Comments on: Protecting special education students

By: jim d

jim d — Wed, 27 May 2009 13:30:58 +0000

SPED TEACH,

I call and raise.

Sped students in the states largest system create 95% of the problems encountered daily. THAT dear friend is a FACT.

By: SPED Teacher

SPED Teacher — Wed, 27 May 2009 04:10:40 +0000

As a teacher, your job, as I see it, is to teach each child in your classroom regardless of their abilities. I teach in both c0-teaching and special classes. In my experience, it is not the SPED kids that are the worst behaved. It is the regular education and gifted kids with parents who CONSTANTLY make excuses for their little darlings. They could take lessons from the majority of the SPED students I have been lucky enough to teach. Some of the hardest workers and best behaved students I have had have had the label of moderately intellectual impaired down to profoundly impaired. That being said, mainstreaming academic classes, in my opinion, should be geared for students with milder forms of disabilities. As for SPED kids having more protection, try getting administration to discipline a regular education student with the “squeaky wheel” parents, i.e. the ones who go running to the board of education or threaten to call a lawyer, after the child has disrupted your classroom. And before anyone attacks me and tells me that I have only taught in sheltered schools, I have taught both regular and SPED classes in several different school systems in two different states. I’ll take my SPED kids over your gifted kids any day. By the way, I’m the mother of 2 gifted kids so I know what I am talking about on that front as well.

By: ScienceTeacher671

ScienceTeacher671 — Sat, 23 May 2009 23:55:09 +0000

fme, I’d change that to “All U.S. GOVERNMENT social programs ARE AN ECONOMIC FAILURE AND HAVE NEVER BEEN SELF-SUSTAINING!” — I’d include Social Security, Medicare, etc. in with education…but again, that’s getting into an entirely different argument…

By: freemarketeducator

freemarketeducator — Fri, 22 May 2009 01:44:10 +0000

ST671 you said
“The idea of “returning [the $98 billion] to the taxpayer” is also a bit laughable, since most of that is deficit spending and isn’t being financed with current tax $$”

Thank you for stating the obvious, which most on this board are completely ignorant of or are in denial of. GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS ARE AN ECONOMIC FAILURE AND HAVE NEVER BEEN SELF-SUSTAINING! Currently ALL of the government spending is funded by BORROWED MONEY from the PRIVATE BANK and lender of LAST RESORT, the FEDERAL RESERVE! This is the equivalent of funding your child’s education with a PAYDAY LOAN!!!! Does anyone know what the interest rate is that the FED is charging us? It is anything they want to charge, because NO ONE IS BUYING AMERICA’S WORTHLESS BONDS ANY MORE! The Chinese and Russians are maneuvering to replace the DOLLAR as the reserve currency. They know that the total U.S. debt is more than THE ENTIRE CURRENCY IN CIRCULATION! Years of government school teaching that all aspects of life are an ENTITLEMENT and that there is always a FREE LUNCH has finally come home to roost! You and your children and grandchildren are now slaves of the banksters. The dark times for America have only just begun. All of the lazy self-indulgent U.S. citizens have sown to the wind and are now reaping the WHIRLWIND!
Our family has seen this coming and have been preparing a parachute. We have disentangled ourselves from debt and have prepared to leave this country if necessary.

By: ScienceTeacher671

ScienceTeacher671 — Thu, 21 May 2009 23:26:52 +0000

fme, I’m not arguing about federal involvement in education — I’ve already agreed that there is nothing in the federal constitution to justify federal spending on education.

The idea of “returning [the $98 billion] to the taxpayer” is also a bit laughable, since most of that is deficit spending and isn’t being financed with current tax $$, but again, that’s a different argument.

So far as state involvent goes, if you want that eliminated, the state constitution would have to be changed. Are you really suggesting that the majority of parents would be willing and able to homeschool their children?

It seems to me that the free-market model has already been tried, albeit without modern technology, and that the current system was implemented because the free-market model was only working well for the upper classes – but maybe I’m wrong?

By: freemarketeducator

freemarketeducator — Thu, 21 May 2009 17:59:31 +0000

Soccer mom,
On the surface, your comments sound reasonable. But after careful examination of the facts, I would conclude that you are just as much a part of the problem as those you point a finger at. The Georgia compulsory attendance law states that

“The provision of an adequate public education for the citizens shall be a primary obligation of the State of Georgia. Public education for the citizens prior to the college or postsecondary level shall be free and shall be provided for by taxation.”

The term “adequate” is all important. The government FORCES ALL children to go to school, yet the highest guaranteed standard for any government school is “adequate”. Adequate is defined as

1: sufficient for a specific requirement ; also : barely sufficient or satisfactory
2: lawfully and reasonably sufficient

Sufficient means
1 a: enough to meet the needs of a situation or a proposed end b: being a sufficient condition

ADEQUATE MAY IMPLY BARELY MEETING A REQUIREMENT.

Your child has a right to attend the government school because it is tax payer supported. Your child does not have a right to be educated beyond the government sanctioned “adequate” curriculum. If your child is gifted, the adequate curriculum might be too easy, but the school is under no obligation to provide an “above adequate” curriculum. However, for below adequate students, there is justification to provide extra help to get them closer to the “adequate” level. Public schools are like Social Security; they were never designed to completely replace private education, as S.S will not replace saving for retirement. If you desire a more than adequate education for your child, it is up to you to privately fund it. Your holier-than-thou attitude has no basis in the law. If you are unable to privately fund an “above adequate” education for your child, you might try going door to door and soliciting donations from other citizens. Explain to them that $10,000.00 per year just isn’t enough to educate your gifted child. I am sure they will be happy to help you out.

By: soccer mom

soccer mom — Thu, 21 May 2009 15:18:13 +0000

As the mother of 2 “gifted” boys, I couldn’t agree more with the suggestion to get the more disruptive and time consuming SpEd students out of the mainstream! All through elementary school and the middle school and high school courses in which a gifted option was not offered, large amounts of time are consumed by the teacher having to deal with these disruptive children. Who on earth thought that it would be a good idea to throw students of all learning levels (SpEd/slow, average, and gifted) into the same classroom? When I was in elementary and jr. high, the classes were “phased” so that the slower kids were in one class, the average kids were in one class, and the gifted kids were in one class. The teachers could teach to the speed/level of ALL of the students instead of teaching down for a small group of students. Luckily, the upper level courses (Honors & AP) at the high school level are not populated by SpEd students so the high achievers can actually learn at the rate they are capable of! If this sounds cold, so be it. Just as the parents of SpEd students are most concerned about looking out for their children, so am I.

By: V for Vendetta

V for Vendetta — Thu, 21 May 2009 03:14:48 +0000

freemarketeducator, though we obviously differ ideologically, in this case I absolutely agree with your post. The Fed has no business running education–or anything else for that matter. However, since we’re marching down the road to socialism, I’m going to stick with my government job. Pretty soon, those will be the only jobs left!

By: freemarketeducator

freemarketeducator — Thu, 21 May 2009 02:24:35 +0000

st671

In a free market, the cost of a quality education will vary. Most curriculum is available used, and presents significant savings. The more subjects the parent educator teaches, usually, the greater the savings. Tutors can be hired or co-op classes can be used. Online writing courses are readily available. Teaching videos are very popular and are especially helpful for foreign languages, as are interactive computer programs. The library and the internet provides tons of free resources. Many merchants give home school discounts (Apple, Borders, Barnes and Noble, roller skating rinks, Six Flags, etc. If you have more than one child, the per pupil cost can be less because curriculum can be passed down. Currently a complete video home school program, including books, quizzes, and tests costs $900-$1,000 dollars. This is the same curriculum used by many private schools. My kids have used it and have scored in the upper 90th percentile on their ITBS. Another savings can be in the area of doctor visits. Healthy home cooked meals plus less exposure to sickness and disease can drastically reduce medical bills. A child with a special diet or allergies can be easily accomodated. Peer pressure to buy trendy overpriced clothes is nil, if parent makes it so. Also, if most of the instruction is done in the home, the savings in gas (and less pollution) is huge.
Even with no obvious Constitutional authority for funding public education, the current administration plans to spend $98.2 BILLION:

“As a result of these efforts, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, or Recovery Act), which President Obama signed into law on February 17, 2009, provided a total of $98.2 billion in funding for the Department of Education, creating an unprecedented opportunity for States and school districts to make significant changes to strengthen and improve all levels of education.”

Imagine if just that money were returned to the taxpayer! I think most could afford $1000.000 per child for family financed education.

The state compulsory school law states: “Public education for the citizens prior to the college or postsecondary level shall be free and shall be provided for by taxation.” I don’t understand how this education is free when it is funded with taxpayer money. Also, I am assuming that “taxation” here refers to STATE taxation only. In that case, the government has failed to fulfill its obligation because, correct me if I am wrong, I don’t know of any government school that could continue to operate without Federal tax money. Regardless, if enough citizens did not want to fund government schools, the compulsory attendance law could be repealed.

By: DB

DB — Wed, 20 May 2009 13:57:40 +0000

Cere – the answer to your question is “Yes.” The children are “special needs” for a reason, and as such, deserve special care — NOT being mainstreamed. Most teachers are not trained to be special ed teachers. It requires a particular mindset and set of skills. It’s unfair to force teachers to be something that they are not, it’s frustrating for teachers and kids alike to pretend these kids are “just like everyone else”, and equally unfair to suck up resources for kids who will almost always require some sort of support for the rest of their lives.