Special Education

[DarthChake]

I heard this somewhere: Opinions are like bellybuttons, everyone has one and they aren't all that useful. With that being said here is my 2 cents.

Why should they go to school? It's just wasting money, and if they are really that retarded then they will not benefit from school at all. The only argument for them to go to school is for them to have somewhere safe to be while their guardians are at work. I know a mentally retarded guy that was a senior last year (and is still going to school because he can stay longer or something) and guess what he was doing... fingerpainting. Needless to say he's going to be a very productive member of society with this quality education. It really pisses me off that they are going to put them through school but teach them useless shit like finger painting :T.

It is more of a daycare for them. I believe it is so that people can feel better and say, "We gave them a chance."
If I did have a child, and his learning was impaired to the point where he could not function on his/her own, I would want him/her to go to school, or a specialized facility, he/she would probably enjoy it. As for the mildy retarded, I worked with some last Thursday, and they will be capable of living on their own. To be honest I actually felt good that I helped them. I guess they do "inspire" people in a sort of way.

 

[Ech0ez]

I don't know how the education system works over in the US but here in Britishland we have a fair few "special schools" for lack of a better term that are basically built for people with severe mental diabilities (Down syndrome, very low functioning Autism, and people with any disability that prevents them from functioning in more "mainstream" envrionments) and I'd go as far as saying they're pretty much the ideal solution for educating said people. For the most part they still teach the kids the basic academic stuff they need to get low level qualifications (Namely things like AQA Units and such) but they're primarily aimed at teaching the kids social skills, how to communicate properly and how to care for themselves and so forth. Granted it won't work for everyone, but it's a far better solution than trying to get them "special education" in mainstream envrionments or homeschooling and completely cutting out the social aspect of their lives.

Keeping in mind I'm talking about people with more "low functioning" mental diabilities, people with Dyslexia, Aspergers, ADD or any other diability that doesn't, well make them "retarded" as the OP puts it are better off with support in more 'mainstream' environments.

 

[Chou Toshio]

This is the story of the thread, and it's getting a little old. Instead of providing legitimate arguments for having public education for these children, people are just resorting to appeals to pity and scarecrows to try and prove their points. The OP never even alluded to children with ADD or dyslexia, he was talking about severely mentally retarded children. Please try and stay on topic when posting your arguments.

Now my opinion. While I do agree that the parents of these children pay the same taxes as the parents of other children, I do not agree that they should get different treatment. It would be great if everyone could have a personal caretaker that would wheel you around, feed you, ect... 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. *I know some people will take what I say next as serious so I am putting this warning. IT IS NOT SERIOUS. Thank you* Even the squirrels could have access to education!

I can sympathize with your concerns about unequal funds used for "Special Education" v. regular education, but when you mention "private facility"-- I would just like to point out that (a) Private facilities are very expensive-- it'd have to be a very fat tax-cut to make it "free" like public education and (b) America is a very, very, very big country . . . it's not like specialty facilities happen to exist everywhere where a retarded person could potentially be born.

 

[Curtains]

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.

Dude are you serious? What a sick post.You have to be 8 years old to post such a ignorant ,elitist opinion like this.Ima stop there so i won't get banned.
Imagine if you had a child. Imagine if your child was mentally impaired.Wouldn't you like the child to have all the opportunities that everyone else has?They didn't have a choice to be that way.So are we going to just throw them out on the street? let them be bums so they can be a potential hazard to society when things get rough?Mentally impaired people can work at stores and do things that others can do. Some are in a weaker state than others but does that mean we give up on them?Cut off all funds to them so some stupid ass kids can spew out stuff like what you just typed.You think your smarter than them because they can't speak? Your not. Your "im Superior to all mental illness patients" attitude just showed maybe you need some psychological help because if you keep this attitude up you will be lower than them in the real world.

 

[Bad Ass]

opinion like this.Ima stop there so i won't get banned.

okay, insults without supporting your arguement...cool.

Imagine if you had a child. Imagine if your child was mentally impaired.Wouldn't you like the child to have all the opportunities that everyone else has?

if i am a rational person, i know that my child will not contribute to society. thus, in my mind, the best thing for him to do is not go to school, while i stimulate his mind as best as i can at home. so no.

They didn't have a choice to be that way.So are we going to just throw them out on the street? let them be bums so they can be a potential hazard to society when things get rough?

are you stupid? this thread is about people who are so mentally deficient that they require other people to take care of them as they do not have the mental capacity to speak, and only have basic instincts. not people with down syndrome. read the goddamn op.

Mentally impaired people can work at stores and do things that others can do. Some are in a weaker state than others but does that mean we give up on them?Cut off all funds to them so some stupid ass kids can spew out stuff like what you just typed.

if you had actually read the thread, you would know that these people are not the ones i'm talking about. so not only are you ignorant, but apparently you can't read a thread.

You think your smarter than them because they can't speak? Your not. Your "im Superior to all mental illness patients" attitude just showed maybe you need some psychological help because if you keep this attitude up you will be lower than them in the real world.

sorry to burst your bubble here but my iq is greater than all mentally ill people. and my apologies for wanting to help children who actually have a chance in life. my bad.

you basically made a post insulting me, not to mention doing this while not even reading the thread. plus you just stated things, had nothing to back up your point, and made the point via insults. plus half the stuff was wrong. plus you didnt read the thread. i'm not even going to say it again, if you can't read the thread then you shouldnt reply to my thread. thanks.

This thread is about people who cannot take care of themselves. They do not have the mental capacity to get a job or live on their own. Not Down Syndrome / Autism / Any other damn disease. Read the thread.

 

[gvmgvm40]

Mentally retarded =/= functionally impaired for all intents and purposes

If a person cannot speak for himself, can't bathe himself, can't eat, can't walk, can't literally think and won't ever be able to live without somebody dedicating his/her life to him/her, it's safe to say he/she is a burden on society.

We aren't talking about mildly retarded, deaf, blind, dyslexic, autistic etc children, we are talking about children that have no odds of living a normal life or contributing to society.

 

[Curtains]

who gives a flyin fuck what degree of mental illness.Even if they are paralysed from head to toe i would still support them getting all the help they can get.Every mentally healthy person wont be the next jesus.A large amount in the end will be rejects to society by choice.A mentally ill person did not have that choice.We can't give up on people for them.

 

[Objection]

Even if someone is guaranteed to be no more than a drain on society, it's better than them being an active detriment to society (ie, a criminal).

 

[umbarsc]

These students aren't being taught geometry or history. These students aren't being taught a traditional curriculum, the program they're in is specific to their needs, and obviously the program wouldn't exist if it didn't benefit them in some way. It's not just a costly day-care; the program is designed to fit their needs and help them out. In the end, I trust the educators that design the programs over the people arguing in this thread. I don't know exactly what happens or how it helps them, I just know that it isn't worse than doing nothing.

Note: helps them, not society. Education is and should be personal; universal education is beneficial to society, but that doesn't mean that that's the context we should be evaluating it in. We simply can't let calculative thinking override our demand for human rights*. The decision to waive rights to save money is never the just one, and one that we can't allow our government to do.

*UN Univeral Declaration of Human Rights, Article 26:
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.)

Also note that you've already started down the path of dehumanization. The Hitler reference wasn't a strawman; the Nazis are the most recognizable example of dehumanization in the last century, and they chose the disabled as an easy target. In fact, you've literally dehumanized them by explicitly questioning if they "counted" as "human". The intrinsic value of humanity has incalculable utility, and dehumanization is something that a society needs to avoid at all costs.

This post came across a little more strongly worded than I intended, but oh well.

 

[lati0s]

In fact, you've literally dehumanized them by explicitly questioning if they "counted" as "human". The intrinsic value of humanity has incalculable utility, and dehumanization is something that a society needs to avoid at all costs.

Why? Why should simply being of a certain species automatically give you value? The nazi's certainly did bad things but that does not mean that any society that devalues the severely mentally retarded will end up like them.

Even if they are paralyzed from head to toe i would still support them getting all the help they can get

Paralysis is a physical disability, this thread is about people with severe mental disabilities.

A mentally ill person did not have that choice.We can't give up on people for them.

A squirrel did not choose to be a squirrel, why is it OK to give up on them?

 

[umbarsc]

You're still not entirely getting the point. There's the "truth-value" and the "utility" in assuming the inherent value of humanity. I'm not so concerned with the truth-value of the doctrine; my beliefs could pretty much be classified as nihilist. I don't think that "true moral worth" or whatever actually exists, and that things only have the value we assign them, so it's not intellectually honest to make hard-and-fast rules out of these arbitrary lines. But then there's the utility of the doctrine. Assuming the intrinsic worth of humanity is very important for maintaining peace and order and allowing society to function.

In these discussions over the internet that have no real consequence, we have the freedom to only concern ourselves with truth-value and say whatever we want. But when applying these beliefs to the real world, we have to give significantly more weight to the latter.

 

[lati0s]

I do not think that assuming the intrinsic worth of humanity would further the maintenance of a peaceful and orderly society moreso than would assuming the worth of intelligent beings which is what I advocate.

 

[cantab]

Who judges whether or not a being is "intelligent"?

 

[umbarsc]

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.

 

[WaterBomb]

I think the biggest problem with making changes to how we operate in this regard is how we measure "value". How exactly do you measure, in a strictly monetary sense, how much "value" a person contributes to society, vs how much the "cost" is to educate them. There are so many variables involved that it would be theoretically impossible to come up with a failsafe method of measurement, not to mention you could always find exceptions to it, thereby making it discriminatory and unfair.

Please do not misunderstand me - I do understand the OP's point of view. I completely understand that the people in question come across as extremely burdening on the rest of us. The unfortunate part is that there isn't a way to successfully categorize everyone, and to even attempt doing so would royally piss off a lot of people. Labeling these people as inferior would be extremely presumptuous and arrogant on the part of our species. Who is to say humans are even the most intelligent beings on the planet, or the universe? It's our own arrogance as humans to believe this world is ours for ownership.

Ok I got a bit off topic there. My main point is mostly in the first paragraph XD, the second was more my acknowledgement of the opposing opinions.

 

[UncleSam]

Who judges whether or not a being is "intelligent"?

...really? This thread is talking about children with severe mental disabilities, the kind which anyone could identify simply by passing the child on the street. It's not the child's fault, but the state should not be wasting resources on trying to educate children who have no hope of possibly being able to use their education.

In other words, the "given" of this argument assumes that the question you just posed is irrelevant. It's not "a fighting chance"...it's an inordinate amount of effort spent on children who need a babysitter rather than a teacher. I understand that it is difficult for these children's parents, but it simply isn't fair or productive to have teachers spending their time on these children rather than children who can use their educations and possibly do great things.

For instance, my aunt has been working in a public elementary school for twenty years. In her time there she has had to deal with several seriously mentally disabled children, and every time she is forced to have the assistant teacher focus almost entirely on the needs of that one child, while she has to deal with all the other children. This is not an extreme example either-most of you underestimate just how much effort it is to so much as babysit a seriously mentally disabled child, much less try to teach it anything. And, quite frankly, that effort is better spent elsewhere.

 

[capefeather]

Ultimately, permanent dependents are in school for largely the same reasons that anyone else would be in school. There's a very heavy toll on society involved in specializing the general education system in any way. It doesn't matter from that angle whether or not it's "worth it" because, as reality dictates it, if society doesn't specialize to deal with it then someone will inevitably have to pay a heavy price. The irony is that the way it's set up now may very well be more efficient and less costly than what people have been proposing. Life isn't fair...

Ideally, it would be really nice to have permanent dependents go to more specialized schools that cater more to their needs. It would be nice for someone who wants to be a teacher not to have to train to deal with a permanent dependent. Unfortunately, entropy is more than just a physical phenomenon in this case. The government uses up taxes to fund the building of such schools, so society has to pay up anyway. Either that or leave it to the family.

There are economic factors as well social factors going into this. I'm not really familiar with the financial aspect of all this stuff so...

 

[cantab]

It matters. If you believe that children with sufficiently severe mental disabilities should not be given education, who draws the line, and on what grounds? Whoever you give that decision to has the capability to abuse it, as mentioned by umbarsc.

This is a greater concern with what appears to be Latios' view, that a sufficiently mentally retarded is "worth" "less" than a person of normal intellect (thus generalising the matter beyond that of education), and the implication that a mentally retarded person is not entitled to the human rights that a normal person is.

To change the subject a bit: The discussions gone on for some time, and I'm surprised that nobody (not even myself) has yet asked a key question. What are the numbers?

I'll let others find US figures. In England, about 18% of children are categorised as having "some form of Special Educational Needs". (Source for this and most figures: House of Commons Education and Skills Committee Third Report of Sessions 2005-2006. The figures will change year-by-year, but not massively). That's evidently a pretty inclusive defintion. 2.9% of all children have a "statement" which normally indicates greater needs. 1% of all children are in special schools (almost all of whom are statemented).

Onto spending. The total education budget is something like £32 billion. (Some other sources indicate a higher figure; lower figures weaken my arguement.)
The spending on SEN is £4.1 billion. 13% of the total education budget going specifically to 18% of children (and not being the ONLY expenditure on that 18%). I don't think that is unreasonable.
Of that, £1.8 billion is on special schools. 6% of spending going specifically to 1% of children, pretty much the 1% with the worst disabilities. Again, I do not consider that unreasonable.

To do the figures another way, a child in the 1% gets about 6.5 times the average spending. Again, I don't think that's too unreasonable. I expect similar figures if you measure variation in any government spending (policing expenditure in different neighbourhoods, for example.)

Figures in other countries will of course be different. But I cannot imagine they'd be orders of magnitude different.

When it comes to the extremely severe disabilities, such children are so few in number that the overall expenditure on them is going to be small beer.

 

[Curtains]

Paralysis is a physical disability, this thread is about people with severe mental disabilities.


A squirrel did not choose to be a squirrel, why is it OK to give up on them?

If you have severe mental disabilities then most likely walking and other basic functions are less likely.To address your anti human comment you can't just give up on people just because it may seem hopeless. Are mental pacients that threatenting to your cash flow? Are you really in distress because a person with special needs is learning? if so then maybe you need to reevaluate your life.

How about this, is it okay to stop supporting research for a cure to breast cancer or any disease even though it seems like were not even coming close to finding it?

If people are not directly influenced negatively by the support of mental illness pacients then its fine by me.

 

[Rocket_Grunt]

"Don't say retarded, they prefer 'little people' now..."

Since this is a rather long discussion, a semi-political one at that, I'mma quick-reply.

There are those that will more than likely not contribute to society. Volunteering at a center for the blind/multi-handicapped, I noticed a lot of special equipment. For these individuals, I do believe we must give them -something-, as they are human beings, and perhaps create a separate program to allow them to at least integrate into society, or otherwise not feel like a lifeless soul trapped inside a empty skin-husk. While they can't do much, at least they can feel human.

Then there's the ones who actually need it. To put it simply, plenty of autistic and downs-syndrome patients grow to contribute to society, even if their destiny is to become a bagger in the local grocery store. We need those, anyways.

The most common kid in Special Ed? In my elementary school, it was a few of the bullies, and some of the awkward-don't-talk-to-those-kids-they-pick-their-noses crowd. This is a useless program, and kids do not need to be enrolled into this. Tell elementary schools to quit throwing holiday parties, hard test parties, random parties and indoor recess and let's actually teach these kids. Unfortunately there's a lot of kids who have a tough time at home, or at least are not able to receive help from parents, but instead of taking it out on the students, perhaps the teacher could do their job and ensure the students are able to do or learn, or whip them in shape even if it's takes cutting summer break. (wtb yard stick and a paddle, considering Catholic school Nuns, as well! pst)

But then, elementary school was a terrible, grueling hellhole, and these are kids, so of course they're going to have a tough time learning/conforming into super education soldiers (consider the other school systems across the sea). But I may be leading into a different subject, along the lines of teachers becoming secondary parents and schools becoming military facilities armed with books.

My experience? Special Ed kids were usually normal, aside from that they get different assignments, gloat about it, and read Berenstain Bears in the fourth and fifth grade while we normal kids got real books and had to do real work. As I said, a lot of them are bullies, so maybe the solution is actually cutting the "add/adhd kids" and "problem kids" from these programs and focus those who need them or otherwise use them. This should help, at least. This is considering that out in the real world they won't be handed a Playschool register, or a Plaschool foldable kitchen in a McDonalds theme. Let them suffer like the rest of us. Those destined to work at McDonalds or to wash my car for me will never remove themselves through that rut.

 

[Rocket_Grunt]

Considering the latest posts....

Cut the Special Ed programs, and create a separate programs for those incapable to survive without an assistant. School is the worst place to be for these kids, considering the horrible kids that reside in elementary, middle and high school. As such, let this program be funded by something else.

Or stop wasting so much money on football/sports teams and their fields/stands and actually put the money to something useful. I'm confident in saying that part of the school district's budget is going to the high schools in that area, and more than likely taking away from the elementary schools...

 

[WaterBomb]

Or stop wasting so much money on football/sports teams and their fields/stands and actually put the money to something useful. I'm confident in saying that part of the school district's budget is going to the high schools in that area, and more than likely taking away from the elementary schools...

This would work if the sports programs didn't generate any revenue. What you're forgetting is that school sports programs, especially successful ones, generate ALOT of revenue when it comes to ticket sales, advertising, and college recruitment. School districts don't pour hundreds of thousands of dollars into equipment and stadia and other things for shits and giggles, they do it because it allows the program to improve and keep the money flowing back in through other avenues. The teams themselves also do fundraising on their own through boosters and other functions, so they aren't completely being supported by district funds.

 

[Bad Ass]

If you have severe mental disabilities then most likely walking and other basic functions are less likely.To address your anti human comment you can't just give up on people just because it may seem hopeless. Are mental pacients that threatenting to your cash flow? Are you really in distress because a person with special needs is learning? if so then maybe you need to reevaluate your life.

How about this, is it okay to stop supporting research for a cure to breast cancer or any disease even though it seems like were not even coming close to finding it?

If people are not directly influenced negatively by the support of mental illness pacients then its fine by me.

people are directly negatively influenced by the support of mental illness patients. let's say that a class size is 40. you aren't learning there. oh wait, we're spending ~200,000 on severely mentally retarded kids who get nothing out of this education except for shits and giggles. oh, we could reduce that class size to 23 with the money. oh look, functioning kids are actually getting something out of this class and furthering their chances for a better life.

the breast cancer thing is a bad analogy. if we cure cancer, millions of lives will be saved. if we send these children to school, ........?

 

[Firestorm]

Well, what do we do to pets? Teach them to fetch? Teach them to sit? How is this helping them in any way?

Well, what do we do to the mentally handicapped? Teach them the alphabet? Teach them to count? How is this helping them in any way?

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?

Or stop wasting so much money on football/sports teams and their fields/stands and actually put the money to something useful. I'm confident in saying that part of the school district's budget is going to the high schools in that area, and more than likely taking away from the elementary schools...

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

 

[Bad Ass]

yeah, i have been in on lessons. actually, lessons isn't the proper word. playtime is a better word--throwing balls, riding tricycles, learning numbers. extremely useful stuff.