Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are making a very broad assumption that some how all of the students who use special ed resources are at the bottom as is demonstrated in all of your allegories, which is often not the case. Let me ask you something what would you do with a child who can write brilliantly, but is sub-par in math? Or a student who is an excellent pupil of the sciences, but has trouble differentiating the civil and revolutionary wars in history? With many special ed kids this is the case, they may hold a C or B average, but their grades are a mix of high As and Ds. What do you do with them? It is not so much about good and bad apples or slow and fast runners as it is about what do you do with 8th grader X who struggles to pass science, but easily knows the background and historical significance of events ranging from the battle of Ain Jalut to the invention of interchangeable parts.
Special ed generally caters to those who are the lowest of the low. The special cases you mention are not the norm in terms of special education.
I was a student who might be considered "special" by your measurements. I was recognized by the state for my exceptional math skills and I scored 200 points higher on the math section of the SAT than the verbal section. But I was someone who had enough potential and skills that I was still able to succeed. Those without the tools to succeed on their own shouldn't take away from those who have them. Wonder why our education system has fallen behind so many countries? It's this notion that we need to try to bring everyone to the same level, which is obviously quite low so everyone can clear it. The problem is that it stunts the growth of all those who can easily reach those heights.
After all, at my public school I had to waste my time falling asleep in Geometry class (while still getting 110% in the class) when I could have been getting special attention to nurture my gifts. Instead, I continued to waste time in that class and mouthed off to my teacher and some special ed kids managed to get their 2.0s. I grew so frustrated with the lack of challenge in my public school that I transferred to a prestigious boarding school 3000 miles away from my family so I could be challenged and be surrounded by kids who were also capable and eager to be challenged. Surrounding smart kids with other smart kids ALWAYS ends up being beneficial to them. Surrounding them with idiots is not.
I think we should take that same $6,500 and spend it on the top 11% of the kids, regardless of whether or not they have Dyslexia, Dysgraphia or a Fine Motor Control Problem...if they're elite minds, they'll stand out enough to merit that extra spending, if not, they don't deserve it.
BTW, I was technically in Special Ed for a semester due to my wide testing ranges between verbal and mathematical skills, but it was a joke to me and ended up being a hour of every day I spent tutoring other students in math and doing nothing of value for myself. All special ed at my public high school was just homework time, nothing else. What value does that have?
Special ed generally caters to those who are the lowest of the low. The special cases you mention are not the norm in terms of special education.
I was a student who might be considered "special" by your measurements. I was recognized by the state for my exceptional math skills and I scored 200 points higher on the math section of the SAT than the verbal section. But I was someone who had enough potential and skills that I was still able to succeed. Those without the tools to succeed on their own shouldn't take away from those who have them. Wonder why our education system has fallen behind so many countries? It's this notion that we need to try to bring everyone to the same level, which is obviously quite low so everyone can clear it. The problem is that it stunts the growth of all those who can easily reach those heights.
After all, at my public school I had to waste my time falling asleep in Geometry class (while still getting 110% in the class) when I could have been getting special attention to nurture my gifts. Instead, I continued to waste time in that class and mouthed off to my teacher and some special ed kids managed to get their 2.0s. I grew so frustrated with the lack of challenge in my public school that I transferred to a prestigious boarding school 3000 miles away from my family so I could be challenged and be surrounded by kids who were also capable and eager to be challenged. Surrounding smart kids with other smart kids ALWAYS ends up being beneficial to them. Surrounding them with idiots is not.
I think we should take that same $6,500 and spend it on the top 11% of the kids, regardless of whether or not they have Dyslexia, Dysgraphia or a Fine Motor Control Problem...if they're elite minds, they'll stand out enough to merit that extra spending, if not, they don't deserve it.
BTW, I was technically in Special Ed for a semester due to my wide testing ranges between verbal and mathematical skills, but it was a joke to me and ended up being a hour of every day I spent tutoring other students in math and doing nothing of value for myself. All special ed at my public high school was just homework time, nothing else. What value does that have?
I have to say I had an entirely different experience. The vast majority of time I spend in special ed was dedicated to me independently writing, re-writing and receiving feedback on endless amounts of papers, which greatly helped me to master writing at that grade level. It was not wasted at all. As to being board in class, I have to wonder why you were in that class? Was there no way you could have just gone into algebra II instead or at least honors geometry? Did they not exist at your school?
Additionally, I have ran the gambit of everything from large, though very good, public schools to a small $32,000 a year liberal arts college (didn't pay anything close to that though...yay for merit aid) and have never gone somewhere where people just got special attention. Pretty much everywhere though I found if you advocated for special attention and were willing to do what it took to get it, i.e. stay after school, study during lunch etc. you got it and middle school special ed. like any class I had in middle school, or later high school and college had whatever, value you wanted it to have so long as you were willing to pay the price in time and effort. If you worked at what you needed to do it paid if not not so much.
You are a teacher in a non-standard environment (charter school) with one year's experience. I am a homeschool parent, former public school parent and volunteer, and education advocate with experience in several large local school systems. I would not be surprised to find that our experiences are quite different.
Second is that I seriously doubt you would be able to identify which monies coming into your classroom come from which source, other than that ESE paras are paid from IDEA money, Title One staff are paid from Title One money, etc. Further, the salaries paid to ancillary staff like OTs, PTs, and speech therapists affect the quality of education for the student in your classroom-- not your own comfort level. You wouldn't see a tangible cause/effect relationship there, since it's not as if ESE students were assigned special beakers or microscopes with little pink or yellow triangles for identification purposes.
If you've a real interest in how IDEA money impacts your classroom, and how it's spent at your facility, I would suggest you research your school's budget.
The issue with disproportionate spending for special ed isn't exclusive to charter schools. In fact, because charter schools are schools of choice, they can turn down students they can't accomodate. So, it should be less of a problem for us not more.
Um, it's easy to identify where special ed money is spent. That would be special ed teachers and the resource room. What do you think I'm talking about? Regular ed is the stuff for my room. No one is buying extra things because I have to accomodate special ed students. I wish they were. Some of what I teach is best taught hands on for students who struggle but I get the same stuff to teach with with or without having to make accomodations.
In my view, disruptive students absolutely do not belong in a mainstream classroom, regardless of the cause, source or "label" applied to them. Non-disruptive children who need an extra helping hand should be accommodated to the extent that funding permits while assuring that the majority of students of average or higher capabilities are not shortchanged because of special needs individuals. A budgetary matrix ought to first be distributed to the high achievers, secondly to the average population, third to non-disruptive special needs groups and last to the disruptive students cohort. It is a very finite pie folks, and the distribution thereof ought to be allocated with the goal of enhancing and advancing the general welfare of our society as a whole. To do otherwise is simply illogical and damages our future. That is my opinion and perhaps I'm a minority viewpoint, but there it is.
Mainstreaming is the style du jour. And I dislike it. Somehow in high school it is ok that some kids are ahead in math and can take higher level classes while others take business math over and over, yet in elementary school everyone has to do the same curriculum, even if they struggle immensely or can breeze through it and sit there with nothing to do.
There are some kids that currently benefit from mainstreaming because the alternative is a classroom for severely emotionally disturbed or profoundly physically and mentally handicapped children, and their needs are not that high. There is nothing in the middle for them besides the resource room or a special ed parapro that floats to the kids to help them in the regular classroom. Sometimes they need a little more than that.
I totally agree with you there needs to be some middle ground for kids that need just a little extra help. At my son's school where I volunteer there is no middle they only have a severe handicapped class. Sometimes I volunteer in this class and their is 1st grader who has high functioning Autism and he is so smart. He really does not fit in this class at all. He knows more than some of the mainstreamed students I have tutored that are his age. But he does need a little extra help and he doesnt have a discipline problem.
I'm a little disturbed by a couple of the comments. Comments about how Special Ed. students get too much attention, while general ed. kids and "super smart" students have to settle for what they get. I don't agree that's fair. I do think there are far too many poorly raised students in special ed. under the category of "behavioral disorder", and other categories. But I have to ask:
Would you feel better if your healthy child got all the attention, and all the kids with Down's Syndrome and Mental Retardation and Autism had to settle for whatever leftover money and time the district found for their programs? Special Ed. kids are supposed to receive services that make them as independent as possible. For some, that includes physical therapy, occupational and/or speech therapy. Social work, adaptive PE. Life skills training. Services like these are extremely important. I've seen kids in wheel chairs get physical therapy, and as a result are able to walk with a walker by the end of the year.
But I suppose the masses would be happier if we took those opportunities away because these children won't contribute much to society 20 years down the line....?
Honest question here. And this isn't what I think. I work in Special Ed. I work with disabled students. And I'm not ignorant of the fact that a good number of people all over would like to have disabled kids "shelved" to make more room for the "normal" kids.
Special ed generally caters to those who are the lowest of the low. The special cases you mention are not the norm in terms of special education.
I was a student who might be considered "special" by your measurements. I was recognized by the state for my exceptional math skills and I scored 200 points higher on the math section of the SAT than the verbal section. But I was someone who had enough potential and skills that I was still able to succeed. Those without the tools to succeed on their own shouldn't take away from those who have them. Wonder why our education system has fallen behind so many countries? It's this notion that we need to try to bring everyone to the same level, which is obviously quite low so everyone can clear it. The problem is that it stunts the growth of all those who can easily reach those heights.
After all, at my public school I had to waste my time falling asleep in Geometry class (while still getting 110% in the class) when I could have been getting special attention to nurture my gifts. Instead, I continued to waste time in that class and mouthed off to my teacher and some special ed kids managed to get their 2.0s. I grew so frustrated with the lack of challenge in my public school that I transferred to a prestigious boarding school 3000 miles away from my family so I could be challenged and be surrounded by kids who were also capable and eager to be challenged. Surrounding smart kids with other smart kids ALWAYS ends up being beneficial to them. Surrounding them with idiots is not.
I think we should take that same $6,500 and spend it on the top 11% of the kids, regardless of whether or not they have Dyslexia, Dysgraphia or a Fine Motor Control Problem...if they're elite minds, they'll stand out enough to merit that extra spending, if not, they don't deserve it.
BTW, I was technically in Special Ed for a semester due to my wide testing ranges between verbal and mathematical skills, but it was a joke to me and ended up being a hour of every day I spent tutoring other students in math and doing nothing of value for myself. All special ed at my public high school was just homework time, nothing else. What value does that have?
I would agree with spending the same on the other end of the spectrum provided we also include the almosts in the enhanced classes. It has been shown that the 10% who don't make the cut into G&T programs benefit from G&T programs over traditional programs. I'm not sure if the same is for the next 10% up from special ed (for whatever reason) who don't qualify for as special ed but I think it would be worth a shot.
I'm a little disturbed by a couple of the comments. Comments about how Special Ed. students get too much attention, while general ed. kids and "super smart" students have to settle for what they get. I don't agree that's fair. I do think there are far too many poorly raised students in special ed. under the category of "behavioral disorder", and other categories. But I have to ask:
Would you feel better if your healthy child got all the attention, and all the kids with Down's Syndrome and Mental Retardation and Autism had to settle for whatever leftover money and time the district found for their programs? Special Ed. kids are supposed to receive services that make them as independent as possible. For some, that includes physical therapy, occupational and/or speech therapy. Social work, adaptive PE. Life skills training. Services like these are extremely important. I've seen kids in wheel chairs get physical therapy, and as a result are able to walk with a walker by the end of the year.
But I suppose the masses would be happier if we took those opportunities away because these children won't contribute much to society 20 years down the line....?
Honest question here. And this isn't what I think. I work in Special Ed. I work with disabled students. And I'm not ignorant of the fact that a good number of people all over would like to have disabled kids "shelved" to make more room for the "normal" kids.
The problem is, what happens to society if you cater to those who cannot contribute to society at the expense of those who can. Telling the kids who can accomplish something that they are on their own because they're not special ed not only harms that child, it harms society in the long run.
Yes, we're talking about people but you still have to look at return on investment. If the effort to help one child who will never get into college would help three get into college, where should I expend my effort? The answer, in our society, is found in the question "Which child is yours?".
My youngest daughter is gifted. As our system is set up, she's ignored. She already passes the tests so there's nothing in it for the school to put any effort into her. All I can do is nag an try to make the system work for her. I'm not a fan of just pushing kids forward but that's all they're offering her now. She can move up a grade for math and science this year but take the regular classes for her other subjects. No one will consider tailoring education to her.
In my dream system, there'd be a para in every classroom. The para would deal with the special ed kids and their accomodations, while I teach and I could further enhance education for the higher kids while the other kids were working on assignments.
I work at a specialized private school that focuses exclusively on special ed.
Do you think this works better than mainstreaming? What do you see as the advantages? Disadvantages?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What do you think I'm talking about? Regular ed is the stuff for my room. No one is buying extra things because I have to accomodate special ed students. I wish they were. Some of what I teach is best taught hands on for students who struggle but I get the same stuff to teach with with or without having to make accomodations.
