OAKRIDGE@BYUVM.BITNET (Kevin Morris) (02/09/90)
Index Number: 6614 We are a school which serves students with multiple handicaps. We are interest ed in any thoughts or experience you might have regarding the appropriate crite ria for the grouping of students so that education is most efficient. We are particularly interested in your experience in grouping students according to chronological age versus grouping them according to developmental ability. We would appreciate any thoughts you might have in this area.
era@niwot.scd.ucar.edu (Ed Arnold) (02/13/90)
Index Number: 6702 In article <10015@bunker.UUCP> OAKRIDGE@BYUVM.BITNET (Kevin Morris) writes: |Index Number: 6614 | |We are a school which serves students with multiple handicaps. We |are interest ed in any thoughts or experience you might have |regarding the appropriate crite ria for the grouping of students so |that education is most efficient. We are particularly interested |in your experience in grouping students according to chronological |age versus grouping them according to developmental ability. You can't mainstream/integrate if you group students strictly according to developmental ability; it's not done that way in what I consider progressive school districts. If you're confining handicapped students to their own school without exposure to non-disabled students, then it's clear your school district needs new leadership. BTW - this post is NOT meant to be a flame. If you do have a segregated district, however, please e-mail me; I'd be more than happy to put you in touch with people who are working to change the next generation's view of disabled persons, thru progressive school environments. -- ---------- Ed Arnold * era@ncar.ucar.edu * era@ncario [bitnet] * ...!ncar!era [uucp]
Pat.Goltz@f3.n300.z1.fidonet.org (Pat Goltz) (03/16/90)
Index Number: 7186
Hi. Recently we were discussing mainstreaming disabled students
with "normal" ones, and you made the statement "you can't
mainstream/integrate if you group students strictly according to
developmental ability; it's not done that way in what I consider
progressive school districts."
Actually, that is the conventional way of looking at things, in
my opinion. The reason why I suggested that the Montessori model
be followed is because Montessori mixes ages. What this means is
that if you put people together according to ability (and you can
have a three year range in a Montessori classroom in ability as
well), and the kids are free to use a variety of materials
independently, which materials are on many different levels, then
it is not a problem to put kids together according to ability (with
a 3 year span in ability) because everyone is used to everyone else
working on his own level, and it will not particularly stand out.
There have been Montessori classes in my experience where profoundly
mentally disabled kids have been integrated with everyone else, and
there has been absolutely no social repercussions from that that I
can determine. The problem in the conventional school is the practice
of trying to make the age/ability groupings homogenious. This is
necessary when teaching is done in groups instead of materials being
used so that people can work as individuals. I submit that the
primary problem here is that we have systematically ignored the fact
that you can't lump children together that way normally, let alone
when you are trying to mainstream kids with very disparate ability
and accomplishment levels.
Pat
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!300!3!Pat.Goltz
Internet: Pat.Goltz@f3.n300.z1.fidonet.org