What should be cut first?

[mnrose]

Sorry, but if choices need to be made in special ed. then yes the gifted children can take the cuts better than a child who is disabled. That is the way I see it. Our best and brightest are still going to shine. Just because they don't get the gifted class in second grade isn't going to stop that.

Do you really think that its better for the funds to be cut for the program that helps the child with learning disabilities than it is for the gifted program?

Please, keep in mind, my personal preference would be for NO funds to be cut. But, if a choice must be made that is the choice I think would best serve the children.

Obviously, you are not terribly familiar with the needs of highly gifted learners. They are NOT going to "shine" just because they are gifted. In fact, the opposite tends happen. For the child who is truly gifted (and I'm not talking about bright or smart kids...those kids do just fine in a normal classroom), school at a regular level quickly becomes incredibly tedious and boring. They are working many, many grades below their ability. Once bored, they tend to become disruptions to the classroom. They act out. They make it more difficult for other children to learn. They are more often than not considered " behavior problems." I seriously do not get why everyone thinks it's just fine for a kid 30-40 points below a typical IQ score to get all sorts of special education needs at a HUGE cost (here in Minnesota, often with a full time classroom aid for ONE kid), yet the child who is 30-40 points above the norm is supposed to suck it up and deal.

The reality is that it costs VERY LITTLE MORE than normal classroom dollars to provide educational opportunities that are appropriate for the highly gifted student. My children are in exactly such a program, and it costs roughly the same as it does in any other public program in the state. But, these programs must be set up and funded. It is entirely possible to meet the needs of these kids without spending additional money. It's essential that they exist, and posts like yours which seem to indicate a fundamental misunderstanding of need for these programs make my blood boil.

 

[DizBelle]

B/c saying no to a dyslexic or an autistic or a mentally challenged disabled child is VERY democratic.


Gifted children can be tought in a regular classroom setting utilizing less funds than perhaps at present.

I ENJOYED my gifted studies--very fascinating and it kept my interest in school. But they weren't critical.

A dyslexic student has a critical need to read....
An autistic child has a critical need to be educated...
As do the mentally challenged...
as do the blind...
as do the deaf....

A gifted child doesn't have a critical need to do a unit study on butterflies b/c it is just cooler to learn that way. It helps expand their horizens, but they do not suffer academically if the program were absent.

I only had "gifted" for 2 years as an exclusive class and 1 year as my social studies class. I *survived*.

A dyslexic student will not if accomodations are never made to faciliate their disability so that they can actually learn to read and then read to learn.

HUGE DIFFERENCE.

Oh--and my 4th grader is gifted---but homeschooled.

I bought her a Reading workbook for the gifted so she can learn about "cooler" things while working on her reading comprehension. Otherwise, her curriculum is a standard education curriculum.
The book was $10-$15.

Contrast that with the various tools needed to help people with actual deficiencies.....

Yeah--the gifted kid can "suffer" through a regular curriculum instead of a disabled child who cannot actually do a regular curriculum.

To suggest otherwise--is WRONG.

IF supply is limited--you help those who cannot possibliy help themselves first before given "extras" to the kids who are brainiacs.

People who can't tell teh difference between the two aren't doing the gifted any favors by neglecting those in society who require services just to FUNCTION.

It does seem prudent that the first available funds should be used for those that need extra help to perform up to standard. The question is, are there funds available?

Am I just being too simple or is there not already built in a mechanism for addressing the needs of the more advanced? Couldn't a 10th grader that is more advanced than other 10th graders take 11th grade level classes for the subjects in which they are more advanced?

Maybe the same could be said for those that are struggling at a grade level. Some subjects could be taken at a lower grade level.

Of course this wouldn't address all of the "special" needs students might have but it seems like it would address at least some.

Bottom line - there isn't enough money to give everyone exactly what they need. So, how do you decide who gets what?

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

It does seem prudent that the first available funds should be used for those that need extra help to perform up to standard. The question is, are there funds available?

Am I just being too simple or is there not already built in a mechanism for addressing the needs of the more advanced? Couldn't a 10th grader that is more advanced than other 10th graders take 11th grade level classes for the subjects in which they are more advanced?

Maybe the same could be said for those that are struggling at a grade level. Some subjects could be taken at a lower grade level.

Of course this wouldn't address all of the "special" needs students might have but it seems like it would address at least some.

Bottom line - there isn't enough money to give everyone exactly what they need. So, how do you decide who gets what?

That I don't know.

In Florida, children can qualify for Early steps and get services until age 3. My son turns 3 next week and his free private speech therapy will end. We meet at the Elementary school today to continue his transfer paperwork.

I had asked when he started Early steps why the state pays to help the little ones. She said it had something to do with ADA. I'm not sure if it is correct or not, but there is a compulsory responsibilty for education to be accessbile. State tax dollars cover them until age 3. It doesn't come out of the education budget. At age 3, it does. I'm not sure if that is fair since my son is 2 years away from even doing VPK. So continuing his speech, takes away from someone's education. But he has the right to learn to speak--just as the dyslexic has the right to learn how to read.

As long as education is compulsory, the states do have a duty to make sure its disadantaged students are provided an opportunity to miss out on basic skills.

My son has apraxia--and speech in general can lead to difficulties learning to read, more so for apraxic children.

So--I think a combination of the state tax dollars that subsidize the Early steps program in conjunction with the educational system to get it done.

I was merely commenting on the person who felt to not do anything for gifted students was socialism.

Well, to neglect those with disabilities and impairments--is communism.

How does it get paid for, I don't know. But an impaired child has every right to an education as an un-impaired child.

Being gifted is NOT an impairment. I had thought at one point going into teaching to teach gifted--and was shocked when I found out it was considered "special ed". I was apalled. I considered it just a step above honors--and I don't like it in a special category as though it were an impairment.

To treat it as such is nothing more than special snowflake syndrom by parents who demand such services for their gifted child at the expense of a child who struggles to learn the alphabet or to say a coherent sentence.

Having been in those shoes as gifted and the parent of a gifted child, my opinion remains the same.

Incredibly selfish for any parent to equate Suzies need to learn quantum physics in second grade as important or of greater importance than a kid needing therapies and special attention to overcome a learning impairment--is disgusting.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Am I just being too simple or is there not already built in a mechanism for addressing the needs of the more advanced? Couldn't a 10th grader that is more advanced than other 10th graders take 11th grade level classes for the subjects in which they are more advanced?

Forgot to address this part--I think sometimes schools shoot themselves in the foot on this one. While each school system, county and state is different--I have found parents who have had success in advancing their child iwthin the system and I have found parents who have pulled thier children to provided them the appropriate education b/c the school system refuses or can't figure out how to deal with them.

Locally-I know a couple who are both Rocket Scientists (or some super advanced brainiac degree that involves working with Space stuff)--and their kids..just WOW!

She did pull them b/c she didn't expect the elementary school to teach her 3rd grader physics. It was unrealistic, so she pulled them to teach them at the pace they needed. They were crazy advanced and it wasn't forced upon them. They just pick things up quickly and move on. It's crazy. They remind me of the little 12 yo's who are able to successfully get into Harvard--academically. Socially they were fine as well. I have no idea of her future intentions, but she was doing what she felt they needed now.

Not everyoone is fortunate to do that--but she had no disillusions that the school should have made specail accomodations for her Einstein.

I too know parents who despite IEPs, have pulled their autistic children out (varying degrees)--the school wasn't even doing what was legally required or medically necessary. So they gave up.

 

[DizBelle]

That I don't know.

In Florida, children can qualify for Early steps and get services until age 3. My son turns 3 next week and his free private speech therapy will end. We meet at the Elementary school today to continue his transfer paperwork.

I had asked when he started Early steps why the state pays to help the little ones. She said it had something to do with ADA. I'm not sure if it is correct or not, but there is a compulsory responsibilty for education to be accessbile. State tax dollars cover them until age 3. It doesn't come out of the education budget. At age 3, it does. I'm not sure if that is fair since my son is 2 years away from even doing VPK. So continuing his speech, takes away from someone's education. But he has the right to learn to speak--just as the dyslexic has the right to learn how to read.

As long as education is compulsory, the states do have a duty to make sure its disadantaged students are provided an opportunity to miss out on basic skills.

My son has apraxia--and speech in general can lead to difficulties learning to read, more so for apraxic children.

So--I think a combination of the state tax dollars that subsidize the Early steps program in conjunction with the educational system to get it done.

I was merely commenting on the person who felt to not do anything for gifted students was socialism.

Well, to neglect those with disabilities and impairments--is communism.

How does it get paid for, I don't know. But an impaired child has every right to an education as an un-impaired child.

Being gifted is NOT an impairment. I had thought at one point going into teaching to teach gifted--and was shocked when I found out it was considered "special ed". I was apalled. I considered it just a step above honors--and I don't like it in a special category as though it were an impairment.

To treat it as such is nothing more than special snowflake syndrom by parents who demand such services for their gifted child at the expense of a child who struggles to learn the alphabet or to say a coherent sentence.

Having been in those shoes as gifted and the parent of a gifted child, my opinion remains the same.

Incredibly selfish for any parent to equate Suzies need to learn quantum physics in second grade as important or of greater importance than a kid needing therapies and special attention to overcome a learning impairment--is disgusting.

Agreed. So maybe a disproportionate amount of funds should go to those that need more help. But by the same token, the standard eduation is inadequate for the "gifted". Why should they get left out? Why should they get less than they need for an adequate education for their level?

Here's an analogy... You're at the grocery store with your two kids Jack and Jill. Both are equally deserving. Jack wants chocolate chip cookies and is allergic to someting in oreos so can't eat them at all. Jill wants oreos and is allergic to someting in chocolate chip cookies so can't eat them at all. Both are $3 for a package but you only have $3. How do you decide who gets cookies and who doesn't? Now matter how you decide, one of them is going to get shorted.

Or do you get neither oreos nor chocolate chip cookies and get someting that neither really wants but both can eat?

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Obviously, you are not terribly familiar with the needs of highly gifted learners. They are NOT going to "shine" just because they are gifted. In fact, the opposite tends happen. For the child who is truly gifted (and I'm not talking about bright or smart kids...those kids do just fine in a normal classroom), school at a regular level quickly becomes incredibly tedious and boring. They are working many, many grades below their ability. Once bored, they tend to become disruptions to the classroom. They act out. They make it more difficult for other children to learn. They are more often than not considered " behavior problems." I seriously do not get why everyone thinks it's just fine for a kid 30-40 points below a typical IQ score to get all sorts of special education needs at a HUGE cost (here in Minnesota, often with a full time classroom aid for ONE kid), yet the child who is 30-40 points above the norm is supposed to suck it up and deal.

The reality is that it costs VERY LITTLE MORE than normal classroom dollars to provide educational opportunities that are appropriate for the highly gifted student. My children are in exactly such a program, and it costs roughly the same as it does in any other public program in the state. But, these programs must be set up and funded. It is entirely possible to meet the needs of these kids without spending additional money. It's essential that they exist, and posts like yours which seem to indicate a fundamental misunderstanding of need for these programs make my blood boil.

I don't get the need to treat the gifted like special snowflakes. They will function in society unlike an impaired child who struggles to learn how to read.

If it is one or the other, the gifted students don't "need" such programs.

Your blood can boil--but it is elitist to think that such needs are more important than children who need extra tools to learn.

And yes--*gifted* here, as is my child.

 

[DizBelle]

I don't get the need to treat the gifted like special snowflakes. They will function in society unlike an impaired child who struggles to learn how to read.

If it is one or the other, the gifted students don't "need" such programs.

Your blood can boil--but it is elitist to think that such needs are more important than children who need extra tools to learn.

And yes--*gifted* here, as is my child.

More important - no. As important -yes.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Agreed. So maybe a disproportionate amount of funds should go to those that need more help. But by the same token, the standard eduation is inadequate for the "gifted". Why should they get left out? Why should they get less than they need for an adequate education for their level?

Here's an analogy... You're at the grocery store with your two kids Jack and Jill. Both are equally deserving. Jack wants chocolate chip cookies and is allergic to someting in oreo so can't eat them at all. Jill wants oreos and is allergic to someting in chocolate chip cookies so can't eat them at all. Both are $3 for a package but you only have $3. How do you decide who gets cookies and who doesn't? Now matter how you decide, one of them is going to get shorted.

Or do you get neither oreos nor chocolate chip cookies and get someting that neither really wants but both can eat?

Cookies aren't a need, so it isn't a valid scenario.

But if Jack hadn't eaten all day and Jill had a nice filling lunch and the cookie was the ONLY thing that could be bought to satisfy feeding them, then Jack's needs trump Jill's. Jill won't starve without the cookie. Theoretically, neither will Jack, but he has greater need for food in his tummy than Jill.

The gifted child is Jill with lunch in her tummy.
The impaired child is Jack who hasn't had anything to eat all day.

That is how you "decide" if you had to "choose" and you were forced into a decision that will leave someone short.

Families make these decisions all of the time within their household economics.

I have a friend whose 14yo has cancer. They are doing amazing and getting by. But if they had to do cuts, I think they'd choose the cancer treatement over soccer, football, and gymnastics and chocolate chip cookies for the other 5 children if push came to shove.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

More important - no. As important -yes.

IF you had to pick one, it is not as important as much as parents like to think that it is.

 

[golfgal]

If a child is truly gifted then they DO need special learning situations, the problem is that the majority of kids that are in "gifted" programs are really nothing more then really good students and therefore really do not qualify as special needs in my opinion. My son has a boy in his class that is truly gifted in math. As a freshman he was taking 300 level and above college math classes and the past two years has had special classes designed for him through some math professors around the country because they can't keep up with him. For the rest of the subjects, he is just a good student. MN has a program in place where he can take these classes for free so that isn't a concern. For him, YES, he needed special education and to not have options available to him for that would have really been a tragedy. Now, for those kids that are just really good students, no they should not be classified under special education.

 

[IDoDis]

Obviously, you are not terribly familiar with the needs of highly gifted learners. They are NOT going to "shine" just because they are gifted. In fact, the opposite tends happen. For the child who is truly gifted (and I'm not talking about bright or smart kids...those kids do just fine in a normal classroom), school at a regular level quickly becomes incredibly tedious and boring. They are working many, many grades below their ability. Once bored, they tend to become disruptions to the classroom. They act out. They make it more difficult for other children to learn. They are more often than not considered " behavior problems." I seriously do not get why everyone thinks it's just fine for a kid 30-40 points below a typical IQ score to get all sorts of special education needs at a HUGE cost (here in Minnesota, often with a full time classroom aid for ONE kid), yet the child who is 30-40 points above the norm is supposed to suck it up and deal.

The reality is that it costs VERY LITTLE MORE than normal classroom dollars to provide educational opportunities that are appropriate for the highly gifted student. My children are in exactly such a program, and it costs roughly the same as it does in any other public program in the state. But, these programs must be set up and funded. It is entirely possible to meet the needs of these kids without spending additional money. It's essential that they exist, and posts like yours which seem to indicate a fundamental misunderstanding of need for these programs make my blood boil.

The gifted program has always been a pet peeve of both myself and DH. We are both teachers and our oldest child was in the gifted program since 2nd grade. I teach special ed (not gifted). Out here, the gifted program falls under the special ed umbrella and is funded by the state. It has been on the chopping block for the past couple of years, but has managed to survive thus far. Don't know how much longer it has.

From DH's POV who is teaching in the general ed class, it is a pain in the rear when kids get pulled out to go the "gifted class" where they examine owl pellets and plan their "dream vacations" on the internet. Meanwhile, the general ed teacher is still responsible to teach the standards in all subjects to those students and give them report card scores showing if they are meeting the standards in each area. If the student is pulled out during the reading block, then it becomes rather difficult for the teacher to make that time up.

Just because a student is "gifted" doesn't necessarily mean he/she is brilliant in all academic areas. Many gifted students still struggle with reading or writing or math. When they miss class to do some foo-foo assignment in another class, they are missing out. Our daughter was in a pull-out gifted program. Luckily, she was strong academically so she didn't suffer from missing her general class, but many do. Once she hit middle school, her gifted class took place during the language arts block. Fine, she's not being pulled from class like elementary school, but I still don't think the curriculum in her gifted class is anything to write home about, and isn't anything that ALL students couldn't be introduced to. If she gets bored in her other classes, so be it. Life is not Disney World and things will be boring. I tell her to deal with it, and she does.

She'd do just fine without the gifted class. I will not be upset if the district decides to drop the gifted classes. I think the money could be better spent in other areas -- namely special ed where students need the most but end up getting the least -- bottom of the barrel teachers, left over discarded books and the classrooms that are in portable buildings and in disrepair.

Someone else commented on how married couples can get money back from their district if one spouse doesn't claim benefits. Well, that doesn't happen out here. Also, we don't get ANY compensation for unused sick leave when we retire. I have almost 600 hours of leave and will never see a penny in extra money. At least I have some security knowing I'll have some paid leave if I ever need major surgery or have an extended illness though.

 

[daughtersrus]

I have a friend whose 14yo has cancer. They are doing amazing and getting by. But if they had to do cuts, I think they'd choose the cancer treatement over soccer, football, and gymnastics and chocolate chip cookies for the other 5 children if push came to shove.

I agree.


Sadly, a few pages ago it was pointed out that people should think about having a disabled child before becoming parents. Therefore, they should be responsible for the education costs if they have a child that is not normal.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

If a child is truly gifted then they DO need special learning situations, the problem is that the majority of kids that are in "gifted" programs are really nothing more then really good students and therefore really do not qualify as special needs in my opinion. My son has a boy in his class that is truly gifted in math. As a freshman he was taking 300 level and above college math classes and the past two years has had special classes designed for him through some math professors around the country because they can't keep up with him. For the rest of the subjects, he is just a good student. MN has a program in place where he can take these classes for free so that isn't a concern. For him, YES, he needed special education and to not have options available to him for that would have really been a tragedy. Now, for those kids that are just really good students, no they should not be classified under special education.

Agreed--I'm not saying that it isn't necessary.

But if funds had to be cut--being gifted is not an impairment.

I'm not sure why it would be tragic if he was unable to take higher level math coursework. It seems to me to be hyperbole.

There are greater tragedies out there.

 

[luvsJack]

Obviously, you are not terribly familiar with the needs of highly gifted learners. They are NOT going to "shine" just because they are gifted. In fact, the opposite tends happen. For the child who is truly gifted (and I'm not talking about bright or smart kids...those kids do just fine in a normal classroom), school at a regular level quickly becomes incredibly tedious and boring. They are working many, many grades below their ability. Once bored, they tend to become disruptions to the classroom. They act out. They make it more difficult for other children to learn. They are more often than not considered " behavior problems." I seriously do not get why everyone thinks it's just fine for a kid 30-40 points below a typical IQ score to get all sorts of special education needs at a HUGE cost (here in Minnesota, often with a full time classroom aid for ONE kid), yet the child who is 30-40 points above the norm is supposed to suck it up and deal.

The reality is that it costs VERY LITTLE MORE than normal classroom dollars to provide educational opportunities that are appropriate for the highly gifted student. My children are in exactly such a program, and it costs roughly the same as it does in any other public program in the state. But, these programs must be set up and funded. It is entirely possible to meet the needs of these kids without spending additional money. It's essential that they exist, and posts like yours which seem to indicate a fundamental misunderstanding of need for these programs make my blood boil.

I am not saying there is no need for these programs, all of the programs offered in the school system are essential. The topic of cutting special education was brought up and all I meant was if a choice had to be made between cutting the gifted program and cutting the programs for children with learning disabilities, the gifted program should be cut first, imho. And I still have that same opinion. IF (and that is a huge IF) a choice has to be made between the two.

Are you saying there is no need for programs for children that are in other special ed programs? Are you saying that it is not essential for the other programs to exist? Do you not think that cutting the program for a child with learning disabilities would cause that child to disrupt the class when he/she is not able to keep up with the rest of the class?

I do not think any programs are disposable and I certainly do not think there is no need for the programs. We were talking about what cuts to make. We were talking about hard choices our school districts may have to make.

My son was in the program for part of his education. The extra work load and adhd were not a good combination. My niece was in the gifted program all through her education. If this choice was made when she was testing for the program, for instance, we would be talking about choosing to have a program to teach a dyslexic child to read or to have a program for a child that can read 3 grades above her grade level. She could READ, the other child could not--and you don't believe the dyslexic child needs the program?

I know what the program is all about. I also know that a teacher's salary is paid annually for this program and another entire classroom is supplied for this program. Not to mention that there is an entire separate budget set up for the program and the classroom is given many extras that the regular classrooms do not have.

It can be a wonderful program (it is not in all districts) and great for the kids that qualify, but would we not owe it to the majority of the students to supply their needs, if that choice had to be made?

 

[DizBelle]

I agree.


Sadly, a few pages ago it was pointed out that people should think about having a disabled child before becoming parents. Therefore, they should be responsible for the education costs if they have a child that is not normal.

Don't get hung up on semantics. It's just a word. All that was meant was to refer to children for whom the general education standard was not sufficient.

 

[DizBelle]

I am not saying there is no need for these programs, all of the programs offered in the school system are essential. The topic of cutting special education was brought up and all I meant was if a choice had to be made between cutting the gifted program and cutting the programs for children with learning disabilities, the gifted program should be cut first, imho. And I still have that same opinion. IF (and that is a huge IF) a choice has to be made between the two.

Are you saying there is no need for programs for children that are in other special ed programs? Are you saying that it is not essential for the other programs to exist? Do you not think that cutting the program for a child with learning disabilities would cause that child to disrupt the class when he/she is not able to keep up with the rest of the class?

I do not think any programs are disposable and I certainly do not think there is no need for the programs. We were talking about what cuts to make. We were talking about hard choices our school districts may have to make.

My son was in the program for part of his education. The extra work load and adhd were not a good combination. My niece was in the gifted program all through her education. If this choice was made when she was testing for the program, for instance, we would be talking about choosing to have a program to teach a dyslexic child to read or to have a program for a child that can read 3 grades above her grade level. She could READ, the other child could not--and you don't believe the dyslexic child needs the program?

I know what the program is all about. I also know that a teacher's salary is paid annually for this program and another entire classroom is supplied for this program. Not to mention that there is an entire separate budget set up for the program and the classroom is given many extras that the regular classrooms do not have.

It can be a wonderful program (it is not in all districts) and great for the kids that qualify, but would we not owe it to the majority of the students to supply their needs, if that choice had to be made?

What about this (albeit extreme but not necessarily unrealistic) scenario. There are no gifted programs. There is only general education and special education. Cuts need to be made. What do you cut? Do you cut math for everyone or do you cut a special education program?

 

[kinntj]

We just received a budget update from our Superintendant. They need to cut 1.4 million from the budget next year. The Superintendant is cutting 3% from her pay and after a year of no increases. I guess that's a good start.

I would be ticked if they touched special ed. They shouldn't change a thing. We don't have gifted programs here. There's better things to cut than that. I don't particularly want music and art cut either. Sometimes this is all the kids have to get through a day of school.

Gifted should be cut if it's available as the first thing to go. It's above and beyond what is standard for a student. The resources should go to the students who haven't reached the standards. A gifted child has reached them and then some.

When you're use to having all the programs there and they all seem necessary, it's hard to pick which things to cut completely or scale back on.

 

[DizBelle]

Cookies aren't a need, so it isn't a valid scenario.

But if Jack hadn't eaten all day and Jill had a nice filling lunch and the cookie was the ONLY thing that could be bought to satisfy feeding them, then Jack's needs trump Jill's. Jill won't starve without the cookie. Theoretically, neither will Jack, but he has greater need for food in his tummy than Jill.

The gifted child is Jill with lunch in her tummy.
The impaired child is Jack who hasn't had anything to eat all day.

That is how you "decide" if you had to "choose" and you were forced into a decision that will leave someone short.

Families make these decisions all of the time within their household economics.

I have a friend whose 14yo has cancer. They are doing amazing and getting by. But if they had to do cuts, I think they'd choose the cancer treatement over soccer, football, and gymnastics and chocolate chip cookies for the other 5 children if push came to shove.

Oh, goodness. It was just analogy. If you don't like cookies, substitute something that is deemed essential to Jack and Jill.

 

[luvsJack]

What about this (albeit extreme but not necessarily unrealistic) scenario. There are no gifted programs. There is only general education and special education. Cuts need to be made. What do you cut? Do you cut math for everyone or do you cut a special education program?

That would be an extremely hard choice and I guess first, I am just glad I am not the one that would have to make it.

But, to answer your question; I think I would be more likely to find a way to make across the board cuts and not completely cut either. This would be the situation in which I would cut art, music or at least some sports. Kids who cannot learn to read cannot function in society.

If a cut to special ed was absolutely necessary; maybe a complete re-testing of students would be in order. So that only those completely not able to function in a regular classroom would be serviced (not sure that all schools have programs for severely disabled students, ours does) .

We have a preschool program for disabled children; I would cut that before the school-age programs (although, I certainly see the great need for this program and would hate to see it cut). I recently learned that the schools pay for some children to be home schooled (my daughter had mono and missed a lot of day, this program was suggested to me by a mother who has used it), paying for a teacher to come to the home and teach the student. For some this may be necessary, but I certainly could get her books and keep her caught up without the extra expense to the system. And I am sure there are others that are using this program that can do the same.

I would think cuts to special ed would cause a change in the entire curriculum and all students would suffer, though; as it would cause a need for the current curriculum to be slowed down and not cover as much information in a given time frame. Regular classroom teachers would have to do the job of special ed teachers in some cases and the only way to do that would be to lower the standards and not expect her/him to teach as many skills to a mastery level.

 

[luvmy3]

I literally just found out an hour ago that our district is planning on cutting all AP courses, tech classes, life skills, art and music classes. I have no idea about any of the details.