My point is if you teach 10th graders, they have just now started to be included in regular classes. Great for them! I mean that. THEY will improve, because they are exposed to a higher level of work---for them.

But if you put a kid with an IQ of 68--reading at a 2nd grade level---in a REGULAR ALGEBRA I class, oh, come on!

And it gets better. In their IEP's, they give a magic number of percentage of concepts they need to know... which makes no sense. If they only have to "master" 70% of the concepts, in Social Studies and English, which 30% of history or a book analysis would you like to omit?

As it is, the kids know they get a fewer number problems, written at a lower level--with more time given to complete-- and that seems fair.... UNTIL they have to take the TAKS.

So, does that doom them? Nope. Some will achieve, some even pass. But what about the ones who just ---cannot---do--it?

That is the problem. Teachers want to help them, but why punish them if the kid does not pass an on level test?

Don't even get me started about the *unschooled kids*, the ones who --again, bless their hearts---come to America never having stepped one foot in a school. So at age 14, they are given about 2 years to master 9-10 YEARS of learning, culture, language and thinking skills or again, the TEACHER is seen as failing.