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.
I just wanted to give you the courtesy of letting you know that I've made the decision not to engage in conversation with you on this topic. Your attitude towards disabled children greatly disturbs me and I am unable to discuss this issue with you without becoming inordinately angry and upset. This is out of character for me. However, since I have a child with special needs and have friends whose own children have varying degrees of disabilities, I'm unable to put aside your attitude towards them and engage in productive discourse with you.
Thank you for you response. I understand it fully. It is an emotional thing not necessarily rational.
You must know that I have zero attitude towards the disabled children. I fully believe they should be cared properly; however, I have a lot towards their parents.
I am in full support of taxpayers looking after the disabled children as long as the parents forfeit their rights to procreation and vote. It's only fair, right?
Its not extra money. Its needed money. There's a difference and I'm sorry you are unwilling or unable to understand that.
You misunderstand the least restrictive clause. If the nature of the disability proves the student incapable of being in a mainstream classroom, schools are well within their rights to relocate that child to a different, more appropriate environment.
You are right. It is needed money. No question there. The problem is that the money is taken from the funding designated for the education of all the children. There is some limited funding provided for the needs of students with disabilities, but nowhere does it cover anywhere near the cost of providing these services.
What more appropriate environment is there for disruptive students? There are only so many that can fit in the principal's office.
Plus, parents of students with special needs often have a three-yard fit if you remove their child permanently from the classroom. They wave their child's IEP in the air, insist that they be given time-outs, cool-down periods... threaten lawsuits.
Short of pulling a knife and attacking other students, it is close to impossible to permanently remove a disruptive child from a classroom.
No, it's extra money for a few students TAKEN from that needed to educate the rest.
Quote:
You misunderstand the least restrictive clause. If the nature of the disability proves the student incapable of being in a mainstream classroom, schools are well within their rights to relocate that child to a different, more appropriate environment.
You are VERY wrong about that. Like I said, the ONLY group of students who have any actual legal rights in school are the disabled. If their parents' insist the regular classroom is "the least restrictive environment" and the law says their child has the right to that (it does), they cannot be removed from the regular classroom or the school district gets sued by the parents and Special Ed advocates. I have seen it happen time and time again.
In my district, profoundly disabled children are in another classroom altogether. What do you propose we do with those children? Keep them at home and out of society?
No, no, he was in an entirely different facility altogether. And don't be a wiseass. I wasn't saying that at all. I had an aunt born in 1934 who was mentally retarded (sorry, but she didn't live long enough to get a prettier designation like "challenged") and had cerebral palsy. The idea BACK THEN was to shove them in institutions and my grandmother wouldn't. A local teacher came to the house and taught her to the point she was able to be taught. She could write her name. In today's world, she likely would have been able to be taught further.
Obviously, the child I am talking about did not even have that much capacity for learning. Again, his mentality is about that of a four-month-old. My aunt had the capacity of a five-year-old. Big difference.
I don't know what the solution is for children who are not educable whatsoever, but requiring them to be in "school" until they are 21 when they are not capable of learning anything is ridiculous and a waste of resources. Could we not have another, more realistic facility where they are cared for, a sort of daycare, to provide relief for the parents while not paying big bucks to teachers to hold the hands of a child who is unaware of his surroundings while they glue macaroni to construction paper?
Thank you for you response. I understand it fully. It is an emotional thing not necessarily rational.
You must know that I have zero attitude towards the disabled children. I fully believe they should be cared properly; however, I have a lot towards their parents.
I am in full support of taxpayers looking after the disabled children as long as the parents forfeit their rights to procreation and vote. It's only fair, right?
This is a ridiculous argument.
Trump does not pay taxes and continues to use government services provided by taxes. Roads, airports... Currently, half a million a week of taxpayer funding in NYC is used to protect him. Should he not be allowed to procreate or vote?
We need to fund services for children with disabilities. Stealing these funds from the education of all children is not the way to go. It undermines their education and the future of our nation.
Back to Betsy DeVos and support for services for students with disabilities.
"But by far the most troubling moment came when DeVos claimed that enforcing the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA, "is a matter best left to the states." DeVos then admitted that she "may have [been] confused" about whether it is actually a federal law."
What she is not confused about is her unwavering support for vouchers and "voucher programs, including programs like the McKay Scholarship in Florida and the Special Needs Scholarship Program in Georgia. These two programs – and others like them around the country – require parents to sign away their rights under IDEA to receive a voucher."
"Private schools are not required to provide the special education services that these students need, and parents have no recourse if the schools simply refuse to do so."
There are a lot of reasons why public schools are failing to educate all our children.
But regardless of the reasons, an increasing number of parents are not satisfied with public schools and there is considerable support for vouchers. Whether or not Betsy DeVos becomes Secretary of Education, I suspect vouchers are in our future.
It may well be that vouchers for students with disabilities will be a higher amount, encouraging some schools to focus on meeting the needs of these students, but I seriously doubt you will see private schools mainstreaming disruptive students or students who require a great deal of additional time and attention.
I think the county gets fed funds to help theses students - so regardless of capacity- each one os so different- they have a right and many a teacher has been wrong about a student and they achieved much... They deserve no less than every other child- and yes maybe a little more-.... the question would be-- if it were YOUR child
Hearing Betty DeVos, the new Education secretary and a woman who is a die hard Mad Max social darwinist, talk about how disabled children shouldnt get federal protection is very troublesome.
Do you support the idea of disabled children being left to the mercy of the states so states can chase out families with disabled children because they use too much taxpayer money?
You forgot how we are going to let grandma die a slow painful death and children will be forced to work in the coal mines for cheese and bread. Good lord moonbats are emotionally unstable folks.
Trump does not pay taxes and continues to use government services provided by taxes. Roads, airports... Currently, half a million a week of taxpayer funding in NYC is used to protect him. Should he not be allowed to procreate or vote?
We need to fund services for children with disabilities. Stealing these funds from the education of all children is not the way to go. It undermines their education and the future of our nation.
Ridiculous in what way?
Trump didn't pay taxes because he had a loss. You don't have to pay taxes if you have a loss.
I didn't say if people don't pay taxes, they must forfeit their right to vote or procreate, did I? I said if they receive welfare, they should forfeit those rights.
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.
