What should be cut first?

[daughtersrus]

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.

I'm not sure which word you're referring to. The part that I have a problem with is that you're suggesting that parents of special ed students should have to pay to educate their children (in addition to the therapy, medical expenses and tutoring that they're already paying for ) as well as for the education of regular education students.

I'm wondering why you feel that it's OK to require these parents to pay for both while everyone else is only paying for one?

It's also sad to think that people view parents of special needs children as irresponsible because they may not be able to afford the education that their children needs.

If your suggestion became a reality, I suspect that the vast majority of special needs students will no longer be getting an education. Working parents would then have to quit to stay home. What about the single parents? Do they then have to choose to put their child in foster care or adoption because they can't afford to pay for the school? Please tell me what you think will happen when these children turn 18 years old? Who is going to be responsible for providing the care and assistance that they need?

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

I think that the issue is that it's not essential for a gifted student to go look at owl pellets while it is essential for a special education student to learn to read or feed himself.

 

[DizBelle]

I'm not sure which word you're referring to. The part that I have a problem with is that you're suggesting that parents of special ed students should have to pay to educate their children (in addition to the therapy, medical expenses and tutoring that they're already paying for ) as well as for the education of regular education students.

I'm wondering why you feel that it's OK to require these parents to pay for both while everyone else is only paying for one?

It's also sad to think that people view parents of special needs children as irresponsible because they may not be able to afford the education that their children needs.

If your suggestion became a reality, I suspect that the vast majority of special needs students will no longer be getting an education. Working parents would then have to quit to stay home. What about the single parents? Do they then have to choose to put their child in foster care or adoption because they can't afford to pay for the school? Please tell me what you think will happen when these children turn 18 years old? Who is going to be responsible for providing the care and assistance that they need?




I think that the issue is that it's not essential for a gifted student to go look at owl pellets while it is essential for a special education student to learn to read or feed himself.

I have no idea and I don't have a solution. The only thing I'm suggesting is that the system we have now is heading in a direction that is not going to be good for anybody.

In general, don't you wish more people put a little more thought than "I have to procreate" into becoming a parent?

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

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.

Legal mandate and ADA would nullify that position.

A gifted person is not disabled and are not being denied anything by having to just do a regular curriculum.

A child with a disability who CAN'T do the curriculum--is being denied. Since they legally have to be at school, then the responsibility falls on the state to make their learning POSSIBLE.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I have no idea and I don't have a solution. The only thing I'm suggesting is that the system we have now is heading in a direction that is not going to be good for anybody.

In general, don't you wish more people put a little more thought than "I have to procreate" into becoming a parent?

In arguments on school funding, the thought put into procreation is an irrelevant argument.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

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

Education is essential to Jack and Jill.

Jill was gifted with an IQ that makes learning very easy and possible.

Jack was blessed with some difficulties that make learning difficult.

Both need to be educated.

The state only has money to buy him a curriculum that will faciliate his difficulties so that he can learn OR a specail advanced curriculum so that Jill will be challenged and not be bored.

What do they choose?

They SHOULD choose to not deny Jack his right to an education. For to deny him, would be against the law (ADA) and make it difficult for him to comply with mandated education that he is incapable of doing in the first place.

 

[DizBelle]

Education is essential to Jack and Jill.

Jill was gifted with an IQ that makes learning very easy and possible.

Jack was blessed with some difficulties that make learning difficult.

Both need to be educated.

The state only has money to buy him a curriculum that will faciliate his difficulties so that he can learn OR a specail advanced curriculum so that Jill will be challenged and not be bored.

What do they choose?

They SHOULD choose to not deny Jack his right to an education. For to deny him, would be against the law (ADA) and make it difficult for him to comply with mandated education that he is incapable of doing in the first place.

What if Jill is a regular student in regular classes. What should she be denied? Math? Reading?

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

What if Jill is a regular student in regular classes. What should she be denied? Math? Reading?

At this point, you are getting ridiculous.

Ask Kansas City, Missouri and Detroit, Michigan. They closed schools, they didn't cut any one student from their right to an education. They reduced their budget by combining things so that they don't have as much operating costs.

Math and reading won't get cut--and you are speaking nonsense at this point.

ADA would prohibit a disabled child from being denied access to an education and the basics cannot be eliminated and you know that quite well.

If they get to a point where they have to eliminate an important education element such as learning to read--or math.....

They have better eliminated each and every extra-curricular activity that exists. Music, art, sports, perfoming arts, bulletin boards--all the extra--every single one.

Since that won't happen, we don't need to worry about silly scenarios where it comes down to "Do we teach math, or do we enable learning impaired children reading abilities?"

But to your answer--there are many other ways to cut the budget before having to come to that ethics issue.

In the end, in this unlikely and silly scenario--math would have to be cut. Why? Well at least the regular student gets something and the disabled student gets the same opportunity to learn that something.

If you cut special ed, then one group of students is being favored over another--and that is unacceptable regardless of the subject matter in any scenario.

And math should be cut before reading--if you can read, you can learn anything. If you can only do math--you can only "read" numbers.

 

[nuttylawprofessor]

I love teachers. I think that they are under appreciated and work hard for their money. But in light of the budgetary issues we have nationwide, it's time to look at salaries. American workers have been dealing with pay freezes and pay cuts for several years, yet I haven't seen many teachers losing pay raises. In Chicago, the head of the Chicago Teachers' Union has announced that the union will not reopen their contract and their 4% raise scheduled for next year is untouchable. I realize that most of this is pre-negotiation posturing, but could we please cut the crap? EVERYBODY needs to make sacrifices.

 

[dsny1mom]

It is a luxury if you are able to take another day off if you choose and make that time up on Saturday.

What time off are retail, district and regional managers required to take off? I know many managers that choose when they take their time off. Teachers are not able to do that.

Again, they are contracted, not salaried employees.

Depends on what the retailer specilazes in. For example one that sells Children's clothing usually blacks out Nov1 through Jan 1, mid July through Labor Day, the weeks Spring break are, and of course times surrounding inventories. IOW the majority of prefered family vacation times are not times retail managemernt can take vacations. Pretty much they aren't able to vacation during the prime times that teachers are.

And just so you know upper management in retail is generally not allowed to alter their schedules unless it is an emergency. IOW if your normal work week is M-F you can not take off Monday and work on Sat. Just like teschers aren't allowed to do the same.

dsny1mom

 

[luv2sew]

I'm sorry I just couldn't read all these posts. But want to chime in. Instead of "what would you cut" in these schools...why not using the schools resources to try to earn money.... I bet there are classes that could be taught in the high schools evenings for adults that would help some of the unemployed with learning skills to try to get new jobs. It may not make a million but it may save something...and maybe some kids that really like art would pay to take an art class in the after school hours.

I don't know about the 4 day week thing....just how are the parents supposed to care for kids at home when the parents have to be a work?

 

[dsny1mom]

I love teachers. I think that they are under appreciated and work hard for their money. But in light of the budgetary issues we have nationwide, it's time to look at salaries. American workers have been dealing with pay freezes and pay cuts for several years, yet I haven't seen many teachers losing pay raises. In Chicago, the head of the Chicago Teachers' Union has announced that the union will not reopen their contract and their 4% raise scheduled for next year is untouchable. I realize that most of this is pre-negotiation posturing, but could we please cut the crap? EVERYBODY needs to make sacrifices.

Bingo, *for this area*.

If the all powerful teacher's union doesn't wise up the Chicago public schools will make the Elgin Illinois teacher layoffs (700 for next school year) look like a drop in the bucket.

dsny1mom

 

[Nik's Mom]

I love teachers. I think that they are under appreciated and work hard for their money. But in light of the budgetary issues we have nationwide, it's time to look at salaries. American workers have been dealing with pay freezes and pay cuts for several years, yet I haven't seen many teachers losing pay raises. In Chicago, the head of the Chicago Teachers' Union has announced that the union will not reopen their contract and their 4% raise scheduled for next year is untouchable. I realize that most of this is pre-negotiation posturing, but could we please cut the crap? EVERYBODY needs to make sacrifices.

I'ver really tried to stay out of this thread. I have 2 disabled kids and it seems like the issue of special education has been involved in some heated comments on here. I'd probably get banned if I really spoke my mind. But I just wanted to say that I agree with you on the subject of salaries.

I really do appreciate teachers. My sons have both been blessed with some amazing teachers. They have gone above and beyond the call of duty many times. We really do feel blessed to have them in our sons lives. But the unions really need to look at this situation and realize that something has to give. Most of the working force in this country has dealt with salary freezes, and even salary reductions.

 

[chicagodisneyfan]

From Time Magazine:
American schools spend more than $8 billion a year educating the mentally retarded. Spending on the gifted isn't even tabulated in some states, but by the most generous calculation, we spend no more than $800 million on gifted programs.

But it can't make sense to spend 10 times as much to try to bring low-achieving students to mere proficiency as we do to nurture those with the greatest potential.

 

[Nik's Mom]

From Time Magazine:
American schools spend more than $8 billion a year educating the mentally retarded. Spending on the gifted isn't even tabulated in some states, but by the most generous calculation, we spend no more than $800 million on gifted programs.

But it can't make sense to spend 10 times as much to try to bring low-achieving students to mere proficiency as we do to nurture those with the greatest potential.

Some of the services provided to disabled children are probably a lot more expensive than what is required for a gifted student. Some examples would be special learning devices, speech, o.t., extra staff, etc. Some special needs children are non-verbal and use expensive keyboards to help them communicate in school. Also, more staff is required to care for a severly disabled child while in class. Those are just a couple of examples that come to mind.

 

[bettymae1121]

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?

Neither. You cut other areas of the state and local budgets and give the schools the extra money, or you raise taxes.

If you've already cut the schools to the bare bones. No sports, no gifted, no music, no art, let off teachers and support staff until kids are stacked to the rafters in the classrooms that are left, cut board and administrative pay/positions and there is nothing left but bare esentials for general and special ed? Then you find the money in other budgets throughout the state and/or you raise taxes.

The pot of money for education may not be limitless, but there is a bare minimum it needs to function. If you don't have enough for it to function, then you need to find the money, not make more cuts.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

From Time Magazine:
American schools spend more than $8 billion a year educating the mentally retarded. Spending on the gifted isn't even tabulated in some states, but by the most generous calculation, we spend no more than $800 million on gifted programs.

But it can't make sense to spend 10 times as much to try to bring low-achieving students to mere proficiency as we do to nurture those with the greatest potential.

While I am but a pitiful homeschooling parent, the catologues that I review---

The cost for tools and curricula and "extras" for a gifted child--cost but a fraction of the tools that facilitate a disabled child's ability to learn.

Respectfully--it is going to cost more to teach a mentally disabled child the tools they need to basically function--than it will be to have a gifted child dissect an owl pellet.

Also....

the stats are rough b/c I don't know where to look--

But mentally disabled alone--roughly 18-30% of the population has a mental disability compared to teh top 3% of the population that is generally considered gifted.

So just based on % of the population alone, you will have far more students that are at an academic disadvantage than you will gifted students.

So just on # of students alone, it is going to cost significantly more to teach those who need the help versus those who need help out of their boredom.

It is an unfair comparsion designed to imply some sort of plight among the gifted.

Also-mental disability is covering a wide range of impairment that hinders learning capabilities. It seems your first thought is the person who will never learn to right their name. But there are quite functioning and capable people--who need more help to learn a basic education.

I wonder about the rest of the article and what the article was trying to accomplish in terms of swaying public opinion.

 

[chicagodisneyfan]

Some of the services provided to disabled children are probably a lot more expensive than what is required for a gifted student. Some examples would be special learning devices, speech, o.t., extra staff, etc. Some special needs children are non-verbal and use expensive keyboards to help them communicate in school. Also, more staff is required to care for a severly disabled child while in class. Those are just a couple of examples that come to mind.

I get it - but we are doing a disservice to our truly gifted student - these kids could change the world for the better.

I think severely mentally challenged children (in my opinion )- do not belong in school. If they are unable to read, do math, spell, learn etc - WHY exactly are they in school?

 

[chicagodisneyfan]

Here is the link to the Time article......

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1653653,00.html

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I get it - but we are doing a disservice to our truly gifted student - these kids could change the world for the better.

I think severely mentally challenged children (in my opinion )- do not belong in school. If they are unable to read, do math, spell, learn etc - WHY exactly are they in school?

I see--so how much money spent on a student should be based on what critieria?

Janie can be a brain surgeon, so spend more on her...

Jill can only hope to bag groceries for a living--so let's just ignore her...

While Fred needs a simple but expensive device to allow him to explore the world b/c he has a great mind--but screw him, he's a cripple mentally handicap kid and forget his potential--it ain't obvious and his IEP says he's handicapped.


That's elitist snobbery and anyone who can't see that--O.M.G.

And it is ignorant to believe that all handicapped children CAN'T read, do math, or spell.

My friend has a down's syndrome kid doing just fine in mainstream USA middle school.

But the money spent in the early years, versus casting him off as a mentally worthless part of society, made that possible.

And the $800 billion isn't all spent on those who handicaps are so severe that it *seems* to the average citizen to be a waste of time to bother.

The law compels, and requires an education. While someone with a severe disabilty may never learn to add let alone algebra, they have rights--and no gifted child trumps their rights. EVER.

 

[chicagodisneyfan]

The law compels, and requires an education. While someone with a severe disabilty may never learn to add let alone algebra, they have rights--and no gifted child trumps their rights. EVER.

I adamantly reject your position but admire your dedication to it.

Because I think monies towards the gifted child should at least EQUAL the per child expenditures of the disabled.

NO disabled child should trump the gifted child's rights... EVER.