Quote:
Originally Posted by WinnipegFan
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.
|
Being a teacher for 28 years I agree that specialized programs like EES, PLP, or Dr. Oakley are essential for some learners the challenge is that the entry thresholds have become so restrictive that many students who would benefit never get in. We’ve created a system where the ideal model exists in theory, but it’s inaccessible to most families in practice.
That’s where the frustration lies for teachers and parents alike. When supports are spread thin across “inclusive” classrooms, neither model functions as intended. Students with complex needs aren’t receiving the intensity of support they require, while teachers in regular educational settings are stretched to manage multiple exceptionalities at once.
So while I respect the goal of inclusion, I also believe we need to re examine how we define it. Inclusion shouldn’t mean placing every student in the same setting regardless of fit; it should mean giving each learner equitable access to the environment that best supports their growth whether that’s a specialized site or a well-resourced mainstream classroom.
Until funding matches the complexity of today’s classrooms in 2025, we’ll keep having this same debate.