Re: study of red****rting (late entrance to kndergarten)

On Jul 25, 10:05=A0am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybrea...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >On Jul 24, 4:27=A0pm, Barbara <mom_2_...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> > A substantial fraction of kids who are in special ed are those
whose
> >> > IQs are low enough that they are not well served in the traditional
> >> > classroom.
>
> >> A *substantial fraction*? =A0That's not what you said, of course.
=A0Y=
ou
> >> complained that a lot of money is spent on *special education,* but
> >> that society does not acknowledge those *at the other end of the
> >> spectrum* =A0Its this assumption that special needs children are at
th=
at
> >> *other end of the spectrum* that is so offensive.
>
> >Did someone gore your ox? =A0It is clear that special ed children are
> >learning
> >handicapped. =A0If they weren't then they would not be special ed
> >children. =A0They learn more slowly and require more instruction than
> >high
> >IQ children.
>
> >This is a simple statement of fact. The *reason* why a child might be
> >SPED
> >is irrelevant. =A0 Why this recognition of fact should be offensive to
> >anyone is a puzzle
> >to me. SPED children =A0*are* at the other end of the spectrum from
high
> >IQ children
>
> No they aren't. The whole point is that "high IQ" does NOT necessarily
> mean "rapid learning",

Of course it does.  Show me someone with a high IQ who is NOT a
rapid learner.

> >when it comes to learning. =A0This is just a statement about life.
>
> It is a false statement.

So you claim.  I disagree.