Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolven
"inclusion without support is abandonment"
"inclusion without support is abandonment"
"inclusion without support is abandonment"
"inclusion without support is abandonment"
"inclusion without support is abandonment"
If you repeat it enough times, it starts to make sense. The UCP's plan is to have inclusion without support to help crash the public education system faster.
|
This isn't the issue, you are simply approaching this from a polarized side of the argument. Inclusion took place before the UCP existed. The UCP underfunded it but the philosophy and practice cae before them.
My argument is even funded properly, inclusion is a failing philosophy. I taught adn witnessed kids in specialized settings flourish, become incredible leaders in a context where they could. The same kids, exactly the same as it happened over one summer, after inclusion, lasted 3-4 weeks in the new school and dropped out.
They are the unseen victims of inclusion. It forces kide into a culture and context where they will never have a chance to be leaders or achieve at a level that makes them prooud. To argue otherwise is simply pandering to the egos of parents that don't want ot accept their kids need help.