Matt, I do appreciate your comments, but on this topic we have to agree to
disagree.
I regard your argument as saying that somehow everyone can be treated as an
individual whilst in a generalist environment. The article I initially posted
shows how successful that can be. I think that sometimes what is needed is a
specialist environment so that individualism can be allowed, and not
(literally) sat on. Trying to get reformers to realise that change has gone too
far is never easy, and so I'm thankful that I have the option, and the skills,
to educate any children I parent at home, so that they do not have to be
enrolled into the one-size-fits-all system that modernists espouse.
Dawna has pointed out that, in the current system, general schools are "damned
if they do, and damned if they don't", so they play 'safe' and restrain anyone
that demonstrates overtly different behaviour. I argue that, if there was
specialist education available, the need for restraint would be reduced,
because it is the environment of the general school, with thousands of
unsympathetic children and defensive teachers that causes the behaviour that
requires restraint. I don't actually care what the reason is - it could be
because the child is any of the other groups you cite. It is obvious to me
that, if a child has got to a point at which they need restraining, something
has gone wrong, the system is not working, and specialist facilities are
needed. To think otherwise is to suggest that people with psychiatric problems
(and yes, I am familiar with the can of worms this can lead to) can be dealt
with on a medical ward.
--
Jeremy Wickins,
PhD Researcher,
School of Law,
University of Sheffield,
Bartolome House,
Sheffield. S3 7ND
UK.
Quoting Matt Wappett <[log in to unmask]>:
> I refuse to respond this argument as you continue to imply, as you
> state: "It is just totally unacceptable to me that anyone can say that
> one type of school is sufficient for all needs - it is not, and can
> never be." By holding this position you have effectively squelched any
> intelligent debate about improvement and progress in education...you
> obviously feel that there is no way schools can meet the needs of all
> students despite many models in the UK and U.S. that have proved
> otherwise. By holding the position that you state you perpetuate the
> hegemonic thinking that has created sectarian/tribal/racial/ability
> divisions and conflict. Separate facilities, schools, neighborhoods,
> etc. do nothing to break down the social and attitudinal barriers that
> create discrimination and oppression and, according to social geography,
> reify the differences between diverse groups. Your argument merely
> disengages from any rational thinking about future progress in favor of
> the status quo.
>
> In closing it is also important that you understand that my comments
> never implied that "all can be neurotypical if we are exposed to it
> enough". That's like saying all could be woman if we were exposed to
> femininity enough, or all could become African or Asian if we were
> exposed to it enough. I think you will agree that this is a ludicrous
> argument. My core argument is that we can't learn to be a truly
> interdependent society if we aren't willing to change our institutions
> and attitudes to be more accepting of all varieties of diversity. This
> doesn't mean everyone becoming neurotypical, rather it means that
> neurotypicals need to acknowledge and accept that there are other ways
> of understanding and interacting with the world and society and then
> accepting that as another variant of human diversity. This can never
> happen if there are schools for neurotypicals, schools for Asians,
> schools for behavior disordered kids, schools for women, schools for
> men, schools for Muslims, schools for whites, schools for blacks etc.
> This just leaves us back in the same old self-involved sectarian society
> that has defined, and continues to define, our modern world.
>
> --
>
> *Matthew Wappett Ph.D.*
>
> Assistant Professor & Interdisciplinary Training Coordinator
>
> University of Idaho Center on Disabilities and Human Development
>
> 129 W. Third Street
>
> Moscow, ID 83843
>
>
>
>
> "/I get up every morning determined to both change /
>
> /the world and to have one hell of a good time. Sometimes,/
>
> /this makes planning the day difficult./" ~ E.B. White
>
>
>
>
> Jeremy Wickins wrote:
> > I think I can see how my comments might have the interpretation that Matt
> puts
> > on them, because to an extent, he is correct about them. I don't actually
> care
> > what the reason is behind a child is exhibiting "challenging behaviour",
> or
> > whatever we are calling it this week. I do care that where the child's
> ability
> > to understand or communicate their horror as a result of whatever the
> > underlying reason is, the situation can only be made worse. The answer is
> NEVER
> > "Sit on them until they stop shouting/responding/breathing/whatever".
> >
> > There is no doubt that teacher training is significantly flawed, and one
> reason
> > why I think that specialised facilities for specialised needs is not a bad
> > concept. However, that does not, Matt, mean that "problems" should be
> hidden
> > away, and I never said that. There are, however, some situations that are
> > caused by inclusion - on the few occasions I needed to "act out" at school
> (and
> > since), it was because of the sheer uncontrollable, noisy, thoughtless mass
> of
> > humanity around me. Fortunately I went to a school (ordinary UK secondary
> as
> > people were not segregated for being "odd" at that time) where the
> > pupil/teacher ratio was sufficiently small that I could be dealt with
> > individually. Usually, all it took was being told to go and stand in the -
> > blessedly quiet - corridor for a while.
> >
> > Diversity needs to be recognised as important, and the current situation
> in
> > which all are expected to behave in a stereotypical/neurotypical manner is
> > degrading to all. It is just totally unacceptable to me that anyone can
> say
> > that one type of school is sufficient for all needs - it is not, and can
> never
> > be. Until people like Matt, who seems to be a well-meaning, intelligent
> person,
> > come to see that, we are stuck with the idea that all can be neurotypical
> if we
> > are exposed to it enough.
> >
> > Jeremy
> >
>
> --
>
> *Matthew Wappett Ph.D.*
>
> Assistant Professor & Interdisciplinary Training Coordinator
>
> UI Center on Disabilities and Human Development
>
> 129 W. Third Street
>
> Moscow, ID 83843
>
> Ph: (208)885-3038
>
> Fax: (208) 885-3628
> www.idahocdhd.org <http://www.idahocdhd.org>
>
>
>
> "/I get up every morning determined to both change /
>
> /the world and to have one hell of a good time. Sometimes,/
>
> /this makes planning the day difficult./" ~ E.B. White
>
>
>
> ________________End of message________________
>
> This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for
> Disability Studies at the University of Leeds
> (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies).
> Enquiries about list administration should be sent to
> [log in to unmask]
>
> Archives and tools are located at:
> www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
> You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this web page.
>
________________End of message________________
This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for Disability Studies at the University of Leeds (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies).
Enquiries about list administration should be sent to [log in to unmask]
Archives and tools are located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this web page.
|
