The Education Thread

The ones in NoVa are a junior (Advanced Calc and physics) and a senior (advanced calc and chem).

The one in NM is a senior, but she's been doing it for three years. She's taken 3 yrs math (I think she's taking DiffEq now) and physics and chemistry and biology with a lab. She's going to be a PhD in math prob (already has decided). Her mom and dad were both Ms math types.

The way all three of these are doing it is that they still take some classes in HS, so the socialization part is dealt with that way.

 

Actually, the school system provides transportation during the school day. Excellent use of resources IMO.

 

I think the schools have to do it because they cannot offer appropriate courses, but I am not sure.

 

Some misconceptions need to be clarified, and topcatpole and MitH, I'm looking at you.

First of all, no resources are being taken away from higher achieving students in favor of students with disabilities. The federal law which requires school districts to provide an appropriate education to disabled students was enacted in 1974. Since that time, school funding in all areas has steadily increased. It's fair to say that if special education didn't exist, the extra money which currently goes toward special education would not be going toward education at all. Furthermore, more resources are not going to further the education of the average student. Schools which invest the most money on their programs often see the least impressive educational dividends. There is no direct connection. Most school systems also waste tremendous sums on perpetuating their own bureaucracies. If it were true that more money were needed to better educate average or high-achieving students, then a reallocation of funds could easily be acheived without taking a cent away from students with special needs.

Second of all, this idea that it is a waste or inefficient use of resources to education students with disabilities is patently offensive. You both implied that it is a futile effort, because the students will never reach the same standard as their non-disabled peers. That shows a lack of understanding of the purpose of special education. One function of an IEP is to determine how much of the standards the student can reasonably be expected to master. The point of special education is NOT to try to bring all students up to the same standard. It's to guarantee that reasonable, appropriate goals are set for that student, and to ensure that appropriate instruction and facilities are provided to help the student achieve those goals. It's absolutely morally repugnant to even suggest that children with disabilities should not be provided every opportunity to learn to the best of their abilities. There are also children who are able to meet the standards, but who can't do so with general education instruction in a gen ed setting. Schools will have to invest more resources in educating those children, but to fail to do so would be a crime (literally and morally). It is not the children's fault that they have disabilities, and to dismiss their right to be educated because it's more costly and difficult is a violation of their basic civil rights.

Now, in regard to what constitutes a disabled child, that's not really as fuzzy or grey a distinction as Matt is trying to make it out to be. There is, absolutely, a difference between low-achieving students and disabled students. It's entirely unproductive to conflate the two. IDEA recognizes students with disabilities as including those with:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individuals_with_Disabilities_Education_Act

 

If it is determined that the ADD interferes with the child's education to the extent that the child needs special education or special services.

In my experience, I've never heard of a child with only ADD receiving special educational services. They sometimes get counseling and/or medication, and they often get standardized testing accommodations.

 

Why is it fair to say that? That doesn't follow from your statements at all.

Not trying to be difficult, but I do not understand what you are trying to say here.

We have absolute agreement in this area. It is fundamental to the point I have been trying to make, which is that we need to look at the way we allocate resources in education. Bloated bureaucracies are wasteful.

First off, it is offensive to your concept of where we should spend education dollars, which is not the same thing as "patently offensive". Secondly, I think you are not reading what I wrote. What I object to is the disproportionate use of resources. What is the best use of resources is what interests me.

This is BS. No child is "given every opportunity to learn to the best of their abilities". It is absolutely ludicrous to suggest otherwise. There are not enough resources in the world to make that happen. We are talking about how to allocate resources here, not about some pie-in-the-sky fantasy of what education does.
I come from a family of teachers, and I happen to think that the vast majority of teachers try and do their very best to teach kids what they need to know, but to say that it is "morally repugnant" to not achieve the unachievable is the worst sort of hyperbole. This is what sickens me: is the attempt to put oneself on the moral high ground that allows you to treat everyone who disagrees with you like their opinion has no merit.
I think it is morally offensive to let the potential great minds of tomorrow fizzle out because they are not challenged in school or because they happen to have been born in a school district with limited resources. That's what is morally offensive and I'm pretty darn sick of people telling me that somehow their morality trumps mine.

This is further BS. It's not my fault I wasn't born a Rockefeller and get the financial education I would have gotten sitting at the feet of billionaires. Show me the civil right to an education. I believe it should be a right, but this is just more moralistic grandstanding.

Seriously, let's just cut out the "I'm moral and you're not" crap and talk about how best to use the resources that the schools have.

 

More money than ever is being spent on education. More money is going toward general education today than it was 30 years ago, when schools did not have to educate disabled students. You could conclude that even more money would go to general education if special education programs received less funding, but I don't see any reason to believe that. If the special education programs were scaled back or eliminated, the money which is earmarked for them would be scaled back or eliminated. It wouldn't automatically be funneled into something else. Education funding doesn't usually work that way.

I'm trying to say that limited resources are not really a problem in most school districts. Many schools that are well funded still produce very poor results. The past few decades have seen huge increases on education spending, but student outcomes have remained flat. You could take all the money out of special education, and all the money out of the bureaucracy, and funnel it all into general education, and you would probably not see any increase in student performance.

NO. It's not offensive to my idea of where we should spend education dollars. It's offensive to my idea of civil rights.

This isn't really a zero sum game as you're making it out to be. There are enough resources to provide disabled students with an appropriate education, AND to provide all other students with an appropriate education. I would only consider the spending to be disproportionate if it were out of proportion with the students' needs. I can't really comment on that, because I don't know how much it does or should cost to educate a child with a disability. However, I recognize that it generally costs more than educating a non-disabled child. If every child is receiving an education, then the resources are being proportionately spent. I would never condone providing one child an education at the expense of another. Luckily, that's not necessary, because there are more than enough resources available to educate all.

On the contrary, I think that schools offer most children the opportunity to learn to the best of their abilities. I really don't see how that is a fantasy. I didn't say that all children will learn to the best of their abilities, just that they should be given the opportunity to do so. It's not fantastical nor unreasonable, and it's very nearly a reality.

Again, I don't know what you're talking about when you call it "unachievable." Providing all students with appropriate instruction, regardless of their disabilities, is entirely achievable. Of course, not all students will ultimately perform to the standards nor to the best of their abilities. But it is morally repugnant to not even give them the chance to do so.

I didn't mean to offend you, but please keep in mind that what bothered me about your opinions was not that they differ from mine. It was that they seemed to imply that students with disabilities are less worthwhile than students without disabilities. If I had a son or daughter who was disabled, I would still want my child to be educated. I would want my child to have the same opportunities as a non-disabled child. Failing to provide an appropriate education for a student with special needs is tantamount to withholding the opportunities given to non-disabled students. This is no different from installing ramps or elevators to accommodate people in wheelchairs; sometimes instruction has to be altered to accommodate disabilities.

I consider the Americans with Disabilities Act to be a civil rights law. I wasn't talking about the civil right to an education. I was talking about the civil right to not be discriminated against based on disability.

I'm more than happy to do so. I believe that spending what is currently spent on special education is an excellent way to use the resources that schools have.

 

Just out of curiosity, are you aware of the fact that the special education laws that John is referring to came out of the Civil Rights movement? He isn't spewing rhetoric. Rights for African Americans and rights for those with disabilities are historically tied to the same exact legislation.

An exceptionally intelligent former professor once told my class that "Fair doesn't mean everyone gets the same. Fair means everyone gets what they need." That statement really opened my mind on alot of these topics. Think on it for a bit.

 

Are you aware that a large number of Americans, the majority of which are of African descent, are taxed without representation? Don't lecture me on civil rights. I am there.
Secondly, instead of spewing foolishness, why don't you read? My objection is and has always been his assumption that someone else is less moral than he because they differ on how resources should be allocated. Is his chest-thumping "I am more moral than you" attitude that I object to. Find where I have said there is no need for special education and you'll have a point. Otherwise, you don't.

I have thought on it a bit. I hope this platitude isn't the example of his exceptional intelligence.

 

We will have to agree to disagree. What you are saying here is inconsistent with the way most governments work, IMO.

Once again, all of the school districts I have direct experience with are resource limited. I served on a national committee on education where I talked to educators and administrators from literally 100s of districts and I don't remember any that felt they were not resource constrained. I would suggest that the ones you have experience with are the exception rather than the rule. I have seen too many examples of schoolbooks arriving late, teachers paying for instructional materials out of their own pockets and libraries that are clearly inadequate to support the students to believe that.
You are right though, when you state that funding levels are far from the only determinant in the quality of education received by the student.

Then I would respectfully submit that you didn't read my post. I have never advocated abridging anyone's civil rights.

Anything funded by taxes is a zero sum game. You can look at the budget of any school district in the US and see that special education is funded disproportionately to the number of students it serves. And you ARE condoning, and even advocating, that disabled children be educated at the expense of others. As I said, look at the budget of any school district.

In general, I agree with the concept of providing equality of opportunity. But what does "opportunity" mean in this context? To reuse my example of not being born a Rockefeller, does this mean I should have had this opportunity? It is no fault of mine that I wasn't born into such a family. Equality of opportunity is a goal we should strive for. If I recall correctly, you are a teacher and I am glad that you think the system works so well.

I'm glad you think so. I'm glad the schools have overcome all the problems the rest of society has.

Have I suggested that? What I have said is that reality diverges from our best intentions. I would argue that morality has nothing to do with what you are talking about, but I agree that we should do all we can to make that happen-while understanding that it is an unachievable goal.

Having gone through disabled education with some very close friends, I have no doubt she was deserving of an education. Having gone through gifted and talented education myself and with some friends who had gifted children, I can tell you that the resources available do not compare, and this is in one of the top school districts in the nation.

Please show me where I have advocated such discrimination.

And that is what I ask. Opinion supported by fact without calling each other names. It seems you can't have a POV that is different from the majority without being called a racist. A lot of people don't want to be a part of that and we lose something because of it. I just want those people to have a little "equal opportunity" too.

 

Heckuva job toppie!

 

Let's revisit all the "insults" that lead to your "reasoned discussion."

Now that Demo, Jacen and bigred have basically backed up my point, I suppose you could keep nailing yourself to your cross or might I suggest opening your mind just slightly to consider whether it's necessary to advocate taking education away from disabled students to be in favor of educating gifted children? Is there any chance you're capable of self-reflection?

 

Your perception of my post is completely flawed!
I was responding to a segment of CFC's post mentioning competition. There can certainly be competition between public & private schools, as well as competition between public schools or private schools themselves. When parents have some choice about the schools which their children attend, then there is a more level playing field. Parents may choose schools based on the quality of teaching; some may choose a school for other reasons: course offerings, proximity to the residence, etc.

Well, your point, as it were, is not completely accurate. As I said above, not all parents will choose a school based on test scores. Some may prefer a certain learning environment, rather than an overall average score, as the deciding factor. Some businesses may sacrifice a portion of their profit for quality.

How about the constitutional right?
NJ Constitution, SECTION IV - 1. The Legislature shall provide for the maintenance and support of a thorough and efficient system of free public schools for the instruction of all the children in the State between the ages of five and eighteen years. Interpretation of the words "maintenance, support, thorough & efficient" has led to all sorts of mischief in NJ, including the state income tax, billions misspent in urban districts, & the age of five being reduced to three in some districts.

 

Great selective editing job back there. Do you write for Michael Moore?

"You're wrong" with no discussion is now the standard of high debate on this board? You should be proud. I guess you can't even see that everything else grew from your one poison seed.
IMO the posts you cite, while being much more responsive to the question asked than any of yours, fall far from advocating your position. The difference in civil right and legal right are, as I pointed out before, very different.
BigRed asked a question, which I responded to. Don't see the massive backing of your point there. Jacen also asked a couple of questions. In one of them he agreed with your general point that disability protections in education grew out of the Civil Rights movement, a fact I was already aware of. Growing out of, and being are two different things.
Furthermore, you have once again inflated the issue. Demo in particular has backed the point that ALL children should be given an education that is appropriate to them. You seem to equate this to ALL children who are disabled. I agree with Demo on this one, but I know from work I have done that it is not the case. Where resources are constrained, gifted programs are generally far down the list. And it is necessary for their to be advocates for G&T programs. In case you haven't noticed that is how our system works. Your sloganeering notwithstanding, advocating a different allocation of resources is exactly what advocacy groups do. Now if you can just open your mind slightly to understand that concept, then you'll have learned something important.
So since your first sentence is invalid, perhaps I might suggest you come down off your high horse, stop telling everybody else how moral you are and how immoral they are for differing with your opinion and discuss the actual issue.

 

Valid point. However, as this is a politics forum I was thinking of success in the terms politicians usually promote, i.e. test scores.

 

That's weak. Galt quoted his own posts whole, without editing.

 

And if he had extended that courtesy to others, there would have been no comment.

 

I didn't lecture anyone. You read a lecturing tone where an honest question was asked. Not everyone on the planet is as insulting in their tone as you seem to be. I was also not "spewing foolishness" and I'd be willing to bet that I read on a better level than most. You implied (in an insulting tone) repeatedly that it was a waste of time to use resources on special education over regular education or gifted students. John pointed out how absurd that argument would be if you replaced the special education students with black students (and since John is a lawyer IIRC, it was obvious to me that he was going in that direction to highlight the fact that special education laws are based on the exact same civil rights legislation). You proceeded to get pissy, stating that he was using:

"reductio ad segregatum rather than actually contributing anything on the subject. Great start. Next I'm sure you'll be saying how Hitler had the exact same views as me."

This clearly looks like you were under the impression that comparing your views on special education to segregation etc was akin to making a Hitler comparison. Based on your absurd reaction to what was a good point by John, I assumed that you were unaware of the history of special education legislation, and pointed that history out in a non-insulting manner. Yet you continue to insult others and offer no actual arguments. You cling to your views even after being shown that they are both illegal and (through John's example of moral equivalency) immoral. Whether or not you are related to a dozen teachers or whether or not you "are there (civil rights legislation)" you really don't seem to have any idea what you're talking about. When that gets exposed by Demosthenes (a teacher), myself (a teacher) or John (a lawyer with a good reason for being familiar with civil rights and special education laws), you go right to the sarcastic tone and insults.

Way to not think about it at all. The idea behind the comment was that those students who are born "normal" or gifted can and usually do achieve more on their own. Students born without that average intelligence or have physical or emotional issues need more. The fact that they use up more of the budget doesn't mean it isn't "fair." They need more. Using those resources to help a special education student get to a level where they can function in society is worth it when you realize that most of the regular education kids, if money was thrown in their direction hand over fist, would not go much further than they would now. Also, for what it's worth, gifted programs often fall within the realm of extra funding. Honors classes tend to be MUCH smaller than standard and Collaborative classes. The professor was a "she" by the way.

 

It was an honest question in the "have you stopped beating your wife" school of honest questions.

He says I'm wrong without qualification and goes on to say my position is immoral- but I'm the one that's insulting. Nice reading comprehension there, chief.

I've read back and I don't agree that my tone was insulting. I've certainly been told over and over again that I am immoral because I think we need to reassess how we use school resources. I have never said that it is a waste of time to use resources on special education. I have said repeatedly that we need to reassess.

Do you understand what reductio ad segregatum means? It is the tendency on this board (and other places) to hyper-demonize whoever you are talking to. And the "if you replaced" argument only works if there is true equivalence. There is not in this case.

Let's recount- I make a comment about how resources are allocated and how I think it ought to be done; Galt says that I am an immoral racist for feeling that way; I object to his hyperbole and yet I am the one who is overreacting. Great job of analysis there, hoss.
Also, show me where what I have suggested is illegal. I think you are trying to put words into my mouth. And if, as you say, I am offering no actual arguments, how can you even begin to contend that what I suggest is either illegal or immoral?

That's rich. Demo made a great post that talked about many of the issues, but don't even pretend that you or Galt have approached her quality. And where have I been "sarcastic and insulting" to you without you doing it first?

I gave it all the thought it was worth. What she said is still a platitude. That you find it profound is interesting.

The attitude of the educational establishment is quite well represented by what you have said here. It is so important that I will repeat it.

It is this belief that allows the immoral justification for not having more gifted programs so that we do not, as Demo said "provide ALL students with an appropriate education". So the next time you go off on how immoral everyone else is, remember that morality cuts more than one way.

And, one more time, show me where I have said I want to eliminate special ed programs. "Fair" is "fair". You are contending I said something that I did not.