Quote:
Originally Posted by Point Blank
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.
|
Yes, I would and we did. You point out extreme cases that are overburdened and underfunded because the funding for the individual students with needs are spread out throughout all of the schools. Where their individual funding is not enough to support their needs. In these extreme cases for the sites you mention, we all know no one is getting into those programs. They are over burdened and bursting at the seams because we closed schools like Lord Shaughnessy and Van Horne.
The schools like Shaughnessy served an incredible purpose. Students with learning needs were grouped into a smaller culture where funding was focused on their needs and brought together from all of the studnets with need. We had incredible teachers who WANTED to teach these studnets, specialized in educaating them and had EAs of the same nature. These students were in a small culture where they could be big fish in tehir small pond.
They played on sports teams, whereas in your "inclusive" schools if you are not rich enough to play on a club team you will never make it. These "inclusive" schools are simply an extension of the sports season for their clubs so the elite can keep playing.
Educaitonally the funding doesn't cover EAs so these kids end up in lower acadmic courses. In the "inclusive" setting many kids are in these courses, not because of their learning needs but because of behaviour issues. So, these studnets are ignored with their needs as teachers pander to the behaviour of those with privilege and poor behaviour.
I could go on and on, but in short, yes, I would segregate them into schools that serve them. Schools that focus on their learning needs and provide incredible pathways like Van Horne to careers and futures. The "inclusive" model has simply set them up for failure. Which is why we see spikes in mental health needs, if you are the poor, under priviliged kids with need in these schools it is stressful. We also see dropout rates sky rockey so out alternative settings get full such as Discovering Choices.
We failed these students. Time to own it.
Don't get me wrong, the theory of inclusion I agree with. Hwoever the practicality of doing it properly and well is far too expensive for a public educaiton setting. We will never get the funding to do it properly and when a population because too complex, as teachers are arguing now, it becomes to challenging to meet all of the needs. So we owe it to our kids to change course.