youtube video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBz6glO5x5Q
Slavin and Schunk (2021) posit that intentional teachers, both individually and collaboratively, purposefully create ways to foster learning and to meet the needs of each one of their students.
Watch the Ruby’s Inclusion Story video and discuss the parts of the video that were the most meaningful to you as a current or aspiring educator. Do you believe that inclusion was the right choice for Ruby? Why or why not?
How is inclusion aligned with the learning theories or ideas we have covered in this course? Use content from one or both of your textbooks to support the idea of inclusion.
Finally, consider a biblical approach to educating learners with diverse needs or exceptionalities. Use scripture to support your discussion.
Sample Solution
The Ruby’s Inclusion Story video was truly inspirational and powerful. The story of how the intentional teacher created a space for Ruby to learn and succeed in her classroom was touching, and I felt deeply moved by the teacher’s commitment to inclusion. As an aspiring educator, this video showed me that it is possible to create meaningful learning experiences for all students no matter their background or ability. It also demonstrated the power of collaboration between teachers, families, and administrators in order to ensure that every student has access to a quality education.
Sample Solution
The Ruby’s Inclusion Story video was truly inspirational and powerful. The story of how the intentional teacher created a space for Ruby to learn and succeed in her classroom was touching, and I felt deeply moved by the teacher’s commitment to inclusion. As an aspiring educator, this video showed me that it is possible to create meaningful learning experiences for all students no matter their background or ability. It also demonstrated the power of collaboration between teachers, families, and administrators in order to ensure that every student has access to a quality education.
irst, it is never just to intentionally kill innocent people in wars, supported by Vittola’s first proposition. This is widely accepted as ‘all people have a right not to be killed’ and if a soldier does, they have violated that right and lost their right. This is further supported by “non-combatant immunity” (Frowe (2011), Page 151), which leads to the question of combatant qualification mentioned later in the essay. This is corroborated by the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, ending the Second World War, where millions were intently killed, just to secure the aim of war. However, sometimes civilians are accidentally killed through wars to achieve their goal of peace and security. This is supported by Vittola, who implies proportionality again to justify action: ‘care must be taken where evil doesn’t outweigh the possible benefits (Begby et al (2006b), Page 325).’ This is further supported by Frowe who explains it is lawful to unintentionally kill, whenever the combatant has full knowledge of his actions and seeks to complete his aim, but it would come at a cost. However, this does not hide the fact the unintended still killed innocent people, showing immorality in their actions. Thus, it depends again on proportionality as Thomson argues (Frowe (2011), Page 141).
This leads to question of what qualifies to be a combatant, and whether it is lawful to kill each other as combatants. Combatants are people who are involved directly or indirectly with the war and it is lawful to kill ‘to shelter the innocent from harm…punish evildoers (Begby et al (2006b), Page 290).However, as mentioned above civilian cannot be harmed, showing combatants as the only legitimate targets, another condition of jus in bello, as ‘we may not use the sword against those who have not harmed us (Begby et al (2006b), Page 314).’ In addition, Frowe suggested combatants must be identified as combatants, to avoid the presence of guerrilla warfare which can end up in a higher death count, for example, the Vietnam War. Moreover, he argued they must be part of the army, bear arms and apply to the rules of jus in bello. (Frowe (2011), Page 101-3). This suggests Frowe seeks a fair, just war between two participants avoiding non-combatant deaths, but wouldn’t this lead to higher death rate for combatants, as both sides have relatively equal chance to win since both use similar tactics? Nevertheless, arguably Frowe will argue that combatant can lawfully kill each other, showing this is just, which is also supported by Vittola, who states: ‘it is lawful to draw the sword and use it against malefactors (Begby et al (2006b), Page 309).’
