Overheard on the Changing Nature of Special Education

By -
Child: There are lots of special ed kids on the basketball team.
Mom: Special ed kids?! They make the basketball team?
Child: Not like when you were a kid, mom. They have ADD or behavioral problems, not Down's syndrome.
Mom: Are there Down's syndrome kids in special ed?
Child: No way! The special ed kids would terrorize them.

Comments

  1. Anonymous7:15 PM

    Actually, the kid is somewhat correct. Most schools have both standard special education (for the mentally retarded) and severe behavior handicap (SBH) programs; my public school had both programs when I was growing up. Obviously, the needs of a mentally retarded child are going to be different than a child with behavioral issues such as ADD, so it makes sense to have two separate curriculums. While he is referring to them both as special ed (which isn't entirely incorrect), his statement that the kids in the SBH special education classes would terrorize those in the standard (non-behavioral) special ed classes is very correct. I mean, if they have a severe behavioral handicap, that is pretty indicative that they aren't the most tactful of persons.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more