Special Education

[Bad Ass]

This thought has crossed my mind a lot recently--why are there special ed programs in place in schools? Now, this thread is more to explore the hypothetical, since we all know that nobody would ever stop special ed programs for obvious reasons. But why are these obvious reasons so obvious? Please note that I am talking about the disabled who are too 'retarded (for lack of a better word here)' to speak, can't feed themselves, etc. Not down syndrome.

In every elementary, middle, and high school, there are always been those retarded (i'm just going to say retarded if it offends you too bad) kids that just have no idea whats going on. Yet our schools have to have had to have spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on them for special equipment, special foods, special teachers to help them, etc. Why? I doubt that a rudimentary knowledge of things like numbers and the alphabet will do anything for them when they lack the idea to form thoughts and opinions? They aren't going to get a job. They aren't going to make friends. Yet we spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to...teach them the alphabet? Where I live, $100,000 could nearly pay three extra teachers a year to reduce class sizes for students that are actually going to contribute to society and are conscience of where they are and what they are doing. The mentality is "Well they are still people too", and they are, but do they really need to go to school? Opinions.

 

[cantab]

Because why should one's academic ability at elementary school determine one's fate for the rest of one's life?

 

[Bad Ass]

Because when they literally cannot feed, bathe, or take care of themselves without assistance from others, as well as not being able to speak, do we really think that they are contribute to society and that spending 15 years in school to learn basic things is going to help them in some way?

And I didn't mean through elementary school, I meant to post 'elementary, middle, and high school'. Sorry.

 

[Surgo]

Yet our schools have to have had to have spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on them for special equipment, special foods, special teachers to help them, etc.

This is a pretty disingenuous statement. "Hundreds of thousands"? Over what time period? How does this compare to other spending? Etc. I won't let people get away with this sophistry.

 

[lati0s]

Wikipedia offers some statistics, but they include all students with disabilities whereas this thread seems to be more focused on those with severe problems.

 

[TheAmazingFlygon]

Because why should one's academic ability at elementary school determine one's fate for the rest of one's life?

Human society is as unequal as unequal can be; our fate (where we are born, in which family, our race and the list goes on and on and on) decides of everything and we as a society can only ease this injustice, we can't erase it completely. Therefore, some are more favored for the fact they are born. Hence the fact some people shouldn't have access to school if they can make no use of it and help society in the future (Highly mentally handicapped people, for instance).

 

[Chou Toshio]

imma gonna make this post even at risk of going quite off topic from the OP.

Even if we're not talking about severe disabilities though, it's certain that there are kids who struggle in the regular school system due to learning disabilities.

ADD/ADHD and Dislexia are the flag-boys of this, especially border-line cases where students are otherwise completely normal energetic children outside the fact that the structured classroom itself is a nightmare for them. Obviously depending on severity, a specialized school with greater patience and flexibility in the classroom would be ideal-- but many parents cannot afford the prices to send their kids to such schools.

To me, the tragedy of the above is sometimes the mentioned kids happen to be the smartest of all. I went to a private elementary school that only admits 25 students per year, and has an almost 100% feed rate into two local nationally-ranked elite high schools. In terms of simple percentages, the admittance rate is significantly lower than Harvard's. The kids are picked specifically for creativity from an early age.

Especially amongst these creative types . . . I mean out of my original class of 25, 5 students had dislexia 4 struggled with a degree of ADD/ADHD. Of course those kids were also absolutely brilliant-- writing, math, art, they were definitive prodigies. Our own school had a classroom with a lot of patience and flexibility, and was extremely creativity-oriented (and obviously the teachers have had some experience with these learning disabilities) so most (though not all) of the mentioned students made it through without dropping out to go to a specialty school. From what I gathered at our post-college-grad-reunion last summer, they're all doing great for themselves career-wise.

Growing up at that school gave me a lot of interaction with those kinds of students. Obviously they're all rich brats on top of being brilliant so no prob, but I couldn't help but wonder what would have happened if they had been plopped into the regular school system? One of my ADD friends went to public school for summer school once and he dropped out after two weeks. He said his teacher was an absolute beast/bitch and it was the most terrible experience in his life. From another friend (from outside school though) who happened to be in the same class though, said that he had no issues at all-- the class was just extremely structured.

For an ADD kid though, getting yelled all the time for things like not pushing his chair in, not putting his pencil box away, forgetting his shoes in the playground, etc. etc. can be an absolute nightmare.


Right now I am teaching English in Japan, but I am starting to appreciate that going from English to Japanese is very different from going Japanese to English. Did you guys know dislexia goes almost completely untreated here? Rather, it goes undiagnosed! There are no mirror characters or similar looking characters in Japanese (no b v. d etc. etc.), so dislexia is almost a non-issue when reading Japanese. Hence, there is no need to treat it, except . . .

. . . except that English is a requirement for all 6 years of middle-highschool. Can you imagine being dislexic, not knowing you're dislexic, not having teachers who know what dislexia is, and trying to learn English?

My point is that no matter what the culture, even in the most wealthy countries, public school systems almost never have the capabilities to deal with these kinds of students . . . and yet, it is inevitable that these kinds of students will have to go through the public system.

I guess I could turn this back on the OP and say "Hey, that ADD kid needs extra help-- and frankly compared to him many of us normal people may as well be retarded! We should give our extra resources to fixing his issues and getting him special education because he'll likely be able to outstrip a lot of normal folks in performance in society!"

Obviously the above is a sardonic statement meant to point out issues with the OP.

The point is that public education (education for all) is extremely important if only to provide society with the illusion of giving everyone a fair chance to succeed (needed for a society's peace and stability). We are human, and therefore cannot help but live by our feelings of needing to help others (including the retarded) if only to satisfy our own self-images.

. . . That has nothing to do with the fact I definitely would support a severe revamp of the school system . . . can't say much for Europe, but both America and Japan have definite issues (despite being very different from each other).

 

[Bad Ass]

This is a pretty disingenuous statement. "Hundreds of thousands"? Over what time period? How does this compare to other spending? Etc. I won't let people get away with this sophistry.

okay, that's fine. in every school i've been to, we have just had one group of kids who were severely mentally retarded, all taught together. so there should be two or three teachers. in georgia where i live, teachers with your basic degree earn around 35,000/yr. So let's say 30,000 x 2.5 for an average number of teachers (this is dependent on the class size and severity of attacks (e.g. some students have outbursts and need to be monitored)), plus all the equipment (again, where i go to school there are tricycles, balls, wheelchairs, etc), so let's say that you spend 1k a year for the new students coming in, plus things that break or are soiled. add another thousand for the special foods (one such case can only eat oatmeal), etc. so let's just round that to 80k a year for a small town school.

what could you do for a school with 80k?

also please note this is not for add or dyslexia, this is about severely mentally and or physically retarded students going to school.

 

[andrea]

Why does this happen? No Child Left Behind. Equal opportunity for everyone. If there is any way at all that money can be used to better the learning needs of a particular student, then that money has to be made available. Schools apply for grants in order to make a way for the child to learn. There can't be any bias among who can learn in a school- equal opportunity has to be present.

I realize that some may think that these students might not be completely beneficial for society, but sometimes the best people are the ones that are the most overlooked. The McCartneys, Albert Einstein, etc were all children who had labels in school that their teachers gave them. Can you imagine how silly they feel after seeing what their past students achieved? I mean, comparing them to what you're describing probably isn't accurate... but we could look at Helen Keller. Uncontrollable to the extreme, but she ended up writing so many books due to Anne Sullivan's teaching.

Edit: Yes, I am an education major. In case you're wondering. =P

 

[Fishy]

goddamn dude

Because when they literally cannot feed, bathe, or take care of themselves without assistance from others, as well as not being able to speak, do we really think that they are contribute to society and that spending 15 years in school to learn basic things is going to help them in some way?

It's not about expending the energy and funds to do these things for mentally/physically handicapped individuals because they'll benefit society, as that's not known 100%, but it's to give them the opportunity to do so. What I've quoted from you really, really bothers me in that you're basically judging the quality of life of these people and just assuming that spending any energy to either cultivate their potentials or just accommodate their statuses is a waste of time. It's hard to create a coherent train of thought when there are a million different things I want to address.

Okay, so I work with an organization called opportunity enterprises, and the following are our mission, vision, and value statements.

Mission
To create sustainable life choices and opportunities for individuals with unique challenges and abilities.

Vision
To create a community which values, appreciates, and accepts individuals of all abilities.

Values
We accept people as they are. We support each person in growth and development. We are honest and believe in servant leadership. We strive for excellence and do our best each day.

I guess those three things right there best describe my feelings on this situation, and so I don't have to delve into anything deeper and wordier. Basically, these children/adults didn't choose their disabilities, and so shouldn't' be automatically shunned as a waste of time to be given the same opportunity to grow and at least attempt to learn. All mentally handicapped cases, no matter how severe or not, are not static in how they affect an individual. It is possible for some people to still learn, and still actually benefit from all the effort willing people put into them. There wouldn't be a special education program if there weren't people who cared enough to devote their time to these individuals, so saying that all this energy is spent in vain simply because it's no guarantee that these people will be a "benefit to society" is a pretty cold and analytical viewpoint. Despite their circumstances, mentally/physically handicapped people deserve at least a CHANCE at living a life as enjoyably and satisfactorily as they can manage, and people willing to help them reach such a goal are just great!!

 

[skarm]

My my. What a very shallow opinion we have here in the original post. What this basically is stating is that if something would be a struggle we may as well not attempt it. Imagine, from another perspective, being a parent of a special needs child and then all of a sudden being told "its useless here" and having education professionals not even bother.

Overall that was a very naive, immature, and childish opinion presented.

 

[Chou Toshio]

Summarized: There is a chance that they may just be a drain on society, but then there is a chance that they won't be-- therefore we must teach them!

The exactly statement above could really be applied to . . . well, just about every single child?

 

[lati0s]

Why does this happen? No Child Left Behind. Equal opportunity for everyone. If there is any way at all that money can be used to better the learning needs of a particular student, then that money has to be made available. Schools apply for grants in order to make a way for the child to learn. There can't be any bias among who can learn in a school- equal opportunity has to be present.

I realize that some may think that these students might not be completely beneficial for society, but sometimes the best people are the ones that are the most overlooked. The McCartneys, Albert Einstein, etc were all children who had labels in school that their teachers gave them. Can you imagine how silly they feel after seeing what their past students achieved? I mean, comparing them to what you're describing probably isn't accurate... but we could look at Helen Keller. Uncontrollable to the extreme, but she ended up writing so many books due to Anne Sullivan's teaching.

Edit: Yes, I am an education major. In case you're wondering. =P

There are some people who have average or better (or even slightly worse) intelligence but experience great difficulties in school because the have other issues (ADD, dyslexia, problems with other students etc.) and then there are people that cannot learn or can learn very little because they have extremely low intelligence, you are talking about people in the first group while the OP is about people in the second group.

Several people have stated that these types of people could turn out to be useful to society but what can a person with a severe mental retardation do? Slight retardation I can see being a laborer, construction worker, walmart worker etc. which is at least arguably valuable. But some of these severely affected people lack the mental capacity to even feed themselves, what can they possibly contribute?

 

[Bad Ass]

sorry fishy but when they are handicapped to the point where they can't form opinions or have conscience thoughts, then it's not really a happy and satisfactory life; it's more running on instincts (e.g. i am hungry, i need to breathe, i need to sleep). i'm also pretty sure that if people weren't getting paid to take care of these people then they wouldn't do it...if they would then good for them, but a majority would not. i just fail to see how learning basic things like numbers leads to a more satisfactory life...

this is about students who are so mentally retarded that they cannot do things for themselves. not add or dyslexia.

 

[DarthChake]

I have often wondered something similar.
At my school there was a student who was born a few months premature. He was handicapped. He cannot walk. He can talk, however it is very difficult to understand him, and he has the mental capacity of a five-year-old; that's an approximation, and probably a stretch. He stayed in school from the time he was old enough to enter kindergarten, until he was 18. He shared no classes with any of the other students. School, for him, was not a school at all, but a daycare. There was one person that catered to him at all times. (There were probably more: someone who would feed, "relieve", talk, and teach to him. This is purely speculation, but I think it would be a two, or three person job.) I know the lady that drove him around, and took care of him, was being payed for this. It is nigh on impossible for him to be able to live on his own--ever. I don't know the reasons why, but I will list a few possibilities, as to why he went to school at all.

His parents had trouble coping with the predicament he put them in.
(His parents are religious, and this might invoke a "Why me, God?" mindset, which they can "push under the rug" if they deter his presence with school.)

The parent have other things to do during the day, and thus cannot take care of him throughout the days entirety. They are left with the option of either hiring a private maid for him, or sending him somewhere that will take care of him. (I don't know if my school is legally obliged, or if we are..."altruistic"...
(There are no daycares, that my awareness touches [although knowing is independent of being], in the local area that are for special-needs-children. This is probably because we are a small and very new area, and the facilities that would be necessary for a community's worth of humans with special needs would be expensive.)

They don't want the people of-the-community to think they are hiding their child, and denying him the "social experiencce".



My area has a hospital for children with autism, down syndrome, etc, but not for people in the aformentioned kid's predicament. I think we let them go to school because of societal pressure. We don't want to look bad for not treating the child like he is normal, although it's like saying a# is normal for a trombone.


:EDIT

Summarized: There is a chance that they may just be a drain on society, but then there is a chance that they won't be-- therefore we must teach them!

The exactly statement above could really be applied to . . . well, just about every single child?

Ten points for Gryffondor, or whatever house you're from. It is possible that child X's brain would suddenly gain the ability to regrow nuerological connections (the method does not matter, science or natural [albeit unlikely]), and his mental capacity would increase. We must provide equal opprotunity.

 

[andrea]

There are some people who have average or better (or even slightly worse) intelligence but experience great difficulties in school because the have other issues (ADD, dyslexia, problems with other students etc.) and then there are people that cannot learn or can learn very little because they have extremely low intelligence, you are talking about people in the first group while the OP is about people in the second group.

Several people have stated that these types of people could turn out to be useful to society but what can a person with a severe mental retardation do? Slight retardation I can see being a laborer, construction worker, walmart worker etc. which is at least arguably valuable. But some of these severely affected people lack the mental capacity to even feed themselves, what can they possibly contribute?

I think if you are ever put in the situation where you have a mentally retarded child, you would not want to deny them their attempt at a normal life. That's the point of my post. I apologize that my examples did not suffice for you. Either way, first paragraph still applies. Equal opportunity for students. Doesn't matter what they may be capable of of in the future. The opportunity still has to be available.

 

[Fishy]

sorry fishy but when they are handicapped to the point where they can't form opinions or have conscience thoughts, then it's not really a happy and satisfactory life; it's more running on instincts (e.g. i am hungry, i need to breathe, i need to sleep). i'm also pretty sure that if people weren't getting paid to take care of these people then they wouldn't do it...if they would then good for them, but a majority would not. i just fail to see how learning basic things like numbers leads to a more satisfactory life...

unless you have ever been in this situation and can coherently convey your thoughts on the matter, i.e what can give someone happiness and satisfaction, I would shut my mouth. that's so IGNORANT I can't even stand it. Not to equate these people to animals, but animals obviously have less "conscious thought" other than their basic needs, and they're gleeful as all hell. Happiness is SUBJECTIVE, and that's that.

Yeah, personally, I would still volunteer to do my job and help these types of people were I not paid to do so. I did so in the past, which is what brought me to actually work for this organization 40 hours a week. You can't even say that a majority of people wouldn't do this if they weren't paid to do so; it takes a specific type of person to want to devote their to time to helping the severely mentally/physically handicapped, it's not like "putting up with" a job at a fast good joint just because you're getting paid to do so.

 

[Bad Ass]

happiness is subjective. but being confined to a wheelchair, often not being able to move a good portion of your body is not being happy. plus you can be happy without going to school.

 

[lati0s]

I think if you are ever put in the situation where you have a mentally retarded child, you would not want to deny them their attempt at a normal life.

But there's no way that such an attempt could succeed, a severely mentally retarded person will not have a normal life.

Either way, first paragraph still applies. Equal opportunity for students. Doesn't matter what they may be capable of of in the future. The opportunity still has to be available.

Your first paragraph only describes the way things are now, not necessarily the way they should be, I do not support No child left behind.

 

[cantab]

Because when they literally cannot feed, bathe, or take care of themselves without assistance from others, as well as not being able to speak, do we really think that they are contribute to society and that spending 15 years in school to learn basic things is going to help them in some way?

When it gets to that extreme, those children are ill. The spending in schools is therefore really healthcare spending. Would you deny a sick child treatment?

 

[Bad Ass]

the question turns into "is the school responsible for treating sick children".

also [21:54] <jumpluff> the mentality is "Well they are still people too", and they are, but do they really need to go to school?

 

[mtr]

I think the state should incent parents to homeschool autistic children via things like tax breaks and stuff so that they don't constitute a drain on school resources. Either that, or give them a penalty for sending their kids to school (somehow I think the first option would go over better).

 

[VKCA]

i'm also pretty sure that if people weren't getting paid to take care of these people then they wouldn't do it...if they would then good for them, but a majority would not.

This very untrue, the people who get into these kinds of jobs are those who do it for reasons other than the money.

 

[CaptKirby]

I do not see why everyone is so mad at Bad Ass, other than for his initially weak and thus possibly specious initial wording (acting as if he actually wanted to know anything, when really he just wanted to say which his opinion was). It is really weird we salvage defects of nature just because we are self-aware. Animals do not do it, they know that the creature will be too unhappy/weak/suck away too many resources! I mean I guess great, we are a civilized society and have time and resources to waste on incredibly helpless people, but the essential point is not really as wildly wrong as everyone wants to make it out to be (and most of that outrage is just because people love acting indignant).

 

[billymills]

Summarized: There is a chance that they may just be a drain on society, but then there is a chance that they won't be-- therefore we must teach them!

The exactly statement above could really be applied to . . . well, just about every single child?

We're not talking about those that have a chance not to be a drain on society, we're talking about those who will be a drain on society regardless of their education. (Those removed in the 'just about')

Jumpluff's quote sums it up quite nicely and I don't think they need to go to school (if their parents want them to private options are available).

But each case needs to be examined individually, I don't think there's a precise definition as to when someone will be productive or not productive, but it's better to air on the optimistic side. But for some extremely retarded people, it may not be worth it to send them through 12+ years of school.