On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Rick Adams wrote:
> Louis_Schmier wrote:
>
> >I'm not sure what "college-as-we-know-it" means. Professors were
> >heeralding the doom of academia when the G.I.Bill was passed; many were
> >doing likewise during the civil rights movement; now some are doing it
> >with special students. Do we go back to the segregated days, to the days
> >when women weren't admitted or respected, to the days when only 15% of
> >high school graduates went on to college, to the days when.....? If
> >students have changed, shouldn't we have to make adjustments? The more we
> >learn about learning would seem to mean that we should be applying that
> >new information which in turn means in developing new attitudes, new
> >techniques, new methods. Change does not automatically mean watering down
> >or dumbing down or reduced rigor. It can just means change: doing things
> >differently. I wonder if some of this response is a mask for not wanting
> >to be inconvenience by having to make accommodation. Trust me when I say
> >no great cosmic catstrophe will occur if we display some empathy and
> >sensitivity to the needs of special students.
> >
> >
> >
> The trouble is, Louis, change IS being interpreted as "dumbing down"
> by many administrators who view the risk of "offending" someone who
> might sue as a result as being FAR more important than the risk of
> graduating students who don't know anything about the subjects they studied.
And, it's not by many others. I'm sorry if that's the situation at your
institution; it certainly is not at mine. In any case, while I have
changed my pedagogy as whole and without hesitation accommodate to the
needs of special students, I certainly haven't dumbed or watered down.
>
> The ADA wasn't designed to make things "easy" for those with
> disabilities--it was designed to make them equal.
You're right about the easy part. And, no one I know has ever
professed such a goal. No, it was designed to give such students an
equitable shot at receiving an education.
There's a very great
> difference there. It was never the intention of the act to make it
> possible for people to be certified capable of performing tasks they are
> incapable of actually performing under normal conditions. Yet, if
> students are permitted to pass classes they have not mastered the
> materials from, that is precisely what is occuring.
Where is this occurring? You, the prof, decides who passes a class and
who doesn't. I don't know about you, but the door to my classroom is
locked tighter than a bedroom door. Again, at my institution, no one
changes a grade or decides a grade in my class but me. Period. End of
story.
>
> Would you go to a surgeon who had earned his status due to the ADA,
> not due to his skills? If his disability happened to be uncontrollable
> tremors of the hands, how comfortable would you be with your operation?
> How about having your books done by an account with a math learning
> disability who frequently made mistakes such as putting the numbers in
> the wrong columns or entering the number backward in his or her
> calculator?
Now you're being a tad extreme.
I may sympathize with the individuals with those
> disabilities, and I'm more than willing to help accomodate them in areas
> where their disability simply prevents them from demonstrating their
> learning (i.e., the student with the tremors could dictate answers if he
> couldn't write an essay; the student with the math learning disability
> could have his calculations assisted if he had to demonstrate--in a
> NON-math class--that he understood the principles of statistics well
> enough to read and interpret scientific research). Certainly in my
> classrooms, I accomodate students who are blind, physically challenged,
> hearing impaired, or otherwise suffer from disabilities that prevent
> them from using only the facilities available to non-disabled students.
That's what ADA is all about.
> But if the student can't demonstrate that he or she has learned the
> material I am teaching, that student will NOT pass the course, ADA or
> not. There is simply no justification for allowing him/her to do so.
Nor in mine. So, where's the argument. I fully agree. Is there pressure
at your institution to do otherwise?
>
> If administrators took such an approach (and some do, of course),
> the claims of "dumbing down" wouldn't exist. But the fact is, they
> frequently don't. The result is the creation of more poorly prepared
> graduates from our institutions. That isn't doing ANYONE a
> service--disabled or not.
Is this hyperbole or founded in research? I don't know how often
"frequently" is. Some do and some don't. When and where doesn't that
happen? Let me give you a personal example. I have a friend whose
daughter has a learning disability. She has satisfied all the requirement
for receiving a degree from VSU--with one exception. She hasn't passed
the Regents Reading Comprehension exam. She has taken it about ten times.
She has received every accommodation conceivable. Right or wrong, whether
I agree or not with the evaluation of the test, she will not get a diploma
from VSU until she passes that exam. Regents policy. Period. End of
story.
>
> Imagine having a student with a learning disability that prevented
> him or her from understanding temporal relationships--and was thus
> unable to recognize whether, for example, Alexander was a contemporary
> of Adolf Hitler, and could not answer the question "Did Alexander agree
> with Hitler's views on the purity of the Aryan Race?" Now imagine having
> to test that student's knowledge of history in a manner that would not
> subject him to such questions, as he could not answer them and it would
> limit his ability to pass your class.
To tell you the truth, I haven't any idea of what you just wrote. But,
whatever it is you describe, I assure that I'd find a way; I'd find help
form this august gathering of scholars to find a way.
>
> How would you--personally--evaluate such student in a way that did
> not penalize the other students for NOT having that disability yet which
> gave him or her the opportunity to earn a good grade in your course?
I don't deal in hypotheticals. But, my answer is simple: fairly. I
don't have students in competition with each other. And, I don't
evaluate them in comparison with each other. What I do with one student
does not penalize or reward any one else. I have strict standards, but
for justice and equity to exist there must be flexibility. That is the
nature of precidence in law.
>
> I tend to agree with those who argue that "college may NOT be for
> everyone." Not because I want to exclude anyone--but rather because
> unless the student is capable of profiting from the knowledge and
> information a college can provide him or her (not just the from the
> credentials graduation confers on him or her), that student simply has
> no benefit to be gained from attending a traditional institution in the
> first place.
> Instead, the student needs to attend specialized schools
> that offer the kind of education he or she CAN use profitably, rather
> than spending four years (or longer) learning nothing and gaining
> nothing from his or her enrollment.
I think you're confusing education with vocational training unless you're
reducing education to simply vocational trainin, albeit white collar, but
vocational nevertheless. What person can't profit from knowledge and
information, and how do you define "profit?" I would hope it's not
limited to getting a job. I think any person can benefit from attending a
traditional academic institution. That's what "educare" means. There's
more to living than earning a living.
Make it a good day.
--Louis--
Louis Schmier www.therandomthoughts.com
Department of History www.halcyon.com/arborhts/louis.html
Valdosta State University
Valdosta, Georgia 31698 /~\ /\ /\
(229-333-5947) /^\ / \ / /~ \ /~\__/\
/ \__/ \/ / /\ /~ \
/\/\-/ /^\___\______\_______/__/_______/^\
-_~ / "If you want to climb mountains, \ /^\
_ _ / don't practice on mole hills" -\____
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
