning.  These are not the kids with
    Downs syndrome or autism or physical handicaps but the kids that fall 
    under the learning disabilities category.
    
    ...................beth

>                    He says that the problem with inclusion in a
>    high school is that a lot of special ed kids have serious behavior
>    problems and are very disruptive in the classroom.  He says that
>    this is a big deterrent to learning.  These are not the kids with
>    Downs syndrome or autism or physical handicaps but the kids that fall 
>    under the learning disabilities category.

Sounds more like ED (emotionally disturbed) than LD (learning disabled).

The following is being posted for a member of the PARENTING notesfile
community who prefers to remain anonymous at this time.  If you wish
to contact the author by mail, please send your message to me and I will
forward it to the anonymous noter.  Your message will be forwarded with
your name attached unless you request otherwise.

      Carol duBois, PARENTING Co-moderator

**************************************************************

	I am the proud parent of a "special needs" child who attends 
kindergarten.  I would like to offer the other side for a moment.  
Before we had children we always thought, if the local school isn't adequate,
we can always send our kids to private school where somehow we thought 
the "real" learning went on.  Well, things didn't go that way for us.

	We cannot choose a school for our child based solely on academic 
programs because the people who have the skills to help the problems 
we can't, work predominately for the school districts.  Besides, managed 
care health organizations will not pay for services that they believe should 
be rendered by the school districts (see the double-edge here?).  Even if the 
services were available to us independently (we have been able to find some
on occasion) they charge 3 times more than they recover from the school
districts leaving us to decide between no services or very limited services
(really, how long could you pay 130/hr for at least 2 hours per week?).

My child is bright and more advanced in most areas ('top' reading group) 
than the others in the class mainly due to our effort at home.  I find it 
frustrating that my child may not be challenged by the academic experience 
as much as by the attitudes of parents of the children s/he goes to school 
with.  My child has so much to teach those other "normal" or "great achievers"
and it isn't all valuing differences.  S/He could teach your children 
geography (an strong interest of my child's), or something as easy as tying 
their shoes which we have been doing since the age of 3.

We are trying our best to ease our child into the elementary school years by
working hard at home and with the schools not just for our child, but for
others too -- handicapped or not!  Money doesn't buy a excellent education,
parental involvement goes a long way to help teachers, students and parents 
combined.   

    	I think we are beginning to see some backlash from
    the "silent minority" who really want their children to
    be "fully challenged".  They are no longer accepting
    public education as a reasonable alternative for their
    children.  There are at least 3 major alternatives which
    are gaining in popularity:
    
    	1. Traditional private/parochial schools
    
    	2. Home schooling
    
    	3. Magnet/specialized public schools, especially those
    with special criteria for admission
    
    I would say that the first appeals to those with
    either plenty of cash OR with a notably talented child who
    can attract scholarship money.
    
    The second is for those who want complete control over the
    education process AND can afford both the time and lost wages.
    
    The third is for those who feel they cannot afford either
    of the first two, but want the advantages which a selective
    school can offer.
    
    	Notice that ALL of these tend to skim off some of the
    brightest and best from our public school system.  And if
    you have been around any of the new magnet/specialized
    school openings, you should know that they are rarely
    welcomed by the public school administration and/or teachers'
    organizations (for a whole host of reasons).
    
    	My point, however, is that there are more and more
    alternatives being used by those with the financial
    ability to pay or the time to devote to their children.  You
    are witnessing the not so gradual exodus from not just the
    inner city ghetto schools, but from MANY of the mainstream
    public schools.  Having had a number of relatives who taught
    in public schools, it's not a big secret to me why so many parents
    want more than these schools can offer.  The deterioration
    of standards over the past 20 years is appalling.  While not
    entirely due to "inclusion", this is a contributing factor.
    
    	For many their first big shock is that their little Johnny
    cannot get into his first (or second) choice college.  Strange,
    there seem to be lots of foreign students and kids from private
    schools and some who had home schooling going there.  Such
    systems have a way of adjusting to circumstances.  This
    adjustment is happening - and while there are still some
    public schools sending kids to Harvard and MIT, they are
    becoming rarer.
    
    	As with most things, you get what you pay for.  You
    want public transportation, fine, but it may be late and
    may not run on weekends.  You want a cadillac, you need to
    pay for it... one way or another.  You want an excellent public
    education, start with lots of money, group by ability, impose
    tough standards, demand excellence.  Keep classes small.  Fire
    teachers who cannot keep all the students fully challenged.
    And if you think that all this is possible in a public school,
    then I want to know where it is happening (within the US).
    What you are more likely to find is schools where the teachers
    are willing to speak out AGAINST a gifted and talented program
    (which happened to us).  You cannot imagine the taste that
    left - and this was several years ago.  Or a town which refuses
    to spend any more money, despite growing class size.  Or the
    elimination of music, art, sports.  Or not offering advanced
    placement classes (too few students).  Ah, the excuses are
    legion.  Where, oh where, are the administrators who DEMAND
    more money for education, who insist on regular, stringent
    testing, who force down class sizes?  Who use test scores
    to eliminate less effective teachers?  They are probably like
    many of us, just tired of fighting these losing battles.
    
    	In case you are wondering, yes, we eventually voted with
    our feet and with our pocketbook.  Not a single regret.  There
    is a time to fight and a time to run away.
    
    	For those of you still pondering the mysteries of all your
    choices, I simply ask the following, "Is this school the very
    best choice for your children?".  If your answer is no for ANY
    reason, I'd suggest you might want to take action before time
    passes your children by.
    
    Cheers!
    Dave Eklund

>       <<< Note 1243.41 by TLE::EKLUND "Always smiling on the inside!" >>>
>            -< If you think education is expensive, try ignorance >-

    I dont disagree with much of what you say...to me it all comes
    down to money.  Teachers get paid pretty poorly, similar for
    principals and superintendents.  Being superintendent is a VERY
    tough job and the pay is a fraction of what a similar level manger
    would make at DEC.  the good ones dont stay in one place for long
    and move on to schools that pay better.  Or they move up into
    state level administration or a larger field.  And the 'not so good'
    ones tend to just ride along.

    The good teachers I know do it only for love.  Private school
    teachers are often paid as poorly or worse than public school
    but the working conditions are a lot better...smaller class
    sizes, a limited number of behaviour problems, etc.

    Here in Mass we have other ways to skim off some of the brightest
    and best...and to allow them to take their funding along with them.
    The state has now set up alternative schools, so our town has to
    pay (a lot more than our average per student rate) to send
    kids to the local 'dance based' alternative school.

    So, yep you can walk with your feet.  Or you can be extremely
    active in your public school.  Its possible to make change, for
    your kids and the rest.  When no one is in there stirring the pot,
    the schools can get pretty complacent.  I dont see just walking away
    as doing anything to create change in public education.
    bob

    Or,
    
    along with your mediocre to excellent public school education you can
    take some responsibility for your kids, in and out of the school to
    keep them challenged.  This includes being involved in the PTO, working
    with your kids or even others in adult tutoring/mentorship groups,
    working with your own kids on stuff outside of the schools, being
    involved in other enrichment programs.  
    
    Knowing people whose special children get this and more because of
    dedicated parents, I still find it hard to believe that people with
    average or above average students don't work at least as hard to give
    their kids the best they can offer and help their kids to be the best.  
    
    meg

    
    I would like to hear more from parents with children entering or in
    college on this topic. As inclusion is really an big EXPERIMENT on our
    children, it is interesting to find out some of real life results.
    As .41 pointed out, the first reality check for some parents is that 
    their bright public schools educated offsrings get rejections from
    the top colleges. From what I've heard, please correct me, since
    Amherst, NH went inclusive, the SAT scores are showing a decline and
    even some of top students are not getting into their colleges of choice.
    
    I don't disagree that children and adults need to learn to get along,
    but how far do we have to go and what are we willing to tradeoff for
    it? There is also a big ASSUMPTION, if not right out BIAS, here that
    grouping do not teach kids to value differences AND that bright children
    do not know how to get along with other children. I don't think anyone
    in here is saying that we should not value children of all kinds. I
    think this has turned into an emotional discussion. It is becoming more 
    apparent to me what my own child is supposed to get out of an inclusive
    school system. And I am afraid to say that I am not happy about it.
    This discussion has helped me make up my mind about private high
    school, as there is only so much I and my husband can provide in extra
    enrichment at home. Ok, I guess I'll stay employed for a long time
    to come to pay the MA taxes as well as private school, what a wonderful
    thought ;-8. 
    
    
    Eva

    Eva,
    
    My oldest just graduated from college and was in mainstreamed schools
    from 1st grade on.  She was accepted to several private colleges, as
    well as all the stte colleges she applied to and settled on Sterling
    College in VT with a half-ride scholarship for two years.  After that
    she finished her degree in Natural Resource Management and Conservation
    Biology at CSU in December.  She was in advanced placement English,
    math and science, in HS, despite having gone to inner-city schools
    where the number of kids/teacher was less than ideal, and in classes
    with some seriously disabled kids.  She is taking ssome time off to
    decide on whether to start grad school, or whether to go on with with
    life with her BS.  
    
    Valerie, her best friend, graduated from BU last year, Maya will
    graduate from Grinnell in June, Michelle graduated from Stamford with a
    4.0 and is working as an engineer for a medical supply company that
    makes the instruments for Lap's, EGD's and colonoscopies.  Patty is at
    CSU, having graduated from the pre-med course and is currently working
    on her degree in Veternary Medicine.  Amy is in school at UNM, after
    taking a year or two off to think about her future, and is working on a
    degree in Social work.  They are all products of the same public school
    system, and in the case of Maya, Amy, Val and Lolita, the same
    elementary, JH, and HS.  The other two came from different schools into
    the JH or HS.  What I believe made the difference for these kids that I
    know was the value placed on education by at least one parent (Lolita,
    Amy and Valerie all came from "broken homes"), assistance offered when
    homework bogged down, involvement in the schools, and of course a
    natural bent for academics.  Until HS, I was on a first-name basis with
    all of Lolita's teachers, they knew I was concerned with her education,
    and willing to work with them to keep her challenged.  I know that
    Maya's and Valerie's parents were similarly involved.  Chuck was head
    of the PTO for 10 years at the local ES until his youngest moved on. 
    The girls were encouraged in sports, as well as music, art or wherever
    their individual talents lay outside of academics.  
    
    Am I proud of my daughter and her friends?  You Betcha!  I am hoping
    the same input on Carrie, and later Atlehi will also offer the same
    stellar performance that their big sister and her friends have done. 
    So far it seems to be working with Carrie, and Atlehi wants words
    traced out while we read to her.  
    
    My opinion is still that it isn't the classroom, the other kids in it,
    or the "quality" of the neighborhood.  It is interest in one's own kids
    and maybe even in others' children who need that little boost too.  
    
    meg

    >I dont disagree with much of what you say...to me it all comes
    >down to money.  Teachers get paid pretty poorly, 
    
    >Private school teachers are often paid as poorly or worse than public
    >school
    
     Seems to me that these statements are contradictory. It's not "all
    about money". Money is a part of the story, but far from the whole
    story.
    
     Personally, I think the claim that teachers are compensated poorly is
    overblown and is more a statement of philosophy and/or politics than a
    statement of fact. Lots of teachers are making in excess of $40k per
    year. That's not chicken feed, particularly for the equivalent of 10
    months of work including 4+ weeks of time off.
    
    >So, yep you can walk with your feet.  Or you can be extremely
    >active in your public school.
    
     We tried being active first. That didn't have the desired results. So
    we ponied up to pay for a private school. It cuts deep. It's an expense
    I really wish we didn't have right now. But it's worth the financial
    sacrifice. And we're spending even more time working with our daughter
    now than we did before (which even then was considerable.) Trying to
    instill the sort of work ethic needed to succeed in the private school
    (and college and real life) is very difficult. She'd been at the head
    of her class with practically no real effort at the public school. Now
    she has to work to be "in the pack." It's a real culture shock for her.
    
    >When no one is in there stirring the pot, the schools can get pretty
    >complacent.  
    
     Even with the pot being stirred, they know there's little in the way
    of real competition or motivation to perform. It's not like everyone
    could go to private school, even if they could all afford it. For the
    vast majority, they are the only game in town. And they take full
    advantage of their virtual monopoly to underachieve. And they resist
    every effort to make them accountable or create healthy competition
    where schools that don't perform will lose students to those that do.
    So long as this continues to be the situation, public schools in this
    country will continue to languish, and our children with them.
    
    >I dont see just walking away as doing anything to create change in
    >public education.
    
     Ah, but it does. The more students that walk away, the greater the
    demand for private schools. With more demand comes more private
    schools. For every student that goes to private school, there is less
    of a burden on the public schools- in effect, more money available per
    student. This, according to teachers and administrators, is what they
    most need: more money per student. But the private sector cannot
    provide education for everyone. There is still, essentially, a
    monopoly, a captive audience, for public schools. Until real
    competition is instituted with charter schools, vouchers, etc, there
    will be little if any improvement. Parent participation is insufficient
    to overcome the structural barriers to effective schooling. The system
    is quite broken. Despite requiring an ever increasing amount of
    resources, it is providing an ever decreasing return on investment.
    Wise investors learn not to get married to a stock, not to throw good
    money after bad. It's time that the populace become wiser investors.
    

    
    Meg,
    
    	I think we have done quite a bit to challenge our daughter
    at home. I basically taught her to how read and write, to do math
    way before the teachers did. I start my weekdays really early so
    that I can get done at work by mid afternoon so that I can bring
    her to all these activities. We've done gymnastics, dance, foreign
    language, guitar, drawing, tennis, skiing...Then, she is Odessey
    of the Mind, more driving; then she is a competeive dance troupe,
    even more driving. We have a computer, access to the internet, 
    encyclopedia on CD, Discover/National Geographic magazine, Wall 
    Street Journal/Boston GLobal/town paper, science references, world 
    maps, computer books/technical journals/foreign cultural reference/etc, 
    you name it - I am an info junky myself. Thank goondess that my 
    sister doesn't have children and like to spend $ on my daughter! 
    Thanks goodness my parents splurge on her too. (Maybe they'll pay for
    private high school as well!) We also bring our daughter with us where 
    we go on vacation, so that she could experience foreign cultures, 
    tropical underwater world, the glaciers, the Mayan ruins, etc.  
       
    	I used to be a volunteer in the elementary school computer lab
    as I don't bake cookies well! But during the middle school orientation,
    the principal outrigt told us parents that the children would not
    appreciate our presense in the school. Well, so much for that...
    
    	Yeah, I can stay involved, but when my daughter gets A's all the
    time, something isn't quite right...it says to be she is being pushed
    all the way. Worse off, some of her bright friends got picked on for
    being smart and that isn't a good learning environment. And yup, I am 
    trying to teach her French myself this summer, maybe algrebra also, 
    maybe organic chemistry, too??? I don't know.       
    	
    
    Eva
                                                                    

    Ive read through this topic with interest.  My son started school last
    year - he has a child in his class with behavioural problems (I dont
    like the "emotionally disturbed" label) and also learning difficulties.
    
    Initially I had a problem with this,  several of the parents, including
    myself were concerned that his needs would overwhelm the rest of the
    children and harm their own progress.  However, there is a tutorial
    assistant in the class, and we were invited to go along and watch for a
    while.  I was impressed.  There didnt seem to be any particular length
    of time spent with one child more than another, and you could see,
    purely by the looks on their faces that they WERE being challenged.
    
    Everyone likes to think that their child is particularly bright - they
    did this earlier than such and such and they did that earlier than such
    and such, but EVERY child has something that they cant quite grasp as
    fast as the next child.  Even gifted children do.
    
    If you dont make it an emotional arguement, you make it a financial one
    and who is  powered with the decision to decide which one is right?
    
    As noted earlier, everyone wants whats best for their own child.  I,
    myself, was pushed extremely hard through school by my parents and I
    came out with some quite good results, but I totally and utterly
    resented it.  When the novelty of school and learning wears off a
    child, and I believe it does quite early on, then you are on a hiding
    to nothing.
    
    You want to be proud of your children, sure, everyone does - but are
    you giving them the best chance or are you trying to make them into
    something they may not want to be?
    
    I think we tend to take it for granted that our children are going to
    be ambitious career-minded people, but not all of them will be, and
    what you want for your child, may not necessarily be whats good for
    them, or more importantly, what THEY want.
    
    
    After all - human beings have a need to be accepted by society and
    "grading" children - for want of a better word - only teaches them how
    to behave into adult life.
    
    I want my son to be happy from within.  I want him to be happy in
    school, I want him to do with his life what he feels is best for him. 
    You can only guide them as children, you cant pull them in one
    direction and say you ARE going this way.
    
    I dont have any answers, I speak only from a recent experience and also
    my own feelings through education.
    
    I believe that everyone is entitled to the same chance.
    
    They should be treated equally.  And I believe that means educated
    equally and together so that they may live in harmony in their
    adult-life.   

    >If you dont make it an emotional arguement, you make it a financial one
    
     This is a false dichotomy. I see you leave no room for an argument
    based on the best interest of the students, nor any educationally based
    argument. This is an arbitrary line drawn in the sand, and drawn in
    such a way as to eliminate anticipated counter arguments that might be
    difficult for you to defuse through the force of logic.
    
    >You want to be proud of your children, sure, everyone does - but are
    >you giving them the best chance or are you trying to make them into
    >something they may not want to be?
    
    >I think we tend to take it for granted that our children are going to
    >be ambitious career-minded people, but not all of them will be, and
    >what you want for your child, may not necessarily be whats good for
    >them, or more importantly, what THEY want.
    
     I guess it comes down to how much value you put in education. Children
    are frequently like electrons, seeking the path of least resistance.
    Given a choice, most children would just as soon not go to school at
    all, or at least not have to work while they are there. If your son
    tells you that school is not important, he doesn't like it, and he
    doesn't care if he gets As or Fs, are you as a parent going to simply
    abide by what HE wants?
    
    >I believe that everyone is entitled to the same chance.
    
    >They should be treated equally.  And I believe that means educated
    >equally
    
     So you feel that the preferential treatment afforded LD children is
    wrong? Or does your idea of "equal" mean that gifted children are
    ignored, the average kids are sloughed off, and the mentally impaired
    kids are statutorily guaranteed a disproportionately large portion of
    resrouces?

Re: .49

You jump on .48 by saying it isn't a choice between an emotional and a
financial argument, and then you proceed to present an emotional argument about
division of financial resources.  Funny, I didn't find .48 so offensive.

>>     I guess it comes down to how much value you put in education.

We *****************ALL************************** put a lot of value on
education.  I don't think there is a single person in this discussion who would
say that they do not value education.  How you choose to express the value you
put on education may differ, or what constitutes education may differ, or what
type of education may differ, but we all value education as a principle. 
Please don't start saying that the other parties in the discussion don't value
education.

Some of us do not subscribe to the idea that having LD children and special
assistants in the classroom detracts from the educational process.  Can you
understand that?  Some of us have confidence, either in concept or from direct
experience, in the ability of teachers to handle groups of varying abilities in
various subjects in a reasonable manner.  You may disagree, that's OK.

I would like to see talented kids challenged in whatever areas they are
talented.  I think this is exceedingly important.  I think it may require
grouping kids by ability at certain times for certain things (the important
ones, like music and art).  But I also think teachers have to deal with a
variety of abilities all the time anyway, regardless of any other programs in
place, so I don't personally have a problem with the inclusion concept.  Can
you see that it isn't a black-and-white divide between inclusion and gifted
programs?  I think they can be in place at the same time, with the same kids.
You may disagree, that's OK.  Can you at least see some room for discussion or
compromise in the issue?

>>     So you feel that the preferential treatment afforded LD children is
>>    wrong? Or does your idea of "equal" mean that gifted children are
>>    ignored, the average kids are sloughed off, and the mentally impaired
>>    kids are statutorily guaranteed a disproportionately large portion of
>>    resrouces?

This looks like a financial argument.  What would you say if the LD kids were
given what they need, the non-LD kids were given what they need, the talented
kids were given what they need, everybody had special attention when they
needed, the kids were together a good portion of the day when special attention
was not needed (whatever portion of the day that might be), and everybody was
getting a good education, but the LD kids got more total monetary value
resources than the non-LD kids?  Would you have a problem with the division, or
would you be satisfied with the level of education?

Some of us have seen inclusion and are happy with it.  Some of us have seen it
and are not happy with it.  They're all correct.  Please stop trying to tell
people they can't believe what they see.

						Brian

I originally had a long reply in here, but I deleted it.  (I am replacing it
with another long reply!)

.49 really bothers me, but then again the whole tenor of the discussion bothers
me.  The original note was asking about the concept of inclusion and how it was
working out, and the topic has grown to a discussion of private versus public
schools, tracking, grouping by ability, public school funding, commitment of
society toward educating its children, and whatever else might get thrown in. 
Along with the expansion of the discussion has come a lot of anger and
accusations, which I don't think are warranted.

For an example (there are plenty of others, this is just the most recent):

.49>     I guess it comes down to how much value you put in education.

Why say this?  Does anybody honestly think that anybody else participating in
this discussion does not place an extremely high value on education?  Can't we
understand that we all agree on this, and disagree on implementation or
priorities?

.49>    >They should be treated equally.  And I believe that means educated
.49>    >equally
.49>    
.49>     So you feel that the preferential treatment afforded LD children is
.49>    wrong? Or does your idea of "equal" mean that gifted children are
.49>    ignored, the average kids are sloughed off, and the mentally impaired
.49>    kids are statutorily guaranteed a disproportionately large portion of
.49>    resrouces?

Deliberate misunderstanding of the original statement, plus an insult.  Why? 
Is it so terrible to try and state simply that "kids should be treated
equally"?  Can't you make your point without implying malice on the part of the
other person?

There are lots of things inclusion is, but some things it is not:
 - It is not a replacement for gifted/talented programs.  In principle, why
   can't both exist?
 - It does not suddenly require that teachers have to deal with a variety of
   abilities in the classroom.  They have to do that anyway; not all kids are
   at the same level in everything.
 - It is not a requirement that all kids have to be together for all subjects.
 - It is not preferential treatment for mentally impaired children.  The
   funding pie is never divided exactly equally.  It is a support program
   like many others.
 - It is not a guarantee that classrooms will be diverse in any meaningful
   way.

Yes, there are questions that arise in view of limited budgets, and questions
about how teachers function with inclusion, and questions about how the
educational process works with inclusion in place.  Can't we discuss these
issues without implying that those who disagree with us are misguided, evil,
selfish, stupid, or naive?

						Brian

    
    When I start talking about my daughters inclusion class I realize that
    the issue's are the same for any classroom.    Smaller the class the
    better, a good teacher, a good mix of children, good supplies, good 
    curriculum, etc .etc.   
    
    The issues are usually just a little more extreme.   There is one boy
    who is very violent and has to leave at times.  I don't think it would
    be appropriate to say why but it shocked me at first.     Then again 
    my friends daughter in the "regular" class across the hall .. she was bit by
    another student.  (I secretly hope they don't switch her to us) 
    
    I think getting a good teacher is more important than worrying about 
    inclusion versus not (1st grade anyways).   Now I just watch to make 
    sure our class size doesn't get too big.   A good overwelmed teacher 
    can't work well either.     You should sit in on a class
    (next years) at the end of this years to get a feel for the teacher. 
    Also talk to people who have been there before.  
              
    I can't say if I'd go for inclusion later on because I haven't been
    there done that yet.  
    
    Teri

.49>     I guess it comes down to how much value you put in education.

>Why say this?  Does anybody honestly think that anybody else participating in
>this discussion does not place an extremely high value on education?  
    
     It seems patently obvious to me that people disagree on what an
    education entails, and what deserves emphasis, and what merits
    resources. That is part of the substance which we are discussing.
    There is disagreement over what is education and what is socialization.
    Some people focus on the academics; some people focus on the
    socialization; some consider a mixture of the two to be what
    constitutes and education, and even within the latter category there
    are few people who totally agree on exactly which proportions achieve
    the correct balance.
    
    >Is it so terrible to try and state simply that "kids should be treated
    >equally"?  
    
     Of course it's not terrible. The question then becomes "what is equal
    treatment?" And that's a substantive point, too. It's all well and good
    to wax philosophical about equality and fairness, but at the end of the
    day it is necessary to speak about the implementation details and
    practicality of putting walk to the talk. That's where the rubber meets
    the road. Do you really think that anybody is going to stand up and say
    "I'm for inequity in education"? Everybody talks about "equality" but
    since we are clearly not all talking about the same thing we need to
    define just what equality really means. Do you disagree?
    
    

>.50 Brian, thank-you for your response.  Had I realized the emotional debate
>    my questions would have elicited, I probably wouldn't have posted my
>    note.

That said, I will only briefly comment on what I think I've learned from the
responses thus far ...

1.) I think the program of Inclusion is becoming a scapegoat for the general
    displeasure of the overall quality of public schooling in this country.
    While I do agree that it could very well be one of the negative factors
    if not implemented well. I also feel, that with a modest amount of
    involvement between state and local officials and school teachers, 
    administrators and parents it could become a positive factor.  If things
    are wrong let's fix them not throw them away.

2.) I'm of the philosophy that the end does not justify the means in all
    cases.  If we as a country loose a little in the world order race, but
    in the process help those who are physically/emotionally/intellectually
    challenged increase their potential for becoming contributing members
    of society, then I'd say we'd WON.  I know that is my belief, however,
    and it is not shared by all.  I also know that others will not change
    my belief, nor will I try to change theirs.

3.) I have heard a few stories that have been positive, and I think it does
    prove that it can work if the conditions are right.  My initial
    "disturbance" was that my gut feel ( without any facts to back it up ) was
    that there had already been much improvement in conditions prior to now.
    I can see now, that there is probably still much work to be done, and
    a high level of investment I'll need to make when my son enters the
    arena.  I'll need to be better prepared, but at least I have some time
    on my side for a change.

Thanks to all who have responded.  As with all learning there is growth, and
I have grown with the knowledge I have gained here.  

Sharon

    >>.49
    
    Your note was totally insulting to me - but I bet you'll say it wasnt
    intended to be and if I cant have a debate without being offended why
    bother at all?
    
    I STRONGLY believe in my childs future in education, but it wasnt my
    particular child I was talking about - all I did was reference a recent
    experience I had and applied it to the arguement.  I didnt enter the
    note to try and prove the arguement right or wrong either way.
    
    All I did was have my views aired.
    
    Just like you have been doing.
    
    Pleasure to be noting with such a 2/3 tier person.
    
    Deb

    >Your note was totally insulting to me 
    
     Well I just reread it to see what was the cause of all the ulcers, and
    it still doesn't seem that there's anything in there to be "insulted"
    over. Or am I not allowed to ask pointed questions? For example: you
    made a point about not every kid having a desire to excel academically,
    and I in turn brought up the issue of children typically not finding
    value in studying and exerting effort for school, and if you thought
    that leaving kids to their own devices was an especially good idea. You
    seemed to imply it was. I have a sharply differing opinion,
    particularly after having seen what happens when kids are given lots of
    latitude. I have two daughters in their early twenties who resisted all
    attempts to get them educated, and their mother and I didn't push it
    until it was too late as their study habits were already established.
    To talk to them, they never had any homework. They graduated with
    unimpressive grades. Both thought that working would be better than
    school because they'd get money for doing something they'd really
    rather not do. One had a year of college before deciding she'd rather
    be with her boyfriend than in school. Both now regret not having been
    serious about being students in high school. One is now taking night
    classes. Both are struggling financially. Both are sorry they didn't
    listen when we tried to get them to take school seriously.
    
     We are not planning on making the same mistakes with our two little
    ones that we made with their older sisters. We have been very proactive
    in laying the foundations for a good education for our younger two
    daughters. We've worked with them from the very beginning, worked
    overtime in helping the older one learn to read- and now she's an
    excellent reader. We've volunteered at school, we've been rigorous in
    ensuring that work has been done correctly and on time. And we're
    letting the older one take responsibility for doing her work
    correctly, neatly and on time and handing it in promptly. It can't be
    us driving an unwilling child; she has to want to do it. We encourage
    her to learn whenever possible. It's practically a full time job.
    
    I was an indifferent student in junior high. School was easy, and I
    didn't have to work to get by. At all. Getting bs and cs was trivial
    and required no effort outside of school. And that was good enough
    because I didn't care. I was more interested in socializing, chasing
    girls, being "cool" and such. My parents, needless to say, were
    unimpressed both with my effort and output. I endured many a lecture
    inspiring eye rolling and sighs on my part. Didn't matter. "Are you
    done, yet?" Finally my parents decided to get me to take the entrance
    exam for a local private high school (I'd only been in public schools
    up until this point.) I was very resistant. They had no girls there! I
    took the test and was admitted and my parents said that we'd decide
    after a year if I could revert to the public high school. It was never
    an issue. Under such an environment, where academics was a more or less
    common goal, I thrived and actually began to apply myself. It was
    novel, let me tell you. By the time I hit my junior year, I began to
    think about colleges, and then I really began to exert some effort. By
    the time I was a senior, I had good study habits, excellent grades, and
    I was able to get into just about any college that interested me. I
    want my children to be able to experience that. I wouldn't have been
    able to experience that myself if my parents hadn't decided that enough
    was enough, and pushed me to actually perform (once I got to high
    school, they never pushed me again. Then again, they never had to.)
    
    >- but I bet you'll say it wasnt intended to be 
    
     And you'd be right. Of course it wasn't intended to be insulting. It
    was intended to be thought provoking and challenging. 
    
    >Pleasure to be noting with such a 2/3 tier person.
    
    Gee, and I'm sure this wasn't intended to be insulting. Yeah, "that's
    different". Of course. I won't hold my breath waiting for Brian
    Wibecan to bemoan the lack of civility- on this side of the fence,
    anyway.

    
    I think in general people's attitudes about education and career
    change as their own children turn into adults. My husband's sisters
    made the mistake with their children who are now in their 20's. They
    made C's in high school, never motivated to go to college. Well,
    they are pretty much stuck in life right now and are starting to
    realize that in order to have/raise a family they need better jobs
    (better than working at Store 24) and in order to get better jobs
    they need a college degree. In short, they wasted 3-4 years of
    prime youth figuring out what their parents didn't teach them.
    My sister-in-laws now regret that they didn't push their children
    harder back then, knowing now that their children were capable of
    achieving more. I agree that not every person is cut out to be a
    math wiz or a poet, but living in a democratic society where each of 
    us has to vote for our own future, each person should at least have a 
    basic understanding how this world works, including geography, 
    economics, world history, mathemetics, sciences, literature, politics, 
    technologies, sociology, etc. It is one thing if we were living
    in a dictatorship regime where someone would decide our fate. But if
    we want freedom and control of our own destiny, we need to take
    the responsiblity to educate ourselves and our children so that 
    we and they can make the right decisions. How can one vote for
    or against a bill if one has no clue what that bill is about besides
    listening to propaganda and rhetorics? How can we narrow the rich and
    poor economic gap when the average children are undereducated? The
    way things are going, we are heading towards a small elite controlling
    class and a large undereducated being-controlled class. The 
    importance of this education issue is far reaching beyond getting 
    along with our neighbors, which, IMO, should be taught by the parents 
    themselves anyways. Knowledge is power, period! 
    
    All IMO...
     
    
    Eva                                            
    
    

>>               -< It's a passionate subject for me. So sue me. >-

It is for many of us, which makes it hard to keep the tone reasonable.  Thank
you for doing so in most of your notes.

>>     Well I just reread it to see what was the cause of all the ulcers, and
>>    it still doesn't seem that there's anything in there to be "insulted"
>>    over. Or am I not allowed to ask pointed questions?

I think if you re-read my .50, you'll find an example.  Pointing out
inconsistencies in an argument is different from saying "Oh, so you think..."

>>    >Pleasure to be noting with such a 2/3 tier person.
>>    
>>    Gee, and I'm sure this wasn't intended to be insulting.

Whether or not it was intended, I agree it was insulting.  There is no point to
answering insults with insults.

>>    I won't hold my breath waiting for Brian
>>    Wibecan to bemoan the lack of civility- on this side of the fence,
>>    anyway.

As is this.  I don't believe I've been appointed civility monitor for the
conference or for the topic.  I do believe I said there were "many examples,
this is just the most recent."  I was responding to a note that bothered me,
and I believe I did so in a polite manner.  If I failed in that endeavor,
I'm sorry, but I do object to answering insults with insults.

I also don't see what "fence" you are talking about.  I've read through this
topic, and I see a broad range of discussion.  Do you somehow have the idea
that I disagree with every stance you have on every single one of these
subjects?  Even on the topic of inclusion, we agree on some aspects and
disagree on others.

						Brian

    >I think if you re-read my .50, you'll find an example.  
    
     Well, I have to say that I object to your complaint about "I guess it
    has to do with the value you place on education". There was nothing
    wrong with that sentence in the context in which it was written.
    
    >Pointing out inconsistencies in an argument is different from saying
    >"Oh, so you think..."
    
     Yes, I pointed out the logical conclusions that could be drawn from
    her statement, and I could have done so in a less confrontational manner.
    I was reacting to her statement "I believe in treating children
    equally." To go by your standard, one could ask "Why did you put this
    in there? Do you really think anyone is trying to treat children
    unfairly?" My objection is the intimation that people who disagree with
    her are not interested in equal and fair treatment, which is why I
    raised the issue the way I did.
    
    >I don't believe I've been appointed civility monitor for the conference
    >or for the topic.
    
     No, but by offering your opinion on that instance, you raise the
    question of why you singled that note out.
    
    >I was responding to a note that bothered me,
    
     I understand that, but by failing to actually point to other instances
    of language that could have been toned down, your note made me feel
    unfairly singled out.
    
    >I also don't see what "fence" you are talking about.  
    
     Well, when I'm in a discussion with someone and someone objects to my
    notes on style and there are other notes that exhibit substantively the
    same offenses but happen to be on the other side of the argument which
    do not garner comment, and nothing more is mentioned about the
    substantive issues under discussion that the complainant is more likely
    than not to be supportive of the other side of the argument. If that
    assumption turns out to be incorrect, please accept my apologies and my
    explanation that in my experience, most of the time that assumption is
    borne out over time.
    
    

Let's keep this topic to our ideas and personal experiences, please,
and not discuss other noters or their motivations.  There is a lot of
good information which is being shared here.  I would like to see that
continue.

     Carol duBois, PARENTING Co-Moderator

     Note .52 states:
    
     Do you really think that anybody is going to stand up and say
     "I'm for inequity in education"? Everybody talks about "equality" but
     since we are clearly not all talking about the same thing we need to
     define just what equality really means. Do you disagree?
     
    I think there are many of us who would indeed say, "I'm for
    inequity in education."  This has, in fact, been the norm in
    many countries where the best students are allowed to continue
    with their studies while less talented students are, shall we
    say, penalized.  Fair?  Perhaps not.  Practical?  Very much so,
    if you are severely constrained for resources AND you want to
    industrialize as quickly as possible.
    
    Let's face it, there will always be a reasonable ceiling on how
    much we can justify for spending on public education.  Thus there
    will always be tradeoffs.  Currently the pendulum in states like
    Massachusetts has swung well in favor of spending large sums on
    providing specialized education for all kinds of children with
    "special needs".  In fact, generally speaking, the greater the
    need, the greater the amount spent, even when the benefit may
    be very small.  How many people will I offend when I state
    that it is unreasonable to spend huge sums of public money to
    move a person's final educational level from grade one to
    grade two?  How many will I offend by saying that this money
    should have been spent for the same number of private
    tutors for the MOST capable students instead, thus keeping them
    motivated and challenged - and by the way allowing them to get
    way ahead of their peers intellectually... and thus helping us
    to regain parity with what is happening in other countries.
    
    	In my town I can tell you that school board members have
    publicly stated that they will NOT consider such a change.
    They have stated that these are PUBLIC schools.  If parents
    want more/better educations, they can pay for it in private
    schools.  They see NO benefit in spending more money on the
    brightest students - they will do just fine, anyway...
    Hogwash.  They will fall further and further behind the
    Japanese, the Koreans, the Germans, the Indians, just to
    name a few.
    
    	I consider the whole question of what is "fair", or
    what constitues "equality" a most central one.  My overall
    impression is that we have allowed public education to become
    more and more a "one size fits all" deal - the least capable
    are given the most attention and funding, the most capable are
    ignored.  In fact I can tell you with disgust that one local
    guidance counselor kept asking, "Why can't you be more like
    the other kids?" when our daughter wanted to move on to other
    topics (repitition is still the norm in public schools).  At
    the same time I was saying, "It's OK to be different."
    Fortunately this was a case where she listened to me...
    How was this "fair"?
    
    	The question of inclusion (or its other name, mainstreaming)
    and its effects is going to pit parents against one another.
    It is just one of the educationally popular programs which
    benefits one class of students at the expense of others.  Now
    you may believe that all the students benefit - that is your
    right.  I happen to believe that this is NOT the case.  I can
    recall distinctly my own 7th grade class with a particular
    clod who had no interest in reading - he was waiting for age
    16 when he would be released from captivity.  But we all took
    turns reading out loud, and his turn was very distressing.  You
    will NEVER convince me that I benefitted from his presense in
    that class (other that to reinforce the notion that I never
    wanted to be like him).
    
    	So, does "equal treatment" mean that everybody gets to
    travel the SAME road, or does it mean that some get to ride
    the bus, and others the Cadillac?  It's really an allocation
    of resources issue - and there ARE going to be winners and
    losers.  Is is "equal" if everyone is moved at their OWN PACE?
    Is that the goal?  SHOULD it be the goal?  Even if it widens
    the gap between the "haves" and the have nots"?  Ah, there's
    the rub - don't let that gap widen, very "unfair".
    
    	I have been unsuccessful in getting our local school board
    to provide more accomodation for gifted students.  I figure
    that NO amount of effort will cause change to occur in a time
    frame that would be useful for my children.  I suspect that
    this is just the way things are everywhere, and that parents
    with the resources and energy are simply going to choose
    private schools, and/or home schooling as the only way to
    remedy the shortcomings of local school boards.  It's no
    surprise that we (US) continue to fall behind more focused
    coutries in education.
    
    Cheers!
    Dave Eklund
    
    
                        

I'm trying very hard to NOT get into the argument, but I must get into the
debate.  

I think I've heard everyone say that they want the best for their children.
Probably won't get any arguments there.  The problem comes when what
is considered best for one makes it less than optimal for others.  I want my
son to have every chance to reach his potential, whatever that may be.  I 
think he would benefit being exposed to children of all abilities more than
being "tracked" with others of like abilities, in the early years.  I would
never feel good about this exposure if I felt it was at the expense of the
other children in his class, however.  That is not a view that appears to
be shared by everyone whose contributed to this string, however.  I hear
some people voicing views that the gifted students should be awarded
more programs and attention at the expense of others who are less gifted.
All of this is under the auspices of saving the country, a noble cause.

I can't agree in total with that line of thinking, but would like to ask
what the opinion is of people who feel that way as to what the best approach 
would be to educate those with disabilities.  Should we fund special schools 
just for those students who can't make it intellectually ?  What's the criteria
for attending one or the other ?  Should we leave public schools alone, and
fund special schools just for gifted students, with some criteria for 
admission type testing ?  How could we make it optimal for everyone ?

Also, I'm hearing a lot of conjecture ( on both sides of the coin ), but not
a lot of facts.  I usually take statistics with a grain of salt, since you
can make any "fact" look like it supports different concepts, but does anyone
have any data to show how inclusion/mainstreaming is affecting the 
education of students exposed to it ?

Sharon

    
    Sharon,
    
    	As far as statistics showing the effect of mainstreaming goes,
    it depends on what mainstreaming is supposed to do and how we
    measure the quality of education, IMO. SAT and SSAT scores can
    measure the academic aspects. I understand that there are towns 
    like Amherst NH whose SAT scores went down since mainstreaming
    kicks in. In my town of North Andover, mainstreaming started in
    the 1994-1995 school year in the middle and high school. I haven't 
    compared the SAT scores. The elementary schools have been mainstreamed
    for quite a while. It is well known to the insiders, like the teachers 
    and long time locals, that the bright students are not as well cared 
    for as the special needs children. All I can tell is that as a parent, 
    some kids, as well as teachers, get frustrated in mixed classrooms.
    I don't know how the teachers like mainstreaming either, it does
    seem that their job gets a lot more complicated. In some cases, they
    have to make up different tests for different kids in the same class.
    In my daughter's classes, the more advanced children can do extra credit
    projects *on their own*, meaning the teachers do not have the resource
    to help them along. I expect that in homogenous grouping, the teachers
    with the more advanced classes can be involved with moving the children
    along. As is, the bright children with concerned/resourceful parents 
    are more likely to move ahead, maybe we don't have to worry about them!
    But, bright children whose parents may not be as involved will not have 
    a chance to break the cycle. We can say parents should be involved, but 
    we are not taking care of those children who fall through the crack,
    if we are really out there to build a better society (maybe we are not). 
    I don't have any problem with mainstreaming in the elementary school 
    years, it is middle school and beyond that I have issues with. As far 
    as measuring how well kids get along and if getting along is really the 
    result of mainstreaming and  not parental moral imprinting, I don't 
    have a clue. I tend to believe that children follow their parents
    footsteps when it comes to prejudice and bias. But maybe I am off base.
    I also tend to think the schools are for basic academics, maybe we
    are asking the schools to do too much, to take on responsiblities
    that should be shouldered by the family and the community at large.
    
    	If you ask me for a pie in the sky thing, privatize the schools,
    give the $4-5K in forms of tax credit/financial aid/voucher/I-don't-
    care-what and let the parents decide where to send their own kids!
    I suspect that there will be enough school choices to go around to
    please everyone! 
    
    	It will be interesting to look at the top public school systems
    in the country (but still based on academics or what). 
    
    Eva	 

    I think at the end of the day, we mostly have differing opinions and I
    honestly dont know how you would go about resolving the issues to
    everyones satisfaction.  I still have strong views the way children
    should be educated together and grow together.
    
    Lets just hope they all lilve in harmony at least!  :-)
    
    
    Deb_bowing_out.

    EVa,
    You mentioned something about a teacher having to make up different
    tests for the same class. Is this an unusual occurance? 
    Sarah

    >I hear some people voicing views that the gifted students should be
    >awarded more programs and attention at the expense of others who are
    >less gifted.
    
     I really, really have a problem with this attitude and way of saying
    things. If the gifted students were already getting an equitable share
    of resources, you might have a case. The fact of the matter is that the
    gifted students are the forgotten children in public schools. They are
    the squandered national resource. They way you state some people want
    gifted students to be "awarded" "more programs and attention" "at the
    expense of others" is incredibly frustrating.
    
     The use of the word "awarded" indicates that there is a sense that we
    are gilding the lilly. It's as if we already provide gifted students
    with an excess of resources, and we're simply trying to add more.
    Utterly at odds with reality. "More programs and attention": well, more
    than zero would, in fact be more. Right now, the gifted students are
    given the short shrift when it comes to programs and attention. They
    get little of either. Wanna stack up the "programs and attention" that
    the gifted students receive vs the "programs and attention" that the
    learning, developmentally and physically disabled receive and see whose
    pile is bigger? And the final outrage is "at the expense of others."
    Others, who, by the way, have enjoyed a disproportionate share of
    resources for so long that they feel that to move closer to an
    equitable distribution would be to "lose what's theirs." If there is
    any indication that this has gone too far, it's this attitude.
    
     If it were the gifted students who were getting the lion's share of
    resources, and you advocated a more equitable distribution of resources
    only to hear those oppose complain that you wanted to unfairly award
    the less gifted with even more programs and attention at the expense of
    the gifted students, you might find that such a position a bit
    unreasonable, don't you think? Why is it so hard to see when the shoe's
    on the other foot?

    	Different tests for students in the same class also
    occurred in our school system immediately after grouping
    by ability was dismantled.  Giving the same test to all the
    students in the class was considered unfair.  It's hard
    to believe, but true.
    
    Cheers!
    Dave Eklund
    

Before I go on, I just want to say that .52 raised some good points, and I
understand where you are coming from.  Sorry for singling you out.  I believe
we understand each other now.

.66>    Giving the same test to all the
.66>    students in the class was considered unfair.  It's hard
.66>    to believe, but true.

Not hard for me to believe.  It greatly depends on what is meant by "class,"
and what is meant by "fair."  If you are to dismantle grouping by achievement
level, then you absolutely must do something so that students are challenged to
move on from where they are, wherever that might be, and you must test them to
see if they have mastered the material they are learning.  That is the point of
a test: to test, not to rank or grade.

.61> I hear
.61> some people voicing views that the gifted students should be awarded
.61> more programs and attention at the expense of others who are less gifted.

I don't care for the use of the word "awarded," but yes, some people are
voicing such views.  And some people are voicing views in support of one of
these things, which are interpreted by others as meaning the other one should
be reduced or eliminated.  I personally think they have nothing whatsoever to
do with each other.  Why not have both?  Why not challenge all kids to do the
best they can?

I really, truly do not care who gets a bigger piece of the pie, so long as no
one is hungry.

To me, the issue with inclusion is whether a classroom with "included" children
can function well for all the children in the class; whether putting all these
children together is a benefit to their education or a drawback.  If some
school systems are finding it necessary or desirable to cut back on or
eliminate programs for talented kids, and I don't care if they justify it
by special ed or inclusion or athletics or tax backlash or the phases of the
moon, it's a separate issue, at least in my mind.

						Brian

>     If it were the gifted students who were getting the lion's share of
>    resources, and you advocated a more equitable distribution of resources
>    only to hear those oppose complain that you wanted to unfairly award
>    the less gifted with even more programs and attention at the expense of
>    the gifted students, you might find that such a position a bit
>    unreasonable, don't you think? Why is it so hard to see when the shoe's
>    on the other foot?

This is the way it was when we were kids...at least at every school
I knew of.  The gifted students were tracked into the best teachers
and quality microscopes and new textbooks.  the 'retards' were all
locked together with a 'keeper' who basically did not education and
these kids were all but abused.  And the vast middle got very poor teachers,
poor resources, etc.  Finally the courst got involved and there
were many lawsuits forcing schools to start meeting the needs of the
low end.  Maybe the pendulum as swung too far.  but it is swinging due
to the agressive action of parents fighting for the rights of their kids.
The pendulum is still swinging.
bob

    
    Sarah,
    
    >You mentioned something about a teacher having to make up different
    >tests for the same class. Is this an unusual occurance?
    
    This is actually the usual occurance in my daughter's 6th grade
    math class, there are 2 tests, one easier and shorter, one harder 
    and longer. The students have the choice which test they want to 
    take. 90% of the students opt for the easy tests even though most
    of them can probably do well on the hard test. Most kids will
    take the path of the least resistance ;-). 
    
    
    Eva
    

    The reason for my question :
    My son is in a large, city-wide magnet school. He is in 1st grade. His
    teacher gives them assignments and tests based on their ability. She
    has a minimum standard which all students must pass. I thought this was
    part of being a good teacher - identifying the strengths and weaknesses
    of EACH child and teaching accordingly.  It almost sounds like it's
    considered 'unfair' to ask a teacher to tailor assignments and tests
    for each level of ability, but perhaps I misunderstood some of the
    discussion in this note. 
    Sarah

    
    I also feel uncomfortable with the concept that challenging bright
    children has to be done at the expense of everyone else. If we look
    at the process of learning rationally, the bright children (based
    on the common definition) are the ones who pick things up the
    quickest. This means, logically, the bright children require fewer
    resources (time and attention) from the teachers to learn the same 
    things as others. If fairness of resource distribution is the 
    desired, then all children should have the same amount of time
    and attention alloted to them. If an average child takes 10 units
    of resources to learn fractions, a bright child may only need
    5 units of resources. As of now, there is no incentive in the public
    school system to give the bright child the other 5 units of resources
    he/she is entitled to in form of challenge. This is not a big deal
    if it happens once in a blue moon. But, if 1/3 of a bright child's
    school days is in "idle" or "park", it isn't a good thing. I believe
    that the bright child should be "entitled" to the same number of units
    of resources, just like everyone else. In an inclusion environment,
    unless the teachers are aware of the equity issue, the bright children
    are subsidizing the rest of the class. 
    
    
    Eva

    re: tailoring tests to the student--sorry, but this strikes me as being
    about as efficient as using an elastic ruler.  What do those test scores
    really mean?  "Yes, he has a grade point average of 3.8--for *him*." 
    Can a high school diploma mean much of anything with a rubber yardstick
    like that?  Will colleges operate the same way, and will we see doctors
    of questionable talent/common sense who are operating at 100% of their
    (very limited) range?
    
    Leslie

    
    RE: .72
    
    Once again, Leslie has me laughing out loud while
    making an excellent point!
    

    Thanks :-J
    
    It's my Sagittarius rising that gives me a "mouth like a torn pocket"
    (ready, fire, aim)!
    
    Leslie

    Leslie,
    
    Actually they do do something like that in the highschools.  The honors
    or accelerated courses are graded on a 5.0 scale as opposed to the 4.0
    for regular classes.  (an A is a super A, B equivelant to a "normal A,
    etc)  
    
    This is how so many HS valadictorians manage a GPA of 4.5 or higher. 
    Most colleges do look at the number of these advanced courses in adding
    up the GPA.  FWIW these courses can also qualify for college credit.  
    
    
    Now as to the elastic ruler.  Somehow many elementary schools are
    grading on both accomplishment and the effort the child needs to put
    into the course for a grade.  This really (RO) me off.  It can mean
    that Carrie gets a B in some courses, even though she topped out on the
    work, but because this is one of the courses she naturally excells in,
    she has not had to really work on the assignments and tests.
    
    meg

    {sound of banging head against wall}
    
    Oh dear.  There's so much stuff going on out there that strikes me as
    utter nonsense....  I just found out this week (in the Disney
    conference, of all places) that "most areas in the US" start the school
    year early in August and, apparently, consider Massachusetts to be
    backwards in holding to the "kinda sorta close to Labor Day" timeframe.
    
    Glad to be a[n admittedly naive] Yankee,
    Leslie

    Leslie,
    
    They tried that in Colorado, but the newer buildings don't have enough
    windows, and no airconditioning.  After numerous reports of teachers
    and children falling over from heat exhaustion (early to mid august is
    out hottest part of summer)  we are back to right around labor day
    again.  thank goodness we live in an old part of town with a building
    from the early 1900's.  Lots of windows and high ceilings. 
    
    

>>    re: tailoring tests to the student--sorry, but this strikes me as being
>>    about as efficient as using an elastic ruler.  What do those test scores
>>    really mean?  "Yes, he has a grade point average of 3.8--for *him*." 

What does a 3.8 GPA mean when comparing people at Harvard and at a community
college?  What does it mean when comparing people taking graduate level classes
as a freshman with people taking remedial classes as a senior?  What does it
mean when comparing an art major with a physics major?

The point of a test is to see if you've learned the material.  What the
material is, that's another matter.  If you want to compare two students, you
have to look at both what they learned and how well they learned it.

Now if your point is that everybody in the class should be learning the exact
same material, well, that's another matter.  The original comment about
different tests was in a context that specifically said that students of
different achievement levels were together in the same class.

Consider, for a moment, a mixed-grade class, a one-room elementary school.  You
would not dream of having the sixth-graders take the same math test as the
first graders, would you?  The idea of having multiple ability levels in a
single class is a finer-grained version of this concept.

Consider also that a child may be extremely advanced in math, but perhaps not
so in the other subjects.  It seems reasonable to me for that child to be given
a more advanced math test.

Of course there's a need to assess achievement in comparison with other
children.  There are standardized tests given periodically for that, as well as
more subjective measures.  Those tests are quite definitely not what we're
talking about when we discuss different tests for each child.

						Brian

>>    Now as to the elastic ruler.  Somehow many elementary schools are
>>    grading on both accomplishment and the effort the child needs to put
>>    into the course for a grade.  This really (RO) me off.  It can mean
>>    that Carrie gets a B in some courses, even though she topped out on the
>>    work, but because this is one of the courses she naturally excells in,
>>    she has not had to really work on the assignments and tests.

I understand how you feel.  My kids' school does this.  I'm of two minds on it,
myself; I agree with your point, but I don't want my kids to rest on their
laurels just because they have ability in something.  I've known a bunch of
people like this who have a great deal of trouble when they get into a top
college where they actually have to do work for the first time.  Ironically,
less capable students end up doing better because they know the drill.

						Brian

At some point, you have to start doing testing for comparison; but it isn't
clear to me what it accomplishes in the lower grades.

In Elspeth's Waldorf elementary school, there were no tests or letter grades in
the early years.  Around sixth grade, they start having real test on class
material, but even then, I don't think they get "letter grades" for class work
until seventh or eighth grade; and that's more for the experience than anything
else.  The student's mid-year and end-of-year results are a written assessment
from the teacher, not a letter grade or a numeric score.  

As I say, I don't really know how having a bunch of letter grades would have
been an improvement.

	-Neil

    Re: .78
    
    In my day, if there was a test (or even a pop quiz), the score went on
    the books and counted toward your final grade for the year.  One could
    argue with some validity that one of the reasons for the test was "to
    see if you've learned the material", but the plain fact was that tests,
    along with homework and attendance, yielded your year-end assessment in
    that subject.  There weren't any warm fuzzy this-won't-count-toward-your-
    final-grade personalized "tests"; the teacher already knew from homework 
    and class participation whether or not the student had a clue.  Tests 
    were for objective (same test for every student in the classroom) 
    evidence of mastery/reasonable achievement/cluelessness.  A low grade 
    indicated that the student needed more help, possibly even (gasp!) 
    repeating the grade.  But back then, the schools expected the students 
    to learn a specific amount of the material before moving on to new/
    more advanced material.
    
    I hear you on the difference between a 3.8 from Harvard and a 3.8 from
    a community college, but public school systems earn reputations too,
    and a flabby school will (one would hope) eventually be recognized as
    such by college admissions officers.   And as far as the one-room-
    schoolhouse model goes, I can see six math tests (one for each
    grade), but if I ran the zoo, everybody would have to pass the 6th
    grade test in order to move on to 7th grade.
    
    Leslie

Re: .81

I'm not talking about warm-fuzzy won't-count tests.  I'm talking about the
difficulty in measuring and comparing the performance of people studying
different things.  It has nothing whatsoever to do with test comfort level.

Again, if all the students in the class are learning the same material, then of
course it is reasonable to give them all the same test.  What some of us are
saying is that there is reason to have different material learned by different
students in the same class.

>>    I hear you on the difference between a 3.8 from Harvard and a 3.8 from
>>    a community college, but public school systems earn reputations too,

I don't think you do.  I'm not talking about the relative quality of education,
I'm talking about different students learning different material.  I'm talking
about the fact that you are graded on how well you mastered the material, not
what the material is.

>>    And as far as the one-room-
>>    schoolhouse model goes, I can see six math tests (one for each
>>    grade), but if I ran the zoo, everybody would have to pass the 6th
>>    grade test in order to move on to 7th grade.

That's exactly the point.  Don't give students the 7th grade test until they
are finished with the 6th grade material.

Now make the gradation finer (grade 6.0, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, ...) and separate by
subject (math, English, history, ...) and put it all into one classroom with
one teacher (or one team of teachers or whatever), and you have (surprise!)
different tests for different students.

Now, perhaps you prefer having a single uniform 6th grade curriculum, which
every student should master in entirety before moving on to the 7th grade
curriculum in any subject at all.  And perhaps you prefer a system where the
curriculum moves at a set pace, and if students can't catch up by the end of
the year sufficiently well, they will need to repeat the curriculum, in its
entirety, in all subjects.  That's fine, there are good reasons for such an
approach.  But it's the approach that's really the issue, not the tests.

						Brian

    >What some of us are saying is that there is reason to have different
    >material learned by different students in the same class.
    
     That strikes me as incredibly inefficient if the material being taught
    is widely disparate. It seems like a lot to expect of one teacher, to
    keep all the kids involved and engaged if they are all learning
    different things at different rates. Wouldn't that tend to result in a
    lot of time wasted for a significant portion of the class when things
    they weren't learning about were being taught to others?

    The material shouldn't be widely disparate, but an allowance for
    voracious learners is appropriate, in MY opinion.  I don't hold much
    stock in the letter "A" if it means all students who earned that A did
    so by showing mastery of the BARE MINIMUM.  If it means each student
    worked hard, was significantly challenged according to his/her ability,
    and STILL mastered all the material, then indeed that "A" is something
    of which to be proud.  All studends must meet the bare minimum criteria
    to get to the next grade. I do not argue with that. No child should be
    pushed along because of social or psychological reasons. But if you
    send my son to 2nd grade simply because he can spell 'picnic', when he 
    is capable of spelling 'catastrophic' (but nobody bothered to see if 
    he could spell 'catastrophic' because they had to administer the SAME
    assignment and the SAME test to ALL students), then I'm not convinced 
    he has learned ANYTHING.  I'm not convinced he will find school 
    something of value. I'm not convinced he will want to continue to go 
    to school. Not all 1st graders can spell 'catastrophic', nor should 
    they be expected to. But those that can, should!  I guess I view school
    as a matter of 'if you can do THAT, let's see if you can do THIS', not
    'can you do this? Ok, good enough. Here's an A'.
    Sarah   
    

    Sarah-
    
     Your note brings up several points that deserve consideration.
    
     You bring up the point that having a single standard for an A grade
    provides benefit along a sliding scale relative to each student's
    ability. For some, achieving that A is trivial, for others it is
    unattainable. This is more true for a class of mixed abilities, and
    less true of classes which are segregated according to aptitude.
    
     You seem to look at the idea of administering different tests in a
    single classroom as an opportunity to more fully challenge the more
    advanced students. But that begs the question of how many tests do
    there need to be? If a class has 25 students, are there to be 25 tests
    administered? If not, then you are talking about a de facto grouping of
    students according to ability (say 3 tests, one for the slower
    students, one for average students, and one to challenge the best
    students.) How, then, is that different than putting all of the top
    students for a particular subject in one class and giving them all the
    same (hard) test, and putting all the average kids in another class and
    giving them all the average test, etc? To me, the only difference is
    that in the latter scenario, each teacher is responsible for creating
    and grading a single test, whereas in the former we are asking each
    teacher to create (and grade) three different tests. That's an
    increased workload on the part of the teacher simply to provide the 
    same level of benefit. We return to the concept of efficiency; the
    latter scenario provides a more efficient delivery of services.
    
     Why is efficiency important? In an age where educators have to scrap
    for every resource, inefficiency is wasteful and unwise and robs
    children of the educational services they both need and deserve.
    
     Another issue that you bring up, albeit indirectly, is the subject of
    grades. In our hypothetical mixed ability classroom, we have children
    of three levels. And with children from each level getting graded on
    their respective tests, you have children from the average group
    getting As on their tests that have a lesser mastery of the subject and
    less factual knowledge of the subject than those who have received Cs
    on the advanced test. As grades are a primary determinant in college
    admissions, how do you propose that we deal with this situation? The C
    for an advanced student in fact indicates greatere subject mastery than
    an A in the average test, but how is this to be communicated to the
    colleges to which each student applies?
    
     One more point about grades. School is, in fact, about more than
    grades. If your son gets As by meeting the "bare minimum" standard but
    also receives additional challenges that are not graded per se, does he
    have anything less to be proud of than if he were given the A for
    meeting the bare minimum plus the additional challenges? In other
    words, has he accomplished anything less?
    
    >I guess I view school as a matter of 'if you can do THAT, let's see if
    >you can do THIS', 
    
     Unfortunately the current situation is such that the actual process is
    "if you can do THAT then let's see if I can get the others to do that,
    too. You sit here and wait for everyone to catch up." And that's
    precisely my complaint.
    
     The Doctah

    
    The material in our class is widely disparate.   With the big gap
    in ability I don't see how it can't be.   Some kids can't spell 
    hat and others can spell words like " quick called thought "
    Maybe other inclusions are different but ours is like this.  
    
    Each child has a box of books that is "just right" for them. 
    Each child has their own list of words to spell.  I do think its 
    very hard on the teacher.  I do think the overall standards are too
    low.  Small class size helps the teacher know each student very well
    so she can know who is working to their ability.      
    
    What is good for my daughter is that there are two other girls in 
    the class who are very bright.  She holds herself up to them.  
    
                                                        Teri

I haven't been in for a few days, so I just caught up with the string.
I guess it seems to me that most of the negative opinions of inclusion seem
mainly centered around the lack of "tracking" students by ability.  I'm
not against that approach to education ( that's the system that was in place
through my 12 years of public schooling ), I think it comes with it's own
set of pitfalls.  Like anything, though, the problems I think are more due
to poor implementation rather than flaws in the concept.  My experience
seemed to set your "track" probably around 3rd grade or so, and it didn't
seem there was much switching in evidence after it was set.  I remember
becoming "aware" of the different class levels in 6th grade, when we
were getting ready for our entry into Jr. High since the classes that
were available to students were different depending on their tracking.  Only
the highest level students were placed in foreign language and algebra
classes.  There were 2 different science programs as well.  I think the 
concept worked reasonably well, but if you happened to be a student who was
tracked below the highest level, you had more work to do to "catch up" in
High School to get your college entry requirements met.  I think if you're
going to function under that kind of a program, you'd better be sure to 
have a good way of identifying/testing students to be sure you put them in
the right categories to succeed.  Also, in the higher grades, you should 
really track by subject matter as well, rather than just by general ability.

But then we've got a Catch-22 issue.  Tracking will alleviate the problem
of slower students hindering the progress of the more advanced, but then
they'll lose the benefit of the extra learning they can get from their more
advanced peers.  So how can we win on both fronts ?  I don't know, but I 
think we need to get there.  Until we satisfy both needs, we'll constantly
be basing our decisions on what I would consider external value judgements
or even worse "squeaky-wheel-syndrome" ( what I expect the current system
was developed under ).  Until we make the goal of education to be just that,
to provide a delivery environment such that each child learns to the level
of their potential or beyond.  Maybe every student could attend standard
grade level classes for the basics and then attend ability based classes
based on their performance with their grade level work for either more
challenging work or extra help.  Train the grade level teachers to
recognize a student's strengths and weaknesses, and then send them to
"specialized" teachers who can teach to those factors.  Just an idea.

I guess I have a lot of decisions to make in the next couple of years
regarding my son's education.  I always thought that I would.  Thanks to
all for your input.  It's been a real eye opener.

Sharon