Special Education

[cantab]

if we send these children to school, ........?

Their lives will be made better by it.

We should also try and disentangle things. You have observed specific special education provision, and believe it to be not worthwhile. Yet you are arguing in general against all special education provision because of that. That's a false generalisation.

 

[lati0s]

Yeah, there's definitely shades of grey. The choice isn't between severely disabled vs. ADHD/ADD/etc vs. "normal"; there are almost endless possibilities inbetween, so it becomes impossible to draw a line defining what constitutes "intelligent", and especially a self-consistent, intellectually honest line.

Not even to mention the fact that even trying to make that distinction invites far worse possibilities. For example, let's say you become ruler and decide we only value "intelligent" beings. For you, this is defined as everyone except the extremely disabled - in other words, the people discussed in this thread. However, the next ruler decides that an IQ of 80 is the cutoff point defining "intelligent" - the IQ test becomes mandatory, and anyone who scores less than 80 is no longer granted human rights. This is completely contrived and ridiculous, but it's just an example to show what can and has happened before. This isn't even going into the fact that cultural differences and language barriers (ex: European explorers and Native Americans) can be used to justify that another group of people isn't "intelligent"; these aren't as relevant in the 21st century but aren't obselete.

In short, the slippery slope is a fallacy when discussing things in terms of truth-value; it isn't when we're discussing utility.

I realize that there are some practicality concerns if we assign worth by intelligence rather than humanity but I think that a lot of these can be mitigated by not trying to create a steadfast boundary and only acting in the cases where it is clear that the being is not intelligent. I may not be able to give a clear definition of what qualifies as intelligent but I can certainly point out humans that are not. I think that a parallel can be drawn to abortion here, most supporters of early term abortions cannot point to a specific time that they think that the embryo becomes a baby/person but they still agree that in the first trimester or so it is not.

There are also practical benefits that could come from valuing intelligence over humanity. Besides the concerns posted in the OP I think that having society set up so that we value intelligence would greatly help us in the event that we ever encounter non-human intelligences (Computer systems, Aliens, or perhaps even if we discovered that dolphins or something were more intelligent than we thought). If we have the mindset that we are valuable because we are human we would be much more likely to mistreat these possible intelligences than if we had the mindset that we are valuable because we are intelligent.

 

[WaterBomb]

Is that what they're learning? I'm just wondering if you've gone into one of these classrooms and sat in on a lesson. I personally haven't so I'd like to know more about their curriculum. Does anyone else here know? Or is everyone speaking from ignorance?

The last thing America needs to be doing right now is discouraging physical activity.

I've taught special ed in a substitute role, and I studied it extensively when I was earning my degree. Curriculum is heavily varied based on the individual children, since most classes with the severe cases are cross-categorical. The head teacher is more a class manager than anything else, because each handicapped child is attended to by his/her own 1-on-1 aide (also called an ESA--Educational Services Specialist), and even a moderately comprehensive curriculum is difficult to maintain with so many different types of disability in the classroom. Curricula are largely influenced by each student's IEP, a federally mandated program or profile that dictates, among other things, the
student's condition and how to work with it. If a student is being taught the alphabet, it is simply the first step. The alphabet is obviously the building block of our language and education, so one must master it first before learning anything else. Just because they are learning this at a later age than most does not mean they are incapable, nor does it mean that is all they will learn.

 

[manav95]

From experience, I can say that the majority of these kids aren't seriously retarded to the point of utter disability. Some of them are insanely smart and just lack some social ability. The money isn't totally wasted.

 

[SEO]

I still feel as though the other side continues to present arguments based on pity. Instead of presenting a valid argument that proves the validity of their claim or the invalidity of the opposition, the continuously bring incredibly loosely defined terms like fairness and humanity into their arguments. The definitions of things like those are so blurry that they can hardly be said to have a definition. Trying to put them into your argument, and assuming that they have some sort of basis on fact is completely useless with out first proving the truth of those premises. These appeals to emotion are all fine and dandy, but they do absolutely nothing to prove anything. You call the OP and his supporters out for playing devil's advocate, but in reality they are just pointing out how badly formed your arguments are.

Things that are concrete, like the fact that these special education programs consume large amounts of public funds with little to no results can not be over looked. It is a simple problem that was presented by the OP, which no one has been able to solve through trustworthy forms of argument.

If there are no intellectual results in those students, then why should such large sums of tax payer money be used by those programs? To be nice? To make them feel good? Because they are human?[This one in particular is laughable. You would have to somehow come to a factual conclusion of what it is to be human (something centuries of philosophers could not do)] I'm not sure that those arguments would ever hold water.

From experience, I can say that the majority of these kids aren't seriously retarded to the point of utter disability. Some of them are insanely smart and just lack some social ability. The money isn't totally wasted.

Seriously? How many times does it need to be said. This thread is about the children that are indeed mentally retarded to the point of utter disability. Nobody is talking about the children with ADD, or dyslexia, or light learning disorders. The OP is talking about those children that are so mentally handicapped that they cannot function by themselves.

 

[cantab]

Instead of presenting a valid argument that proves the validity of their claim or the invalidity of the opposition, the continuously bring incredibly loosely defined terms like fairness and humanity into their arguments. The definitions of things like those are so blurry that they can hardly be said to have a definition.

Fairness and humanity are everything with this issue, and the fact that they are difficult to define does not make them less relevant. This argument is not about proving things by logic and reason. It's about how people treat other people, and people don't work on logic and reason.

If there are no intellectual results in those students, then why should such large sums of tax payer money be used by those programs?...This thread is about the children that are indeed mentally retarded to the point of utter disability.

What is your grounds for believing that large sums of money are being spent on such extreme cases? (There probably won't BE any sufficiently detailed statistics, especially as there are many costs that cannot be specifically attributed to only the extreme cases, being instead spending on a wider range of needs.)

 

[SEO]

Fairness and humanity are everything with this issue, and the fact that they are difficult to define does not make them less relevant. This argument is not about proving things by logic and reason. It's about how people treat other people, and people don't work on logic and reason.

What is your grounds for believing that large sums of money are being spent on such extreme cases? (There probably won't BE any sufficiently detailed statistics, especially as there are many costs that cannot be specifically attributed to only the extreme cases, being instead spending on a wider range of needs.)

They may have relevance in this case, but you cannot simply used unproven premises and assume that your conclusion is true. For example, trying to use the bible to prove anything cannot work, simply because you would have to assume that everything in the bible is fact (which really cannot be proven). The whole basis of arguments, especially those of morality, is actually in logic and reason. Without those two things, anything you say is just wishful thinking.

My grounds for believing this is the fact that these students have access to incredible amounts of resources. They almost each have their own individual specialized caretakers (full time salaries), they are shuttled back and forth on special buses since they cannot go with the regular kids (which adds the cost of paying the driver and gas for said buses). Add to this the cost of a normal student, which have about 1 instructor per ~25 students and one bus per ~35 students. I think that even spending the normal student amount on these mentally retarded children is wrong, since they are not getting anything out of it. Spending even more than a student that could actually use it seems absurd to me.

 

[Objection]

Fairness and humanity are everything with this issue, and the fact that they are difficult to define does not make them less relevant. This argument is not about proving things by logic and reason. It's about how people treat other people, and people don't work on logic and reason.

Then this entire "argument" is utterly pointless. If you can't use logic and reason to support your points and have to resort to appeals to emotion (fallacy btw), then there is no argument.

Not to mention that, without actually establishing definitions of fairness and humanity, you could be saying literally anything in your "argument". Does fairness = oranges? You didn't define it, nor did anyone else, so for all we know, it does.

Sickening.

 

[capefeather]

It seems I wasn't entirely clear before, so let me clarify that it doesn't matter who takes the responsibility because in reality someone does have to take the responsibility. I wasn't saying that people should or should not care, merely that someone has to care no matter what. Even if the mainstream education doesn't care, someone else does. Just saying that someone isn't worth it is rather futile from this standpoint.

 

[AJers]

I still feel as though the other side continues to present arguments based on pity. Instead of presenting a valid argument that proves the validity of their claim or the invalidity of the opposition, the continuously bring incredibly loosely defined terms like fairness and humanity into their arguments. The definitions of things like those are so blurry that they can hardly be said to have a definition. Trying to put them into your argument, and assuming that they have some sort of basis on fact is completely useless with out first proving the truth of those premises. These appeals to emotion are all fine and dandy, but they do absolutely nothing to prove anything. You call the OP and his supporters out for playing devil's advocate, but in reality they are just pointing out how badly formed your arguments are.

Things that are concrete, like the fact that these special education programs consume large amounts of public funds with little to no results can not be over looked. It is a simple problem that was presented by the OP, which no one has been able to solve through trustworthy forms of argument.

Okay, so here's a serious "concrete" question that I put to you guys... what do you imagine will happen to these severely mentally retarded individuals who cannot function in day to day life to the point of "utter disability"? If you're going to bang the current system (which has a lot of faults, NO ONE is arguing that it doesn't), then you have to come up with an alternative one.

Are you suggesting we leave them home/don't provide day supports? You're going to have more drain on the system from that via family stress, the inability of one (or both) parents working (welfare, anyone?); the inability to access needed supports for the parents to effectively "deal" with the individual at home, increased cases of abuse and neglect, and less protection for the individuals in general. And when the parents can't take it anymore? What options do they have available to them?

Special Education isn't that old of a concept. There are multitudes of individuals who have disabilities who people once shrugged off and said: "they're just a drain on society and will never have no use"; through treating them with dignity and respect and developing specific skills, we now see individuals with severe developmental disabilities getting jobs in the community. Now, will everyone always get a job? No. Absolutely not. I recognize that. But even some of the cases that I was doubtful would ever get employed actually found community positions. It may be wrapping silverware at a restaurant after hours or gathering shopping carts a couple times a day at a local community store, or even volunteering at a community center and making sure a pen is available for people to use... it's STILL some sort of community involvement.

And, more to the point, why are we targeting people with severe mental retardation? Sure, they may not be the best contribution to society but what about the drug addicts and the alcoholics? You may not think that they are that much of a drain on the system but if you think of how much we spend on law enforcement, unpaid hospital bills, etc then they're just as much as a drain in a different way. Are you implying that anyone who is not a "contributing" member to society shouldn't be supported? You're walking on a slippery slope.

Furthermore, when called out on making a line for who is "intelligent" and who isn't, you acknowledge there are difficulties in defining what "intelligence" is and yet you're intolerant of that same difficulty in defining "humanity".

Back up your own statements and come up with actual alternatives that we can debate and then I'm game to get into it. But this: "I don't think humanity is enough of an argument to invest money in Special Education programs" ideology that you have going on is ridiculous.

If there are no intellectual results in those students, then why should such large sums of tax payer money be used by those programs? To be nice? To make them feel good? Because they are human?[This one in particular is laughable. You would have to somehow come to a factual conclusion of what it is to be human (something centuries of philosophers could not do)] I'm not sure that those arguments would ever hold water.

I already pointed out above about other parties (drug addicts/alcoholists/hell, large families with no working parents) are huge drains on the system. Why should such "large" sums of tax payer money be used for these programs? Why would the first round of attacks be focused on the individuals who are LEAST able to defend themselves against it?

I actually agree with you to a certain extent, there isn't a lot of efficiency in the system and a lot of money is lost in the inefficiency. Yes, the system needs to be worked over (as everything in our system really does); but that doesn't mean you can throw them to the dogs and say: figure it out! Seriously, do you have some inability to feel empathy? Have you ever worked in the field or with individuals with handicaps? I just want to know a little bit more about the background you're coming across with.

 

[SEO]

Okay, so here's a serious "concrete" question that I put to you guys... what do you imagine will happen to these severely mentally retarded individuals who cannot function in day to day life to the point of "utter disability"? If you're going to bang the current system (which has a lot of faults, NO ONE is arguing that it doesn't), then you have to come up with an alternative one. I do believe that the currents system needs to be "banged", but my opinion is not that special education should be done away with. Please read my previous posts. As for the alternative, I've tried my best to provide some ideas, of course I don't claim that they are perfect.

Are you suggesting we leave them home/don't provide day supports? No, if you took the time to read my previous posts you would know what my opinion on the matter is. You're going to have more drain on the system from that via family stress, the inability of one (or both) parents working (welfare, anyone?); the inability to access needed supports for the parents to effectively "deal" with the individual at home, increased cases of abuse and neglect, and less protection for the individuals in general. Although I already addressed the fact that this was in fact not my stance, I would like to point out that this is a slippery slope. And when the parents can't take it anymore? What options do they have available to them?

Special Education isn't that old of a concept. There are multitudes of individuals who have disabilities who people once shrugged off and said: "they're just a drain on society and will never have no use"; through treating them with dignity and respect and developing specific skills, we now see individuals with severe developmental disabilities getting jobs in the community. Now, will everyone always get a job? No. Absolutely not. I recognize that. But even some of the cases that I was doubtful would ever get employed actually found community positions. It may be wrapping silverware at a restaurant after hours or gathering shopping carts a couple times a day at a local community store, or even volunteering at a community center and making sure a pen is available for people to use... it's STILL some sort of community involvement.

And, more to the point, why are we targeting people with severe mental retardation? Because that is the topic of this case. Sure, they may not be the best contribution to society but what about the drug addicts and the alcoholics? Although these people, and many other types of people, may be a burden to society, they are out of the scope of this thread. This thread is specifically dedicated to the discussion of the severely mentally retarded. You may not think that they are that much of a drain on the system but if you think of how much we spend on law enforcement, unpaid hospital bills, etc then they're just as much as a drain in a different way. Are you implying that anyone who is not a "contributing" member to society shouldn't be supported? You're walking on a slippery slope. Once again, my opinion on whether or not those people should be tolerated or not is out of the scope of the thread. Please try and stay on topic, this thread is about special education and the severely mentally retarded. And no, as my previous posts said, I do think that they need support. Furthermore, I never mentioned contribution to society as qualification for education.

Furthermore, when called out on making a line for who is "intelligent" and who isn't, you acknowledge there are difficulties in defining what "intelligence" is and yet you're intolerant of that same difficulty in defining "humanity".

I still feel as though the other side continues to present arguments based on pity. Instead of presenting a valid argument that proves the validity of their claim or the invalidity of the opposition, the continuously bring incredibly loosely defined terms like fairness and humanity into their arguments. The definitions of things like those are so blurry that they can hardly be said to have a definition. Trying to put them into your argument, and assuming that they have some sort of basis on fact is completely useless with out first proving the truth of those premises. These appeals to emotion are all fine and dandy, but they do absolutely nothing to prove anything. You call the OP and his supporters out for playing devil's advocate, but in reality they are just pointing out how badly formed your arguments are.

Have you actually read my posts?


Back up your own statements and come up with actual alternatives that we can debate and then I'm game to get into it. But this: "I don't think humanity is enough of an argument to invest money in Special Education programs" ideology that you have going on is ridiculous.

What I find ridiculous is that you jump into this argument and accuse me of saying all sorts of things, not backing up my statements, and not trying to come up with alternatives when I have done all of those things already. Once again, please read my posts in this thread. Like I said before, humanity may be enough, but it can't stand in a logical argument because definitions for humanity vary. So no, it is not enough of an argument.

I already pointed out above about other parties (drug addicts/alcoholists/hell, large families with no working parents) are huge drains on the system. Why should such "large" sums of tax payer money be used for these programs? Why would the first round of attacks be focused on the individuals who are LEAST able to defend themselves against it? Once again, out of focus. Also, no one ever said that it would be the "first round of attacks". Coming up with an alternative would not be an attack, which is exactly what I've tried to do.

I actually agree with you to a certain extent, there isn't a lot of efficiency in the system and a lot of money is lost in the inefficiency. Yes, the system needs to be worked over (as everything in our system really does); but that doesn't mean you can throw them to the dogs and say: figure it out!You continuously misrepresent my argument. I don't know what made you think that I want to throw anyone to the dogs; all I want is an alternative. You are right, the system does need to be worked over, which is exactly my argument. Seriously, do you have some inability to feel empathy? Now you are just resorting to personal attacks, which have no place in an argument. Have you ever worked in the field or with individuals with handicaps? I just want to know a little bit more about the background you're coming across with.

tl:dr

Read my previous posts.

 

[AJers]

And, more to the point, why are we targeting people with severe mental retardation? Because that is the topic of this case. Sure, they may not be the best contribution to society but what about the drug addicts and the alcoholics? Although these people, and many other types of people, may be a burden to society, they are out of the scope of this thread. This thread is specifically dedicated to the discussion of the severely mentally retarded.

Are you implying that anyone who is not a "contributing" member to society shouldn't be supported? You're walking on a slippery slope. Once again, my opinion on whether or not those people should be tolerated or not is out of the scope of the thread. Please try and stay on topic, this thread is about special education and the severely mentally retarded. And no, as my previous posts said, I do think that they need support. Furthermore, I never mentioned contribution to society as qualification for education.

It’s not out of the scope of this thread. One of the main arguments against Special Education that I’ve seen presented in this thread is the “expense” of it. As such, you opened up the ability for people to analyze other expenses that we carry through taxes and other programs. But okay, I’ll back off on it and focus on just Special Education of the “severely mentally retarded” individuals. But I do have a few questions, since (basically) we’re attempting to deny public education programs from people, there must be some sort of qualifications that you are looking at to determine that… so, what qualifications for an individual to have PUBLIC education do you have?

Furthermore, when called out on making a line for who is "intelligent" and who isn't, you acknowledge there are difficulties in defining what "intelligence" is and yet you're intolerant of that same difficulty in defining "humanity".

Have you actually read my posts?

Are you misunderstanding mine? I re-reviewed the posts and it wasn’t you who actually stated it, so I will apologize TO you for making it seem like you did… but when asked where to draw the line for intelligence or someone who is “severely” developmentally disabled the lines were blurry on where it would go and they pushed it off on a case-by-case basis. Where do you draw the line? What is intelligence? This argument was opened with a philosophical question to begin with; one that has very blurry lines as well. Yet you’re trying to limit the opposition to your argument by saying that an argument that is based on a philosophical point that isn’t clearly defined is inadmissible. How, exactly, does that work?

What I find ridiculous is that you jump into this argument and accuse me of saying all sorts of things, not backing up my statements, and not trying to come up with alternatives when I have done all of those things already. Once again, please read my posts in this thread. Like I said before, humanity may be enough, but it can't stand in a logical argument because definitions for humanity vary. So no, it is not enough of an argument.

Alright, you’re right on me not noticing that you had actually come up with alternatives. I didn’t notice your first post in the argument on page 3… well, my page 3 (#71). But, I read it now so let’s talk… but first I need some clarification:

That is not the case, and people should not be paying equal taxes for unequal education. Now, my personal opinion is that these children should not be taken out of school though. I believe that the parents of these children should either have a tax cut, allowing them to pay for a private facility, effectively stopping the average Joe from having to pay for unequal education, or the parents of these children could shell out some more money to pay for these special education programs, again protecting the average Joe. Through either one of these two, my personal choice is the tax cut, the children could receive the education they need, and the social interaction they need, while not causing an uneven distribution of tax money.

But previously you stated:

This thread is about the children that are indeed mentally retarded to the point of utter disability. Nobody is talking about the children with ADD, or dyslexia, or light learning disorders. The OP is talking about those children that are so mentally handicapped that they cannot function by themselves.

So… I’m confused. Are you saying that even the individuals without SEVERE mental disabilities shouldn’t get any special treatment or are you saying they should?

Seriously, do you have some inability to feel empathy? Now you are just resorting to personal attacks, which have no place in an argument.

Alright, this one wasn’t honestly directed AT you, more towards the individuals who have made the “what does it really mean to be an individual?!” comments. And it’s not a personal attack when people are equating being severely developmentally disabled to being a monkey or squirrels. It’s an honest question.

Have you ever worked in the field or with individuals with handicaps? I just want to know a little bit more about the background you're coming across with.

I am honestly curious about this? Have you?

 

[Bad Ass]

drug addicts can take care of themselves. sure, they may OD and die, but the fact stands that they can take care of themselves. you dont need a personal assistant to feed, bathe, and clothe a drug addict. a drug addict is not defined as mentally retarded.

about your "job" point. you need to read the thread. you need to read the thread. you. need. to. read. the. thread. this thread is about those who CANNOT and WILL NOT get a job. they are too defunct to get a job. they CANT WORK.

to address the point of draining families-families should take into consideration whether they have the resources available to take care of a child, retarded or not. not doing so is irresponsible.

how about the new system is "leave them at home". my previous point addresses the work related aspect. you should be planning if you're going to have a child. you can hire some form of day care, but don't burden we the taxpayers because you didn't plan ahead.

 

[AJers]

drug addicts can take care of themselves. sure, they may OD and die, but the fact stands that they can take care of themselves. you dont need a personal assistant to feed, bathe, and clothe a drug addict. a drug addict is not defined as mentally retarded.

Um, yeah, they can take care of themselves and they all have health insurance so that every time they go to the hospital/are found on the streets they pay for it themselves. That's not tax payer money, not at all. That's my point. Not every drain on society is a Mentally Retarded individual; and the amount of money we spend on "mentally retarded" people is pocket change compared to a lot of other things.

about your "job" point. you need to read the thread. you need to read the thread. you. need. to. read. the. thread. this thread is about those who CANNOT and WILL NOT get a job. they are too defunct to get a job. they CANT WORK.

I read the thread, and yet you guys can't seem to define how mentally retarded this would be. Would it be someone who has severe mental retardation? Because I know a few of them who are volunteering. Are you talking about parapalegics? Because I know a few who drive around the mall in their wheelchairs to deliver lunches to people. What is the cut off line? Because, seriously, someone who you would consider un-employable I would probably see some potential in.

The bigger drain on society are the ones who have no excuse other than not wanting to be contributing members of society. Far be it for me to value their contribution over someone who doesn't have the option presented to them.

to address the point of draining families-families should take into consideration whether they have the resources available to take care of a child, retarded or not. not doing so is irresponsible.

Are you kidding me? Can I laugh at you outright or just a lot inside? Do you know the teen pregnancy rate or even how many people are surprised by a pregnancy EVERY DAY? Most people are NEVER ready for kids.

Assuming everyone is responsible is the... I'll use silly since I don't want to actually insult the retards... silliest thing I've ever heard. Congratulations, you won the golden star.

By the way, what are you going to do to make people be responsible? Have compulsory pre-child counseling and if people didn't go to it before why not institute mandatory abortions? Seriously, I don't even know where to go with this "silly" statement, so I'll just leave it there.

how about the new system is "leave them at home". my previous point addresses the work related aspect. you should be planning if you're going to have a child. you can hire some form of day care, but don't burden we the taxpayers because you didn't plan ahead.

Sorry, but we're already burdened with all the kids whose parents didn't plan it out or who were hit by hard times or who just didn't get their break. Your previous point was ridiculous, to say the least. And "you can hire some form of daycare"? Seriously? That's your answer?

 

[Bad Ass]

you apparently didn't read the thread because we did define it. someone who cannot take care of themselves. they need constant monitoring. this isn't because they are paraplegic and can't move, it's because they don't have the mental capacity to.

if you're not ready to have kids, use a condom? i'm pretty sure that a box isn't too big a financial burden...lol i'm not shelling out my money because you can't wrap it up!

 

[AJers]

you apparently didn't read the thread because we did define it. someone who cannot take care of themselves. they need constant monitoring. this isn't because they are paraplegic and can't move, it's because they don't have the mental capacity to.

Okay, I'm not going to lie, I've seen your description a few times. And coming from someone with 4 years of professional experience (not to mention volunteering in high school) with the DD population, you couldn't be more broad than that. For example, over the last 4 years I've worked with a young adult woman in her late twenties who, prior to us working with her, was unable to independently complete her ADL's. Right now? She can. She's also secured supported employment at a senior center where she wipes down the tables and dusts. The supported employment is slowly backing off where eventually she'll be able to do her job with limited to no supervision. That's what we're here for. That's what we do. We take individuals who everyone else thinks: "what a drain on society!" and we do our best to make their lives meaningful and as productive as they can be. So don't come at me with this: "It's a person who can't complete their ADLs and need assistance with everything" stuff because there is clear and undeniable proof out there that we underestimate people all the time. With the right supports, even some of the most severely retarded individuals can have some sort of productive life.

if you're not ready to have kids, use a condom? i'm pretty sure that a box isn't too big a financial burden...lol i'm not shelling out my money because you can't wrap it up!

I don't even know how to respond to this. There is proof all around you that a lot of people don't do this.... so what exactly is your proposed solution? I'm missing that part of your post.

PS, I honestly hope you're trolling me and this thread.

 

[Stylish Interval]

If I could pose a question, what exactly do we call those people who can't function like that? I've never seen or heard of someone not being able to do all of those things, so I'm wondering what kind of disease / mental incapacitation(s) they have? Surely there is a name for it or an article on it? I've done a few searches now and haven't come up with anything about people who are like this.

I mean I've been in school with a kid who was kind of like how you described (needed help going to the bathroom sometimes, was always moaning when "talking", etc.) but he can pretty much do that now on his own and he's in high school, so I'd say the program worked for him. He still can barely talk, but if you can show affirmative and negative responses you should be able to get a low end job at least, right? I mean really, I've never heard of anything like what you're saying where help cannot make them able to eat or bathe or clothe themselves. It'd be nice to know what exactly you are talking about besides a vague description of what these people are like! (Also why they can't be helped?![why the effort is useless])

 

[SEO]

It’s not out of the scope of this thread. One of the main arguments against Special Education that I’ve seen presented in this thread is the “expense” of it. As such, you opened up the ability for people to analyze other expenses that we carry through taxes and other programs. But okay, I’ll back off on it and focus on just Special Education of the “severely mentally retarded” individuals. But I do have a few questions, since (basically) we’re attempting to deny public education programs from people, there must be some sort of qualifications that you are looking at to determine that… so, what qualifications for an individual to have PUBLIC education do you have?

You are so insistent on "denying public education" that you are totally ignoring the fact that their education can be something other than public. These children do not need their education taken away for there to be some kind of reform...

Are you misunderstanding mine? I re-reviewed the posts and it wasn’t you who actually stated it, so I will apologize TO you for making it seem like you did… but when asked where to draw the line for intelligence or someone who is “severely” developmentally disabled the lines were blurry on where it would go and they pushed it off on a case-by-case basis. Where do you draw the line? What is intelligence? This argument was opened with a philosophical question to begin with; one that has very blurry lines as well. Yet you’re trying to limit the opposition to your argument by saying that an argument that is based on a philosophical point that isn’t clearly defined is inadmissible. How, exactly, does that work?

Don't you understand? I, and no one in this thread, has been able to come up with a complete and logical definition for intelligence. That is exactly why I am saying that it should not be used. Using a premise that is not fact, or has not already been proven by another argument prior, will never give you a proper argument. That is in fact, the opposite of a philosophical point. I have suggested, and will suggest again, that we steer away from these loosely defined terms, and stick to things that we can all accept as true.

So… I’m confused. Are you saying that even the individuals without SEVERE mental disabilities shouldn’t get any special treatment or are you saying they should?

You are digging too deep. I merely said that those individuals with ADD ect. are out of the scope of the argument.

I am honestly curious about this? Have you?

Does it matter? I've never alluded to, or pretended to have ever worked in the special education field. I do have experience with mentally retarded children. There was a guy in band with me in high school by the name of Hector. He had Down syndrome, but was totally cool. He was even learning to play the baritone, despite the fact that he couldn't really talk well. Hector is not the type of person we are talking about. We are talking about the kids that might never form a sentence, wheel themselves around, or feed or bathe themselves. I'm not sure these type of people could even realize what it means to volunteer, let alone ever preform the most basic of volunteer duties.

Furthermore, you have now begun talking about people with developmental disorders. Why is it that you cannot stay on topic. Mental retardation...not alcoholics, drug addicts, learning disorders, developmental disorders. We are talking, and I will say it just one last time, the people with severe mental retardation, whom will never be able to work. This does not include the people that can work, as silly as it sounds...

I read the thread, and yet you guys can't seem to define how mentally retarded this would be. Would it be someone who has severe mental retardation? Because I know a few of them who are volunteering.

 

[AJers]

You are so insistent on "denying public education" that you are totally ignoring the fact that their education can be something other than public. These children do not need their education taken away for there to be some kind of reform...

My point is, you're attempting to take away their RIGHT to public education. They are still citizens of this country and they fall under a protected class.

Don't you understand? I, and no one in this thread, has been able to come up with a complete and logical definition for intelligence. That is exactly why I am saying that it should not be used. Using a premise that is not fact, or has not already been proven by another argument prior, will never give you a proper argument. That is in fact, the opposite of a philosophical point. I have suggested, and will suggest again, that we steer away from these loosely defined terms, and stick to things that we can all accept as true.

Okay, maybe intelligence isn't the best description for what I'm trying to ask... I guess what I mean is where is the line drawn? If you can't come up with a non-ambiguous line to say: x deserves public school but y does not, then even the general basis of your arguments are invalid.

You are digging too deep. I merely said that those individuals with ADD ect. are out of the scope of the argument.

I really am not digging too deep. To analyze your suggestion you need to come up with a stance. Your idea is that we apply all monies equitably and for the people who need extra help are just going to get a tax break so that their parents can worry about it.... Even for the kids with ADD (etc), are we going to offer them extra supports in the public schools? Because, per your idea, no extra money should be spent on any one student so you're leaving them out.

You came up with an alternative; I'm merely pointing out the holes in it and/or trying to get you to flesh it out a little more.

Does it matter? I've never alluded to, or pretended to have ever worked in the special education field. I do have experience with mentally retarded children. There was a guy in band with me in high school by the name of Hector. He had Down syndrome, but was totally cool. He was even learning to play the baritone, despite the fact that he couldn't really talk well. Hector is not the type of person we are talking about. We are talking about the kids that might never form a sentence, wheel themselves around, or feed or bathe themselves. I'm not sure these type of people could even realize what it means to volunteer, let alone ever preform the most basic of volunteer duties.

Yes, it does. Not in the way you're thinking, because I think a lot of times people who haven't worked in specific fields can peer in and see where the inefficiencies are more often than someone who is used to the "status quo", so to speak.

I was asking because I honestly have yet to meet someone who "might never form a sentence, wheel themselves around, or feed or bathe themselves. I'm not sure these type of people could even realize what it means to volunteer, let alone ever preform the most basic of volunteer duties." Have I seen someone severely mentally retarded who will never be able to form a sentence (is that honestly part of your criteria? I mean, we could at least say something like: would never be able to establish a communication system to effectively communicate with other people) and who, in fact, only knows four or five gestures to communicate her wants/needs. On the other hand, she has the biggest smile in the world when she's happy, she runs around and waves her hand when she's excited, she makes grunting noises when she's upset, and she cries when she's sad (or too upset to express words); so she does communicate certain things fairly well.

She's learning how to shower by herself, staff don't have to do anything but observe to make sure she doesn't get hurt; but I'm sure as time goes by even that support will be backed out. She can get dressed (and undressed) on her own. She picks up her own dishes after meals and she can wipe down counters. She "volunteers" taking packed lunches to elderly persons around the community. Does she honestly have any meaningful idea of what she's doing? I don't honestly know. But I do know she likes going because she gets excited when she sees the van and she's all smiles the entire way; and we know from experience that if she doesn't like something she's more likely to display challenging behaviors.

As I said before, in the cases where you see no potential, I see millions. I've worked the field, I know how varied the people in it are. I honestly don't think "severe mental retardation" is enough of a diagnosis for what you're talking about. Like I said, I've never seen someone that you guys have described; maybe the person you're describing has a lot of dual-diagnosis with Severe MR that effects it?

Furthermore, you have now begun talking about people with developmental disorders. Why is it that you cannot stay on topic. Mental retardation...not alcoholics, drug addicts, learning disorders, developmental disorders. We are talking, and I will say it just one last time, the people with severe mental retardation, whom will never be able to work. This does not include the people that can work, as silly as it sounds...

Umm... Mental Retardation is a Developmental Disability? O_o

 

[SEO]

How many times do I have to say this. I am not suggesting taking their right away. I am suggesting that they have their own federally funded program that is separate from public high schools, middle schools, ect...

Secondly, there is really no way to draw a definitive line. Take for example, a heap of sand. It is obvious that a trillion grains of sand constitutes a heap of sand, but 2 grains does not. Where does it change from a small collection of grains to an actual heap? There is no answer, yet it is still obvious that those extremes exist. Providing a definitive line is an impossibility.

Simply because you have not met someone yet that fits those characteristics does not mean anything. In my high school there was a boy that was always being wheeled around. He always sat in his chair, his head tilted to the side, mouth open, staring forward. He was just, there... I am aware that there are people with mental retardation that can someday contribute to society, like Hector. Hector used all those resources to attain some sort of education, social interaction, and even self esteem through band. But that other child, I really doubt it.

 

[AJers]

Okay, so you're suggesting instead of working with the current system in the public schools to make a completely different system that will work with... a minimal percentage of the people who currently use the special education programs? How does that save money?

And, I looked up some stats that I'm not sure I trust but I don't care enough to look harder: http://www.minddisorders.com/Kau-Nu/Mental-retardation.html

The prevalence of mental retardation in North America is a subject of heated debate. It is thought to be between 1%–3% depending upon the population; of these:
3–4% is severely retarded.
1–2% is classified as profoundly retarded.

Simply because you have not met someone yet that fits those characteristics does not mean anything.

You're right. I'm sure they exist. And my point is that if there is no clear line to draw, the potential for even ONE person to be lost in the split and sent to the other school is HUGE. Who would be making the decisions about this?

Anyways, I think I'm done with this debate (or at least obsessively stalking this thread); we're pretty much deadlocked on our stances. :) I tried really hard to stay out of it in the first place because the first few posts from the OP and some of his supporters were so ridiculous that they lacked any credibility and were just mostly inflammatory.

In the end, yes, I do agree that the system could use some revamping; but I also think that it's necessary to move to a more INTEGRATED special education system. There are problems with the current system, and I think it could be better, but it's not going to get better by segregating the kids away from their peers in a different school.

I also maintain that 99.9% of the kids have some potential to lead some sort of meaningful lives. They may not be able to hold a job or even a permanent volunteer position, but they are able to enrich the lives and inspire the people around them in the simplest of ways.

 

[Bad Ass]

Why does it take going to school to inspire people?

 

[AJers]

It doesn't. No one ever said it did.

 

[Bad Ass]

Exactly. So if the only lives they are going to lead is inspiring people, then how does schooling help them?

 

[sensible]

Schooling is not only for education. It teaches people how to function in society as well. Seriously disabled children need this more than anyone.