Quote:
Originally Posted by WinnipegFan
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.
|
So would you have them segregated?
It can definitely be argued that there’s a threshold requiring an alternative setting, that’s what specialized classes like EES, L&L, TASC, LEAD, PLP, Access, Bridges, and The Class are for. I’m sure you also know there’s specialized schools like Dr Oakley, Alternative High, and Emily Follensbee. I’ve done processes to transfer students to a PLP program and another to Dr Oakley. Problem is those are all over capacitated as well, and because of that, the requirements are astronomical.
Maybe we can both agree here that adequate funding to these programs can alleviate a lot of pressure felt in inclusive classrooms. What we might disagree is where the line is for a student to remain in an inclusive setting.