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 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.
In my district, we have an alternative learning center. We also have classrooms dedicated to profoundly disabled children.
No, it's extra money for a few students TAKEN from that needed to educate the rest.
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.
I'm not wrong about removal of a child who is unable to participate properly in the classroom. I know for a fact that these children can and will be removed if they are disrupting the education of other students in the room.
The law makes very clear that the student must be able to handle that environment too. If your district isn't keeping up with this, that's their fault. Not the fault of the students or their parents.
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?
Your aunt received education services from a teacher and that is all any of us want for our kids - special needs or not.
I mentioned the separate classroom because mainstream teachers are not dealing with the profoundly disabled children of which you speak. Many of the classrooms for the profoundly disabled are exactly what you are talking about so I don't see the problem.
No they are not. They are getting the funding needed to guarantee their right to a free public education. Its not disproportionate. It is in direct proportion to their needs.
<snip>
For some reason I keep missing this, in all the documents I see written by our forefathers about 'rights' such as this.... Perhaps you could point out to me where is is documented that someone has a 'right' and is 'entitled' to a free public education... More so,if it allegedly is a 'right', where are the stipulations as to the quality and level of the education, and who is required to pay for it. (This is not an opinion (yours) of what it should be, but documented laws).
Your aunt received education services from a teacher and that is all any of us want for our kids - special needs or not.
I mentioned the separate classroom because mainstream teachers are not dealing with the profoundly disabled children of which you speak. Many of the classrooms for the profoundly disabled are exactly what you are talking about so I don't see the problem.
I just don't see the point in sending uneducable children to school when it's not really school. Care for them, of course, provide resources, but it's nonsensical to require the state to provide a pretend school setting with teachers, etc., for children who will never be able to learn anything.
Perhaps the cost would be the same anyway were it more of a medical daycare facility. I don't know. The way it is set up now just doesn't make sense.
I'm not wrong about removal of a child who is unable to participate properly in the classroom.
Yes, you are. It's happened to my kids' classrooms time and time again in K-8. Special Ed kids are "mainstreamed" because that's perceived to be "the least restrictive environment." That's a legal right the disabled kids have, and neither the schools nor the concerned parents of the other kids in the classroom can do anything about it. Disruptive student in the classroom? Tough ****. Normal kids don't matter. They have no such legal right to be educated in "the least restrictive environment."
There are already some private schools who deal in this alone. They compete and have a waiting list. The kids care there is yards above the care they got at public school.
Mightqueen is right, gluing macaroni for hours isn't therapy. The public school has to offer you special needs help but it doesn't have to be good. The care could be and often is an old Chevy version.
I think a voucher for a private special needs school would be a better fit. Hopefully that gets implemented.
These days if a kid draws an action character they get arrested. Autistic kids get arrested for meltdowns, kids with ADHD get thrown out of class for fighting, Bi Polar kids commit suicide. We aren't helping. Why protect something that isn't working? Let it go. Schools should be competing and servicing the parent and child.
The lack of services compared to the money the schools get is laughable. The kids with these issues get sent home constantly because the school can't handle them. They are on many meds so they can handle this environment, it's not helping them and because teachers are exhausted from all the rules they aren't that kind about it either.
A lot of special needs families end up trying to homeschool or online school these kids anyway. A voucher would be a wonderful thing for these families. They could use it for a private school and not have to quit their jobs to hs their sp.needs kids.
What we currently have doesn't work already, why not try a voucher for a private school for special needs?
There are some really good private options for Autism, ADHD and other mental issues starting around the country. They are successful. I hope they grown like weeds. They are a needed service.
She said IDEA was a matter best left to the states. I didn't twist anything.
Yes and then was confused whether IDEA was state or federal funded. Nothing was said about pulling any funds or shutting down programs. As I understand the fed picks up ~40% of the excess cost, the states must come up with the remainder of the funding. It is estimated that it cost twice as much to educate a special needs child than a non special needs child. She did not make any definitive statement as to her intentions concerning IDEA special needs obligations or funding.
For some reason I keep missing this, in all the documents I see written by our forefathers about 'rights' such as this.... Perhaps you could point out to me where is is documented that someone has a 'right' and is 'entitled' to a free public education... More so,if it allegedly is a 'right', where are the stipulations as to the quality and level of the education, and who is required to pay for it. (This is not an opinion (yours) of what it should be, but documented laws).
When a state establishes a public school system, no child can be discriminated against in the use of that school.
I just don't see the point in sending uneducable children to school when it's not really school. Care for them, of course, provide resources, but it's nonsensical to require the state to provide a pretend school setting with teachers, etc., for children who will never be able to learn anything.
Perhaps the cost would be the same anyway were it more of a medical daycare facility. I don't know. The way it is set up now just doesn't make sense.
But its not "school" other than its at the school. I do believe the cost would be the same, if not higher, if there was a medical daycare facility. I think it makes sense to have it at a school and to be quite honest, I think its good for children to be integrated with different types of peers.
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.
