Special Education/Programs for the "Mentally Challenged", Useful or useless? Options

[MissHygienic]

There has been an ongoing debate about whether or not to levy taxes to properly fund public schools. I already know of a few under-funded school districts who forced teachers to work double shifts, and many schools were not able to provide paper, pens, or pencils because no one paid enough taxes.

With that said, what is your opinion on special education that is funded by the state? Public schools are already having a hard enough time. Should people waste more time and money on people with irreconcilable disabilities, or do you believe that all people should have education, whether or not they make use of it?

Discuss amongst yourselves.

[*CowerPointyObjects*]

Gifted students (typically qualified by having over 130 IQ) are considered "special education" as well. Should we stop funding our future leaders?

[MissHygienic]

Well, in the title, I also clarified that it was "special ed," as in programs for those who are mentally retarded. The opposite end of the spectrum of our future leaders.

[*CowerPointyObjects*]

Ah, sorry. It was 4am and I was freaking out about finals, which was no position to pick up details.

[*Steven*]

Put them in the tard cart and take them to work in the fields.

No but seriously, sucks for them, but if you took away the special ed programs, so much for no child left behind. It would be way too politically damaging, whoever did it, so no one will do it.

[*CowerPointyObjects*]

Anyway (oh how I hate myself for typing this instead of studying), not only would it be a political faux pas, it would be a social one as well. Take away special education programs, and where are those people going to go? You can't can't put them in classes with "everyone else," because then everyone else will suffer, and it'll hurt our already poor education system. If you let them fail out of school or don't require them to attend past a certain point, that's pretty damaging and will really give them no future. It could also lead them to be abused or abandoned, because no parent really wants a mentally challenged child to begin with, so to assume that all of them will assume the responsibility to get a private education is unrealistic, especially considering that everyone has a right to a public education, and that it's discrimination to suggest that those with particularly low IQs should have to pay more for that right. In short, special education is needed to get as many of those people to a point where they can function in society as possible so that we don't end up with a bunch of literally unemployed and homeless retarded people on the streets.

(Will edit and whatnot later.)

[ersatz]

But it's not doing its job. These people are not being given the education needed to function in society. They teach the same things to them that we get taught at a slower pace, and they still don't understand. Going, "It's OK honey, you don't have to do it if you don't understand it" doesn't teach them crap.

[*CowerPointyObjects*]

Cutting funding certainly isn't going to help that, though.

[ersatz]

We're not funding special education, is my point. If it's needed for the kids that actually need specialized teaching, then we should implement it, and fund that, rather than giving a bunch of money to the crap that they're trying to pass off as special ed for these kids.

[superstitious]

I am definitely going to have to edit this later, because in complete honesty, your argument pisses me off. Why? Because I'm the mother of a child with one of those "irreconcilable disabilities."

Am I to assume that my child should be left out from public education because administrators can't figure out how to budget? Or is it moot because he'll never have a decent future, since he has one of those "irreconcilable disabilities", so why waste the money?

Well, in the title, I also clarified that it was "special ed," as in programs for those who are mentally retarded. The opposite end of the spectrum of our future leaders.

I don't even know what to say to that. Too bigoted of a statement for me to take seriously.

Again, will have to edit later.

[MissHygienic]

I am definitely going to have to edit this later, because in complete honesty, your argument pisses me off. Why? Because I'm the mother of a child with one of those "irreconcilable disabilities."

Am I to assume that my child should be left out from public education because administrators can't figure out how to budget? Or is it moot because he'll never have a decent future, since he has that "irreconcilable disabilities", so why waste the money?
I don't even know what to say to that. Too bigoted of a statement for me to take seriously.

Again, will have to edit later.

What argument is pissing you off? I was proposing an idea. I didn't state my opinion on this issue. I know plenty of people who refuse to pay taxes for other people's education. I was wondering what people thought about the programs for challenged people? Stop getting your panties in a bunch; it's a debate forum.

[superstitious]

What argument is pissing you off? I was proposing an idea. I didn't state my opinion on this issue. I know plenty of people who refuse to pay taxes for other people's education. I was wondering what people thought about the programs for challenged people? Stop getting your panties in a bunch; it's a debate forum.

Fair enough. It pisses me off because it touches too close to home, that's why I mentioned "editing later."

What I think is that if people are going to fund education, they fund education without discriminating those who have disabilities.

[brooklyneast05]

schools could cut down on other things couldn't they?

[MissFits]

I have seen these classes work.
I used to volunteer to tutor in those classes and most of the kids were so sweet and willing to learn. They ate up everything I helped them with. Of course their were exceptions, as in every other kind of class, but why cut the funding because o few of the kids aren't learning.
The kids that don't benefit don't want to. The kids that to benefit do. They may be "mentally challenged" but they aren't f**king useless.

[karmakiller]

I'm in Special Ed, and I do believe that it helps people. The thing is, though, is there's lots of people who aren't "challenged" that take advantage of the program. They see it as a way to get more help on tests and skip classes and go a Special Ed study hall. Being a special ed teacher is a difficult job, and sometimes there are people who think they can do it but they really can't. I think everyone has the right to have a good education, no matter what some IQ tests say. Everyone learns different ways and everyone's smart in different ways. For families dealing with mentally challenged children it's hard. They shouldn't be expected to pay a lot of money out-of-pocket to assure that their child gets a fair education.

[MissHygienic]

I should state that I'm not talking about the "slow" people, or whatever politically correct term you all want to coin. I am talking about those who are and will not be in any shape to defend themselves then and in the future. As I said, "irreconcilable disabilities."

And I was introducing this economically. I do not think that only some people should receive education. I am talking about this in monetary value. I know exactly how much I pay for other people's education and so do others, and I have read news reports about how it pisses people off. I just wanted opinions about this.

[superstitious]

Understood, but I do not think that cutting taxes to eliminate them from public education based solely on the fact that they may never be able to fend for themselves is wise. It perpetuates the idea that if you aren't a certain way or if you're not of a certain stature, you're not necessary in the long scheme of things.

I know that's taking a dramatic approach to what you're debating here, but I truly believe it sends the wrong message. There are other things that can be cut. How about reducing salaries such as these? How about focusing less on administrators and more on educators?

[Cowboy]

schools could cut down on other things couldn't they?

But why train these individuals when the parents could just as effectively? Give the parents a tax credit, and perhaps a curriculum to follow. It's not as if they're teaching these children Calculus, for God's sake. This is about monetary benefit of not teaching them in schools, not laughing and cuddling with them, by the way.

[brooklyneast05]

yeah but that doesn't seem to be the case. if parents had the time and could train them just as effectively i don't see why they are sending them to school in the first place. i don't think they can, not all of them anyway.

[Cowboy]

Understood, but I do not think that cutting taxes to eliminate them from public education based solely on the fact that they may never be able to fend for themselves is wise. It perpetuates the idea that if you aren't a certain way or if you're not of a certain stature, you're not necessary in the long scheme of things.

I know that's taking a dramatic approach to what you're debating here, but I truly believe it sends the wrong message. There are other things that can be cut. How about reducing salaries such as these? How about focusing less on administrators and more on educators?

Perhaps you'll take offense to this, and I do so apologize if you do, but how are mentally handicapped people essential by any means? It seems as if they're only a burden to those around them? If we're talking about anything logical, how are they "necessary?" Oh, yeah, they're totally a part of God's great plan, and his big, green Earth, but what the hell do they do, other than consume and drool? Unless you believe in some sort of philosophy in which the weak are necessary as to complement the strong, and to show who is truly compassionate, but this is an abstract point, at best. Answer this: how are they "necessary?"

yeah but that doesn't seem to be the case. if parents had the time and could train them just as effectively i don't see why they are sending them to school in the first place. i don't think they can, not all of them anyway.

As the children are definitively of no benefit, and have no discernible hope, let the parents negotiate some means of caring for them. Day care?

Reason for edit: merged - Jc

[MissHygienic]

Understood, but I do not think that cutting taxes to eliminate them from public education based solely on the fact that they may never be able to fend for themselves is wise. It perpetuates the idea that if you aren't a certain way or if you're not of a certain stature, you're not necessary in the long scheme of things.

I know that's taking a dramatic approach to what you're debating here, but I truly believe it sends the wrong message. There are other things that can be cut. How about reducing salaries such as these? How about focusing less on administrators and more on educators?

Yeah, I should have clarified about the taxes/money issues. And thank you for your economic perspective on this. I had read a few news articles online, and I thought it would be interesting to propose this idea to members on CreateBlog who are also students/tax-payers/future tax-payers. I will respond to this later.

[angelrevelation]

I work with autistic kids as a "class" and I've also worked with the only relatively disabled kids too. The kids can be endearing, since they still are people. But the way the teachers talk about/with the kids, I hate to say, it just makes me wonder how they're kidding themselves so much.

I think that they should keep the programs, but distinguish who gets to receive the education. I know that it isn't exactly the nicest thing to do, but what good can a person do if they're stuck in a wheelchair, can't talk, and have to be fed with a tube? The little development they are going to do still isn't going to benefit anyone much.

There ARE kids that really learn a lot from the special ed programs though, and learn how to function in society. They would be the "program approved" kids ideally. I know a few who can successfully keep a simple job and relatively socialize. But those that are completely dependent...

Saving money for students who are more promising is just the reality of what's best, IMO. But then again, there are "regular" students who just laze around and drop out or whatever, so who says if they should use up tax money either?

[Cowboy]

Those who are completely dependent, and or viably catatonic should be home-schooled and or cared for by the parents. If they choose to keep such, it seems as if it should be their obligation to care for it.

For all others, for those that can learn, and can function, well, teach them as much as they're capable of learning. Clearly, there will come a terminal point, an extent of their cognitive abilities, but if they can function and or carry out low-level tasks in society, by all means, train them and prepare them well for such.

[superstitious]

Not sure what the god's green earth stuff is all about (and admittedly, I'm a wretched debater) but I don't take offense. I think that everyone is "necessary", and that's not me speaking from the perspective of someone who is cheery, friendly, or believes in anything remotely related to "God's plan."

Each individual is different from the next, so I won't falsely say that without a shadow of a doubt, this would apply to everyone. There are mentally retarded individuals that do have a certain place in society. Some can work in workshops, some can do the McDonalds job thing (no laughing XD). I think when we start to "weed" out those seemingly unneccessary individuals, a line begins to turn gray. At what point does someone stop being necessary?

That's on the rhetorical side, but making the judgment that one isn't necessary because of something they cannot control (social, ecomonic, mental status) is opening a huge can of worms.

Again, I'm not at all a good debater. I tend to speak from my own personal experiences and rely less on googling subjects and what not to express what I feel my points are (valid or not, coherent or not).

Out of curiosity, what would you do with these individuals? If they are not necessary, should they continue to exist? If an amniocentesis is performed on a pregnant mother and genetic defects are found that would indicate a severe disability, should the pregnancy be terminated? After all, those children aren't necessary, right?

((Please, please, please know that I'm not at all trying to argue. I'm sincerely curious.))

@angelrevelation, my child has autism. That's his disability. You'd be surprised (or not)at how functional he has become. I credit a great deal of his functionality to the special education programs he's been in. Part of my concern of removing special education is because I've seen such growth, due to special educators. I haven't seen it with just my child either, I've seen it in several children.

/edit: crap, I just saw your response. I was away from my computer and barely came back and hit reply. Oh well. It's bedtime now. I'll figure it out/edit this thing later.

[Kontroll]

Gifted students (typically qualified by having over 130 IQ) are considered "special education" as well. Should we stop funding our future leaders?

So, genius' and the mentally retarded are all grouped into 'special ed?'

Thank God for mediocrity.