Special education costs seen as costly service

[Krazen1211]

http://www.necn.com/01/19/11/Special-education-costs-seen-as-costly-s/landing.html?&blockID=3&apID=05de81391a6744739571a8ed24f265a1

Educating students with disabilities — a federally mandated responsibility — is seen as one of the costliest services school districts must provide, and one of the last that can be cut.

The federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act provides a set of protections for 6.6 million students — about 13 percent of total student enrollment — who have dyslexia, autism, intellectual disabilities, blindness, or other impairments that affect educational performance. Those students are entitled to a "free, appropriate public education" in the least-restrictive environment that meets their needs. Fail to provide such services, and parents can sue in federal court.

Those guidelines have led to the perception that special education is an untouchable expense, even in lean economic times. While states and school districts are encouraged to squeeze out every dime in other areas of spending, trying to save money in special education services is thought to be a third rail: Touch it, and you'll get shocked.

Also, despite the perception that special education money is untouchable, at least seven states have asked, or plan to ask, permission from the U.S. Department of Education to cut their spending on special education for fiscal 2010 or 2011. The requests from Iowa, Kansas, and West Virginia have been granted; requests from Alabama, New Jersey, and South Carolina are under review; and Oregon planned to file a request in early 2011. And because of a provision in the idea that allows districts to cut back on local spending when more federal dollars come in, the infusion of more than $12 billion in one-time additional aid for special education under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act-the economic-stimulus program-may prompt districts to make reductions in local spending that will last after the stimulus money is spent. Because of a technical loophole in the federal law, districts would not be required to return to their prestimulus levels of local spending.


Yep, unfunded mandates combined with provisions to let trigger happy lawyers nail you.

This is one of the things that has been fueling the massive growth of the government education industry complex. It's time to cut back.


http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-6892220/State-education-spending-current-pressures.html

Between the 1978 and 2003 school years, the number of special education students increased 186 percent, an average annual rate of growth of 2.4 percent. (5) Special education enrollments grew most rapidly from 1978 to 1982 and from 1992 to 1998. Compared to enrollments of all students, special education enrollments grew much faster; for example, between 1989 and 2003, special education enrollments grew more than two and half times as fast as total enrollments (53 percent versus 20 percent).



Someone has a cash cow here.

[Mixels]

The system is horribly abused, too. These days you can get an IEP for simply refusing to do work. They call it "oppositional defiant disorder." Toss in the kids with ADHD, Asberger's syndrome, and so on, and it's not long before you begin to wonder whether or not we should treat everyone as having special needs.

[124nic8]

Someone has a cash cow here.

Maybe they should all be institutionalized and supported at taxpayer expense for the rest of their lives. :rolleyes:

Your alternative?

[Krazen1211]

Maybe they should all be institutionalized and supported at taxpayer expense for the rest of their lives. :rolleyes:

Your alternative?

No. Reduce enrollments to 1989 levels. Reduce spending to 1989 levels.

[redmaxx]

No. Reduce enrollments to 1989 levels. Reduce spending to 1989 levels.
:woot: That's the ticket. Ignore better detection and testing in favor of blind reductions!

Sorry Johnny, we know you have dyslexia, but Krazen limited the number of kids in the program to 1989 levels, so you'll just have to suffer along.

[124nic8]

No. Reduce enrollments to 1989 levels. Reduce spending to 1989 levels.

Despite the growth of population or need, reduce funding to some arbitrary level?

Why 1989? Cause that reflected a decade of conservative dominance?

[Mixels]

:woot: That's the ticket. Ignore better detection and testing in favor of blind reductions!

Sorry Johnny, we know you have dyslexia, but Krazen limited the number of kids in the program to 1989 levels, so you'll just have to suffer along.
Or adjust the criteria for admission to be--you know--sensible. A kid shouldn't be considered as having special needs simply because he refuses to do work.

[redmaxx]

FTR, it's hard to get accommodations even when they are necessary. The Kyrene school district absolutely refused to provide basic and minimum accommodations for me (even cheap or free ones) when I was in middle school. Rather than put me through the hassle of a lawsuit (which we easily would have won according to the district's legal counsel) my parents home schooled me. I graduated and went on to college early where I ran into the same roadblocks. @sshole professors that refused to make even simple and basic accommodations and a disability department that added all kinds of red tape and paperwork to end up getting little to nothing done. I struggled through and graduated though and am a productive, tax paying member of society.

Just wanted to counterbalance the idea that people that need special accommodations are a money sink.

Or adjust the criteria for admission to be--you know--sensible. A kid shouldn't be considered as having special needs simply because he refuses to do work.
Depends on the root of the disorder, no?

[Mixels]

Depends on the root of the disorder, no?
Not when the "disorder" is diagnosed purely through observation of behavioral symptoms. A friend of mine has a kid in his class who automatically passes all classes (even if he does zero work). Get this: it's because he refuses to do work. The peculiar reality is that most psychologists doing evaluations of students make absolutely no attempt to uncover the biological cause of the diagnosis, and evaluations are much too rushed for a psychologist to do a thorough psychoanalysis. Diagnoses are basically nice, tidy wrappings that describe a set of common behaviors. Many of them are simply idiosyncratic behaviors.

[redmaxx]

Not when the "disorder" is diagnosed purely through observation of behavioral symptoms. A friend of mine has a kid in his class who automatically passes all classes (even if he does zero work). Get this: it's because he refuses to do work. The peculiar reality is that most psychologists doing evaluations of students make absolutely no attempt to uncover the biological cause of the diagnosis, and evaluations are much too rushed for a psychologist to do a thorough psychoanalysis. Diagnoses are basically nice, tidy wrappings that describe a set of common behaviors. Many of them are simply idiosyncratic behaviors.
Obviously there's an issue if no one's attempting to figure out why the kid is behaving that way. Stamping ODD onto regular behavior seems lazy and does a great disservice to those who need real help. But sometimes ODD is a manifestation of a larger issue. Having been the victim of people that believed that my behavior was entirely under my control, I would caution against the pendulum swinging too far in the direction you suggest.

[Mixels]

Obviously there's an issue if no one's attempting to figure out why the kid is behaving that way. Stamping ODD onto regular behavior seems lazy and does a great disservice to those who need real help. But sometimes ODD is a manifestation of a larger issue. Having been the victim of people that believed that my behavior was entirely under my control, I would caution against the pendulum swinging too far in the direction you suggest.
Then diagnose the larger issue. Labeling people with "disorders" who do not demonstrate genuinely debilitating symptoms serves only to stigmatize those with unusual behavioral traits. Also, basing diagnoses solely on behavioral traits makes it very easy for children and adolescents to manipulate the system. False diagnoses and unnecessary accommodations hurt much more than they seems to do at first glance.

[redmaxx]

Then diagnose the larger issue. Labeling people with "disorders" who do not demonstrate genuinely debilitating symptoms serves only to stigmatize those with unusual behavioral traits. Also, basing diagnoses solely on behavioral traits makes it very easy for children and adolescents to manipulate the system. False diagnoses and unnecessary accommodations hurt much more than they seems to do at first glance.
Yes, we're in agreement. Just don't swing the pendulum so far back that it injures those that truly need help.

[The2AMBearArms]

:woot: That's the ticket. Ignore better detection and testing in favor of blind reductions!

Sorry Johnny, we know you have dyslexia, but Krazen limited the number of kids in the program to 1989 levels, so you'll just have to suffer along.

I don't really care what happens to them. Let their families work it out. It shouldn't be our problem that some people produce defective kids.

[Count_Chocula]

What's so costly about parkin their wheelchair in front of the tv & changin their diapers ever few hours?

[Krazen1211]

Despite the growth of population or need, reduce funding to some arbitrary level?

Why 1989? Cause that reflected a decade of conservative dominance?

No, because George H. W. Bush signed the IDEA act in 1990. You can adjust for population growth if you choose, but spending has growth far far beyond that.

[riznick]

What's the average cost per special ed student per year?

[Krazen1211]

:woot: That's the ticket. Ignore better detection and testing in favor of blind reductions!

Sorry Johnny, we know you have dyslexia, but Krazen limited the number of kids in the program to 1989 levels, so you'll just have to suffer along.

What a giant load of crap.

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_32.htm
Nationally, special education enrollment grew from 10.6% of all students to 12.3% during the study period, from the 1991–92 school year to 2000-01.
During this period, 33 states and the District of Columbia had “bounty” funding systems, which create financial incentives to place children in special education. Sixteen states had “lump-sum” funding systems, which do not create such incentives. New Hampshire had no state funding system until 1999.
There is a statistically significant positive relationship between bounty funding systems and growth in special education enrollment. Bounty funding results in an additional enrollment increase of 1.24 percentage points over ten years.
The effect of the bounty system accounts for 62% of the enrollment growth experienced by bounty states during the study period. This represents roughly 390,000 extra students in special education, resulting in additional spending of over $2.3 billion per year.
If all bounty states had switched to lump-sum systems in 1994–95, their special education enrollments in 2000–01 would have been lower by an average of 0.82 percentage points. This represents roughly 258,000 students and over $1.5 billion per year in extra spending.

[Krazen1211]

What's the average cost per special ed student per year?

It's about double the regular student.

http://csef.air.org/publications/seep/national/AdvRpt1.pdf

In per pupil terms, the total spending used to educate the average student with a
disability amounts to $12,639 (see Exhibit 2). This amount includes $8,080 per pupil on
special education services, $4,394 per pupil on regular education services, and $165 per
pupil on services from other special need programs (e.g., Title I, English language
learners, or Gifted and Talented Education).


Sometimes up to triple.


http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05220.pdf

The average per pupil expenditure for educating a child with autism was
estimated by SEEP to be over $18,000 in the 1999-2000 school year, the
most recent year for which data were available. This estimate was nearly
three times the expenditure for a typical regular education student who
did not receive special education services and was among the highest per
pupil expenditures for school-age children receiving special education
services in public schools.

[redmaxx]

What a giant load of crap.

So basically, because:

There is a statistically significant positive relationship between bounty funding systems and growth in special education enrollment. Bounty funding results in an additional enrollment increase of 1.24 percentage points over ten years.

Obviously what I'm concerned about can't happen. :rolleyes:

[Krazen1211]

So basically, because:


Obviously what I'm concerned about can't happen. :rolleyes:


Who said it can't happen? What is clear, however, is that unscrupulous people are abusing the system and breaking the back of the taxpayer.

[redmaxx]

Who said it can't happen?

You said my comment was a "load of crap".

What is clear, however, is that unscrupulous people are abusing the system and breaking the back of the taxpayer.
So naturally the solution is to kick people off that really need the help.

[Krazen1211]

You said my comment was a "load of crap".


So naturally the solution is to kick people off that really need the help.

You catch on quick. But no, the natural solution would be to simply repeal the foolish laws that drive this excess cost growth when the nation cannot afford this excess cost growth, and to go back to the old system that didn't provide windfall cash.

[redmaxx]

You catch on quick. But no, the natural solution would be to simply repeal the foolish laws that drive this excess cost growth when the nation cannot afford this excess cost growth, and to go back to the old system that didn't provide windfall cash.
But that's not what you said originally.

[riznick]

It's about double the regular student.

http://csef.air.org/publications/seep/national/AdvRpt1.pdf

In per pupil terms, the total spending used to educate the average student with a
disability amounts to $12,639 (see Exhibit 2). This amount includes $8,080 per pupil on
special education services, $4,394 per pupil on regular education services, and $165 per
pupil on services from other special need programs (e.g., Title I, English language
learners, or Gifted and Talented Education).


Sometimes up to triple.


http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05220.pdf

The average per pupil expenditure for educating a child with autism was
estimated by SEEP to be over $18,000 in the 1999-2000 school year, the
most recent year for which data were available. This estimate was nearly
three times the expenditure for a typical regular education student who
did not receive special education services and was among the highest per
pupil expenditures for school-age children receiving special education
services in public schools.

Thanks. Seems reasonable that it is around double.

[trancepire]

Thanks. Seems reasonable that it is around double.
It should also be considered that some special ed students stay in public school until they're 21.

[riznick]

It should also be considered that some special ed students stay in public school until they're 21.
Also seems reasonable (to me).

I am assuming they need public school, and it is their right.

[ASG]

Not when the "disorder" is diagnosed purely through observation of behavioral symptoms. A friend of mine has a kid in his class who automatically passes all classes (even if he does zero work). Get this: it's because he refuses to do work. The peculiar reality is that most psychologists doing evaluations of students make absolutely no attempt to uncover the biological cause of the diagnosis, and evaluations are much too rushed for a psychologist to do a thorough psychoanalysis. Diagnoses are basically nice, tidy wrappings that describe a set of common behaviors. Many of them are simply idiosyncratic behaviors.
Are the schools spending more on this kid or is he just not learning anything?

[trancepire]

Also seems reasonable (to me).

I am assuming they need public school, and it is their right.
I'm sure it sounds heartless, but the ROI is relatively poor.

I'm thinking specifically of the autistic program at the school district I previously worked at. The students got a very abbreviated summer vacation because a full summer would set them back so much. What happens when they actually do "graduate"? They will still need someone babysitting them most of the time.

Obviously, there's a spectrum of autism and I'm speaking about the worst ones. Maybe I'm jaded by having seen all the money wasted by that specific Special Ed department. There were IEPs with ridiculous requests (such as a very expensive laptop for a student to bring back and forth from school; one that was capable of withstanding the massive amount of damage the kid did to equipment). The department would spend a huge amount of money on a piece of software because they'd heard somewhere it was supposed to work miracles, then they'd call me to show them how to use it. Me, who has never even heard of the software they sunk thousands into. I had to show them around the program because they hadn't even bothered trying it before buying it and didn't invest the time to learn how to use a computer.

There was a particularly troubling pair of twin boys who weighed in at around 300 pounds. I watched as they moved up through the grades, and each school had to dedicate a small room to be a padded area to bring them to when they started flipping out. By the time they "graduated", one of them learned to speak some, but the other could only seemingly parrot what one of the (few) teachers directly assigned to him would say.

Eh, that's all circumstantial evidence of course. Of course Special Ed students need special attention and that's bound to cost more money. There should be a limit though. At some point someone has to ask, "Is this really worth it?"

[The2AMBearArms]

I'm sure it sounds heartless, but the ROI is relatively poor.

I'm thinking specifically of the autistic program at the school district I previously worked at. The students got a very abbreviated summer vacation because a full summer would set them back so much. What happens when they actually do "graduate"? They will still need someone babysitting them most of the time.

Obviously, there's a spectrum of autism and I'm speaking about the worst ones. Maybe I'm jaded by having seen all the money wasted by that specific Special Ed department. There were IEPs with ridiculous requests (such as a very expensive laptop for a student to bring back and forth from school; one that was capable of withstanding the massive amount of damage the kid did to equipment). The department would spend a huge amount of money on a piece of software because they'd heard somewhere it was supposed to work miracles, then they'd call me to show them how to use it. Me, who has never even heard of the software they sunk thousands into. I had to show them around the program because they hadn't even bothered trying it before buying it and didn't invest the time to learn how to use a computer.

There was a particularly troubling pair of twin boys who weighed in at around 300 pounds. I watched as they moved up through the grades, and each school had to dedicate a small room to be a padded area to bring them to when they started flipping out. By the time they "graduated", one of them learned to speak some, but the other could only seemingly parrot what one of the (few) teachers directly assigned to him would say.

Eh, that's all circumstantial evidence of course. Of course Special Ed students need special attention and that's bound to cost more money. There should be a limit though. At some point someone has to ask, "Is this really worth it?"

Thanks for summing up my thoughts in a much better way than I am able to.

I've heard of districts that spend $1.5 million a year on special ed kids (from k-12), and at best, they perform menial jobs afterward. It's one thing to spend a little extra on Special Ed so that people who have the ability to learn but just need a little extra help (like people with mild dyslexia or something), and it's quite another to spend tons of money on people who at best, won't earn enough over their entire working lifetimes to pay what the school districts spent on them.

This doesn't just apply to education, but services for the disabled in general. I once read about a city that was spending $24,000 a year to transport a disabled man to and from his $15,000 a year job every day.

What benefit does that really provide? Some people have said that it provides the person with a sense of purpose, but I'm not convinced this is worthwhile.

[riznick]

I'm sure it sounds heartless, but the ROI is relatively poor.
True. I wouldn't call it heartless. You are being logical. If the ROI is poor, then it probably is a waste of time for the students as well. I purposely didn't consider the ROI in the pricing being reasonable as that was another train of thought.

Other than having a glorified babysitter, does anyone benefit from it? If people do benefit from it, then would it be fair to leave them behind? How do we decide who needs it and who doesn't?

Obviously, there's a spectrum of autism and I'm speaking about the worst ones.
I see you have experience here. Someone may have jumped on you for not putting up that disclaimer.

Eh, that's all circumstantial evidence of course. Of course Special Ed students need special attention and that's bound to cost more money. There should be a limit though. At some point someone has to ask, "Is this really worth it?"
I think we've accepted as a society that we should take care of them. You are correct, there should be limits, and less waste.

I spend $12,000 -$15,000 per year per child for day care. $18000 sounds reasonable to me as I figure they will need more care by someone with a higher level of experience.

[Rebound]

What's so costly about parkin their wheelchair in front of the tv & changin their diapers ever few hours?All the tax money that gets wasted, and your solution is to mistreat handicapped children.

[riznick]

World of Warcraft is pretty cheap and can occupy their time for years and years. ;)

[Rebound]

World of Warcraft is pretty cheap and can occupy their time for years and years. ;)Odds are, one of you smartasses will wind up having a crippled kid one day, and then you can snicker at how funny you are. Until then, have a little compassion. These children did not ask to be born this way and a person who scorns a crippled kid is the lowest of scum in my book.

[kdt]

All the tax money that gets wasted, and your solution is to mistreat handicapped children.
Are you suggesting that changing diapers and letting kids watch tv is mistreatment?

[Krazen1211]

Odds are, one of you smartasses will wind up having a crippled kid one day, and then you can snicker at how funny you are. Until then, have a little compassion. These children did not ask to be born this way and a person who scorns a crippled kid is the lowest of scum in my book.

This country had plenty of compassion when Jimmy Carter was President.

What you're asking for is a cash windfall.

[riznick]

Odds are, one of you smartasses will wind up having a crippled kid one day, and then you can snicker at how funny you are. Until then, have a little compassion. These children did not ask to be born this way and a person who scorns a crippled kid is the lowest of scum in my book.
I've been crippled before, in fact, I was paralyzed at one point in time. Do I get a free pass to make these jokes now? Honestly, when I am out for long periods of time, video games are quite enjoyable.

[smegalicious]

No, because George H. W. Bush signed the IDEA act in 1990. You can adjust for population growth if you choose, but spending has growth far far beyond that.
... which was really just a renaming (w/minor amendments) of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_for_All_Handicapped_Children_Act), signed in 1975...

So reverting to 1989 levels would definitely reduce the amount of resources available, but wouldn't do a darn thing about alleviating the obligation of public schools to educate children with disabilities.

[Rebound]

The system is horribly abused, too. These days you can get an IEP for simply refusing to do work. They call it "oppositional defiant disorder." Toss in the kids with ADHD, Asberger's syndrome, and so on, and it's not long before you begin to wonder whether or not we should treat everyone as having special needs.The added costs of children with issues such as those is very small, and quite often zero. Some children see a speech therapist once or twice a week, some are given extra time to take tests. But if it makes the difference in, say, a dyslexic's life, and allows that person to be more productive in society, then it is worth it.

[Krazen1211]

... which was really just a renaming (w/minor amendments) of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_for_All_Handicapped_Children_Act), signed in 1975...

So reverting to 1989 levels would definitely reduce the amount of resources available, but wouldn't do a darn thing about alleviating the obligation of public schools to educate children with disabilities.

I thought you were a lawyer, Smegalicious? The bolded is the entire point!

The Supreme Court in its wisdom held that EAHCA did not provide attorney's fees and other windfall compensation,which nicely held the effect of reducing lawsuits.

Of course, the 1990 act was not 'minor' as you put it. It in fact broadened the classification of 'disabled' and forced the usage of extremely expensive individualized plans and extremely expensive technology.

Ideally, of course, I would have no problems going back to the 1974 classification and spending levels. We night have to if the deficit king continues to rule.

[redmaxx]

The added costs of children with issues such as those is very small, and quite often zero. Some children see a speech therapist once or twice a week, some are given extra time to take tests. But if it makes the difference in, say, a dyslexic's life, and allows that person to be more productive in society, then it is worth it.
I wish more had your attitude. I needed uncapped test taking time during school and it was a huge ordeal. It's not that I took much longer, just that when you capped me to a particular time, it caused me all sorts of problems (before any of you internet doctors cry foul, I have a real, documented disability). The teachers cried bloody murder and gave all kinds of reasons, such as not being able to stay until midnight (even though they knew it wouldn't take me that long) and not being able to eventually function in the real world. In the end, I function just fine and consistently get high ratings in my performance reviews. None of my managers know of my disability, I just needed a little accommodation in school.

Just wanted to counterbalance the idea that we're not worth the return on investment.

[TheWoman]

The added costs of children with issues such as those is very small, and quite often zero. Some children see a speech therapist once or twice a week, some are given extra time to take tests. But if it makes the difference in, say, a dyslexic's life, and allows that person to be more productive in society, then it is worth it.

You are right. In most cases dealing with a disability in a way that will allow the child to learn and function is the most sensible thing to do, both in terms of money (long term) and the well being of the child. I don't think anyone here is arguing that a little special help for the dislexic is a bad thing.

When people are talking about wasteful special education spending, I am assuming they are talking about those cases where the costs are so high and/or the return so low that it really isn't worth it. For example, I knew a family with an autistic child. As a teenager he still couldn't talk, still wore diapers, hits people, and has no realistic chance of ever taking care of himself or doing anything productive. Yet every day the school district sent a special bus to pick him up and take him across town to the school that could handle him, spending who knows how much money to try to teach him something using highly trained specialists, and then bus him home. After 15 years of this he still couldn't change his own diapers. Is that money well spent or would it be better to hire someone to take care of him in a daycare situation and use the rest of the money to educate those who have a chance to someday use that education?

[point5mann]

The problem is not the IEP process and the giving of accommodations (that system needs improvement but is a good system), but rather the rampant abuse by the select few. As an example, parents will claim the school system messed up on a technicality and enroll their student in a private school (w/ tuition upwards of $100,000 per year) and the public school system is forced to pay the bill. Schools should be held accountable for not meeting their obligations to special needs students, but they should haven't to pay tuition to these sham institutions.

[smegalicious]

I thought you were a lawyer, Smegalicious?
Just another one of the things you apparently don't have *quite* right...

The bolded is the entire point!
So you complain about the 1990 act creating an "unfunded mandate", but have no problems creating one yourself.... :scratchh:

The Supreme Court in its wisdom held that EAHCA did not provide attorney's fees and other windfall compensation,which nicely held the effect of reducing lawsuits.
How is providing the recovery of attorney's fees for the plaintiff an example of "windfall compensation"? How is *anything* you've rambled on about an example of "windfall compensation"?

Of course, the 1990 act was not 'minor' as you put it. It in fact broadened the classification of 'disabled' and forced the usage of extremely expensive individualized plans and extremely expensive technology.
Link? Examples? Anything other than your own opinion backing up this particular claim?

Wiki's description of the EHA:
This act required all public schools accepting federal funds to provide equal access to education for children with physical and mental disabilities. Public schools were required to evaluate handicapped students and create an educational plan with parent input that would emulate as closely as possible the educational experience of non-disabled students.

Ideally, of course, I would have no problems going back to the 1974 classification and spending levels. We night have to if the deficit king continues to rule.
You mean the 1974 "classifications" of shipping special needs children off to be warehoused in mental hospitals?

[Krazen1211]

How is providing the recovery of attorney's fees for the plaintiff an example of "windfall compensation"? How is *anything* you've rambled on about an example of "windfall compensation"?


Link? Examples? Anything other than your own opinion backing up this particular claim?

Wiki's description of the EHA:
This act required all public schools accepting federal funds to provide equal access to education for children with physical and mental disabilities. Public schools were required to evaluate handicapped students and create an educational plan with parent input that would emulate as closely as possible the educational experience of non-disabled students.


You mean the 1974 "classifications" of shipping special needs children off to be warehoused in mental hospitals?


You obviously haven't been paying much attention to anything. It was quite clearly explained to you how the early to mid 1990s led to rapid increases in classifications of 'disabled' or otherwise needy students to claim the windfall of federal funds. We know of course that this is adding to the budget deficit to the tune of $12 billion a year.

Examples have already been provided in this thread.

And of course, no, I haven't created any unfunded mandate....

[smegalicious]

You obviously haven't been paying much attention to anything. It was quite clearly explained to you how the early to mid 1990s led to rapid increases in classifications of 'disabled' or otherwise needy students to claim the windfall of federal funds.
Even if it was explained to me how the early to mid 1990s led to rapid increases in classifications of "disabled" students.... how does that establish that IDEA 1990 "broadened the classification of 'disabled' and forced the usage of extremely expensive individualized plans and extremely expensive technology"?

The predecessor to IDEA 1990 (EHA) also "forced the usage of extremely expensive individualized plans"... So how exactly were they all that different again?

BTW, how *does* a time period like "early to mid 1990s" actually lead to a rapid increase in anything? :dontknow:

And how is receiving federal funds to pay for needed services a "windfall"? Because you don't think they deserved that much?

Examples have already been provided in this thread.
Examples of how the IDEA 1990 actually broadened the classification? :look: Examples of how the IDEA 1990 actually forced schools to use extremely expensive technology?

And of course, no, I haven't created any unfunded mandate....
You specifically chose to turn the clock back to 1989. That leaves a mandate to educate every child (thanks to the EHA), but not enough money to actually do it. What do you call that?

[Krazen1211]

Even if it was explained to me how the early to mid 1990s led to rapid increases in classifications of "disabled" students.... how does that establish that IDEA 1990 "broadened the classification of 'disabled' and forced the usage of extremely expensive individualized plans and extremely expensive technology"?

The predecessor to IDEA 1990 (EHA) also "forced the usage of extremely expensive individualized plans"... So how exactly were they all that different again?

BTW, how *does* a time period like "early to mid 1990s" actually lead to a rapid increase in anything? :dontknow:

And how is receiving federal funds to pay for needed services a "windfall"? Because you don't think they deserved that much?


Examples of how the IDEA 1990 actually broadened the classification? :look: Examples of how the IDEA 1990 actually forced schools to use extremely expensive technology?


You specifically chose to turn the clock back to 1989. That leaves a mandate to educate every child (thanks to the EHA), but not enough money to actually do it. What do you call that?

What do I call that? A silly law on the books that can properly be dismissed through selective arbitration.

The IDEA act of 1990, since you didn't read it, categorized specific areas which allowed lawsuit happy parents to sue.

Children between the ages of 3 and 21, who meet the eligibility criteria in one of thirteen qualifying disabilities and who require special education services because of the disability can qualify for services under IDEA. The categories of disabilities are; autism, deaf/blind, deafness, hearing impaired, mental retardation, multiple disabilities, orthopedic impairment, serious emotional disturbance, specific learning disabilities, speech or language impairment, traumatic brain injury, visual impairment including blindness, and other health impairments.



The federal funds borrowed by the deficit king, of course, are inadequate to meet the massive burden enacted by these laws. Back in 1990, only 11% of students were classified as special education. Today, that's over 14%. As a result, as is clearly indicated in the original post, local districts are struggling with funding.


I would go back to the reality of Smith vs Robinson, 1984, which appropriately restricted the lawsuit roulette gun to the provisions limited in the 1975 legislation.

[smegalicious]

What do I call that? A silly law on the books that can properly be dismissed through selective arbitration.
So all that prattle about "reduce spending to 1989 levels" was just a dodge leading up to your *real* goal -- to end the legal obligation of the federal govt to provide a free public education to every child?

The IDEA act of 1990, since you didn't read it, categorized specific areas which allowed lawsuit happy parents to sue.
And you did? :rofl2:

So before the categorization of specific areas of disability, lawsuit-happy parents were prohibited from suing the govt? :rolleyes:

Providing more examples of specific areas of disability =/ expanding the definition of disability as you previously claimed...

Children between the ages of 3 and 21, who meet the eligibility criteria in one of thirteen qualifying disabilities and who require special education services because of the disability can qualify for services under IDEA. The categories of disabilities are; autism, deaf/blind, deafness, hearing impaired, mental retardation, multiple disabilities, orthopedic impairment, serious emotional disturbance, specific learning disabilities, speech or language impairment, traumatic brain injury, visual impairment including blindness, and other health impairments.

Just in case any one might have thought *you* wrote that... (http://www.help4adhd.org/education/rights/idea) :annoyed:

How is plagiarizing the "Who Qualifies?" answer from a disability advocacy organization supporting your position?

The federal funds borrowed by the deficit king, of course, are inadequate to meet the massive burden enacted by these laws. Back in 1990, only 11% of students were classified as special education. Today, that's over 14%. As a result, as is clearly indicated in the original post, local districts are struggling with funding.
Are you suggesting that they wouldn't be struggling if not for the 3% rise in over two decades?

I would go back to the reality of Smith vs Robinson, 1984, which appropriately restricted the lawsuit roulette gun to the provisions limited in the 1975 legislation.
Can you provide an example of a lawsuit that you believe would not have been allowed under the EHA, but would be under the IDEA?

The holding from Smith:

We conclude, therefore, that where the EHA is available to a handicapped child asserting a right to a free appropriate public education, based either on the EHA or on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the EHA is the exclusive avenue through which the child and his parents or guardian can pursue their claim.

Smith dealt with *when* parents could bring suit and under what legal theories. Smith had nothing to do with what types of disabilities were covered by the EHA.

[Krazen1211]

So all that prattle about "reduce spending to 1989 levels" was just a dodge leading up to your *real* goal -- to end the legal obligation of the federal govt to provide a free public education to every child?



Nope, but a necessary initial step. In the short term, we need to challenge the deficit king. In the long term, we need to make sure the next deficit king does not get a chance to wreck havoc.





And you did? :rofl2:

So before the categorization of specific areas of disability, lawsuit-happy parents were prohibited from suing the govt? :rolleyes:



Yep, through the means that were possible later on.



Providing more examples of specific areas of disability =/ expanding the definition of disability as you previously claimed...

Just in case any one might have thought *you* wrote that... (http://www.help4adhd.org/education/rights/idea) :annoyed:

How is plagiarizing the "Who Qualifies?" answer from a disability advocacy organization supporting your position?


I guess you're not much of a lawyer after all.

Once the government admits that x category is a disability, the plaintiff no longer has to prove that x category is a disability. That makes it easier for them to loot the taxpayer.





Are you suggesting that they wouldn't be struggling if not for the 3% rise in over two decades?



Much less so. All these special ed kids cost on average twice as much as the regular kids.



Can you provide an example of a lawsuit that you believe would not have been allowed under the EHA, but would be under the IDEA?
.

Sure, not too hard if one understands the material in question.

The EHA of course only provided an education to individuals at age 5. Later of course in 1991 this was foolishly expanded to age 3. So, naturally, a lawsuit by a parent of a 4 year old would fit your category.

[smegalicious]

Nope, but a necessary initial step. In the short term, we need to challenge the deficit king. In the long term, we need to make sure the next deficit king does not get a chance to wreck havoc.
So you admit -- finally -- that your overall goal is to end the current legal obligation to have the federal govt provide a free public education to every child. Otherwise, what else would reverting to 1989 levels be a "necessary initial step" towards?

Should the federal govt have a legal obligation to provide a free public education to *any* child?

Yep, through the means that were possible later on.
Huh? This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

I'll try again. What, specifically, prevented parents from suing under the EHA?

You do realize that Smith was *brought* under the EHA, right? So apparently it didn't do that great a job at preventing such lawsuits...

Once the government admits that x category is a disability, the plaintiff no longer has to prove that x category is a disability. That makes it easier for them to loot the taxpayer.
The specific wording of EHA was that *all* handicapped (the vernacular of the times) children must be provided a free public education.

In other words, there was never a requirement that a plaintiff "prove that x category is a disability." All the EHA required was that the student had a mental or physical handicap.

Sure, not too hard if one understands the material in question.
Let's all take a moment to read the above again. ;)

The EHA of course only provided an education to individuals at age 5. Later of course in 1991 this was foolishly expanded to age 3. So, naturally, a lawsuit by a parent of a 4 year old would fit your category.
"Specifically, the law (EHA) states that beginning Sept. 1978, all handicapped children aged 3 to 18 shall receive a free, appropriate, public education."

From The Education of All Handicapped Children Act: An Overview of Federal Law (http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED140554.pdf), bottom of page 7.

[Krazen1211]

So you admit -- finally -- that your overall goal is to end the current legal obligation to have the federal govt provide a free public education to every child. Otherwise, what else would reverting to 1989 levels be a "necessary initial step" towards?

Should the federal govt have a legal obligation to provide a free public education to *any* child?



Of course not, in a time of record deficits.



Huh? This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

I'll try again. What, specifically, prevented parents from suing under the EHA?

You do realize that Smith was *brought* under the EHA, right? So apparently it didn't do that great a job at preventing such lawsuits...



Parents were of course barred from bringing suits not already authorized under the EHA's methods. Later laws expanded the methods of bringing suits.



The specific wording of EHA was that *all* handicapped (the vernacular of the times) children must be provided a free public education.

In other words, there was never a requirement that a plaintiff "prove that x category is a disability." All the EHA required was that the student had a mental or physical handicap.



Naturally, of course, any condition has to be established as a mental or physical handicap.




"Specifically, the law (EHA) states that beginning Sept. 1978, all handicapped children aged 3 to 18 shall receive a free, appropriate, public education."

From The Education of All Handicapped Children Act: An Overview of Federal Law (http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED140554.pdf), bottom of page 7.

Talk about ridiculous omission! Why didn't you post what is in parenthesis?

[smegalicious]

Of course not, in a time of record deficits.
So our rights are dependent on the conditions of our economy?

:eek:


:nono1:

Parents were of course barred from bringing suits not already authorized under the EHA's methods. Later laws expanded the methods of bringing suits.
So your answer to the question, "What prevented parents from suing under the EHA?" is that parents were barred from bringing suits not authorized by the EHA?

:facepalm:

The EHA didn't prevent parents from suing. It added extra steps, in that, prior to bringing such a lawsuit, parents had to exhaust the administrative remedies established by the EHA.

Talk about ridiculous omission! Why didn't you post what is in parenthesis?
Because it's totally irrelevant to your previous incorrect claim that the EHA didn't apply to children ages 3 and 4. It did.

However, if state laws covering public education didn't include 3 or 4 year-olds, the EHA couldn't mandate that they start.

[Krazen1211]

So our rights are dependent on the conditions of our economy?

:eek:


:nono1:



It is pure madness to claim otherwise. :shake:

The US treasury has no authority to borrow funds beyond $14.3 trillion. After that, of course, such fiction as a 'free' public education cannot exist.


So your answer to the question, "What prevented parents from suing under the EHA?" is that parents were barred from bringing suits not authorized by the EHA?

:facepalm:

The EHA didn't prevent parents from suing. It added extra steps, in that, prior to bringing such a lawsuit, parents had to exhaust the administrative remedies established by the EHA.



That is precisely the point.



Because it's totally irrelevant to your previous incorrect claim that the EHA didn't apply to children ages 3 and 4. It did.

However, if state laws covering public education didn't include 3 or 4 year-olds, the EHA couldn't mandate that they start.

Actually, it is quite relevant.

[smegalicious]

It is pure madness to claim otherwise. :shake:
How bad does the economy have to get before we lose the rest of our rights?

The US treasury has no authority to borrow funds beyond $14.3 trillion. After that, of course, such fiction as a 'free' public education cannot exist.
The SCOTUS has already ruled on such an issue. If the financial resources are simply not there, then whatever resources are available must be used equally among the school population.

That is precisely the point.
That the EHA didn't prevent parents from suing as you previously claimed? :coverlaf:


Actually, it is quite relevant.
Then please feel free to explain how....

[Count_Chocula]

Odds are, one of you smartasses will wind up having a crippled kid one day, and then you can snicker at how funny you are. Until then, have a little compassion. These children did not ask to be born this way and a person who scorns a crippled kid is the lowest of scum in my book.
Most kids I know enjoy playin video games, how is lettin them do something they snjoy scornful? & nope, there aren't any crippled kids in my family.

[The2AMBearArms]

It is pure madness to claim otherwise. :shake:

The US treasury has no authority to borrow funds beyond $14.3 trillion. After that, of course, such fiction as a 'free' public education cannot exist.



That is precisely the point.



Actually, it is quite relevant.

She, like many on the left, seems to see no distinction between a natural right that only requires non-interference from government, or at most requires the government to stop others from interfering, and a "positive right" which requires that others pay for the exercise of this "right."

[danlbuckley]

Most kids I know enjoy playin video games, how is lettin them do something they snjoy scornful? & nope, there aren't any crippled kids in my family.

While you may know kids that enjoy playing video games, how many would enjoy them if that is all they were allowed to do?

Many "crippled children", as you call them, have more issues to deal with than just the inability to walk. Many have epileptic seizures that can be brought on by the playing of video games - have you never read the warnings that come with these games?

[handyguy]

Maybe the disabled should cut back on funding the severely-able-body (SAB) types?

[Krazen1211]

A great study from Vermont about the failures of special education:

http://www.vermonttiger.com/file-downloads/Sp.%20Ed.%20Study:6.pdf

At that time, special education enrollment, staffing, and expenditures had all seen a dramatic
increase in a decade. Special education had, essentially, spun out of control in the 1990s. Special
education professional staff had increased by 42 percent, while paraprofessional staff had increased
by 139 percent. Overall special education expenditures had risen at a rate of over 100 percent. We
had gone from spending $61 million to spending $118 million on these programs.
The Commission made several key recommendations, some of which were followed, many of
which were not. The Vermont Department of Education, for instance, has not developed reference
costs of individual education plans (IEP’s) for all disabilities at differing levels of care ten years after
it was recommended.
In the decade since the Commission met, special education enrollment has leveled off, but
staffing has still increased significantly, and spending continues to grow at a staggering rate. For
instance, paraprofessional staff grew at a rate of 11 percent from 2002 to 2007. And spending during
that period rose 40 percent. Now, it’s over $250 million.
Despite the spending, achievement among special education students has remained essentially
low and flat. Furthermore, it is difficult to associate the results with the spending. Results get
reported on a school-by-school basis, yet spending gets reported by school districts.

[Rebound]

Most kids I know enjoy playin video games, how is lettin them do something they snjoy scornful? & nope, there aren't any crippled kids in my family.Sounds to me like you need to get a second opinion.

So this is why I feel that Republicans are morally bankrupt, soulless people, and I will never be one:
a) Fight like mad to keep taxes historically low for the wealthiest people, while...
b) Complain that there's no money to fund basic needs of the most vulnerable members of our society, while...
c) Holding a Bible in their hand and pretending that they're the only people in the world who truly understand and follow the teachings of the Lord.

Democrats are imperfect. And we need to cut government spending. I personally favor a 15% cut of everything, because it de-politicizes the process. But starting with the most vulnerable sickens me.

[nunaem]

Bring back the Apothetae.

[brbubba]

I'm sure it sounds heartless, but the ROI is relatively poor.

I'm thinking specifically of the autistic program at the school district I previously worked at. The students got a very abbreviated summer vacation because a full summer would set them back so much. What happens when they actually do "graduate"? They will still need someone babysitting them most of the time.

Obviously, there's a spectrum of autism and I'm speaking about the worst ones. Maybe I'm jaded by having seen all the money wasted by that specific Special Ed department. There were IEPs with ridiculous requests (such as a very expensive laptop for a student to bring back and forth from school; one that was capable of withstanding the massive amount of damage the kid did to equipment). The department would spend a huge amount of money on a piece of software because they'd heard somewhere it was supposed to work miracles, then they'd call me to show them how to use it. Me, who has never even heard of the software they sunk thousands into. I had to show them around the program because they hadn't even bothered trying it before buying it and didn't invest the time to learn how to use a computer.

There was a particularly troubling pair of twin boys who weighed in at around 300 pounds. I watched as they moved up through the grades, and each school had to dedicate a small room to be a padded area to bring them to when they started flipping out. By the time they "graduated", one of them learned to speak some, but the other could only seemingly parrot what one of the (few) teachers directly assigned to him would say.

Eh, that's all circumstantial evidence of course. Of course Special Ed students need special attention and that's bound to cost more money. There should be a limit though. At some point someone has to ask, "Is this really worth it?"

Like all government programs it's just in need of a major audit. I have seen many cases where no amount of education could ever produce a result that society would deem "acceptable." The real problem is that it would be political suicide to say that people with mental retardation or other special needs would be better off with less education. Additionally you have parents who are living in la la land regarding their children's real world capabilities. I've seen special needs kids go to community college classes that they would never get anything out of simply because the parents refuse to accept the limits of their disabilities.


You are right. In most cases dealing with a disability in a way that will allow the child to learn and function is the most sensible thing to do, both in terms of money (long term) and the well being of the child. I don't think anyone here is arguing that a little special help for the dislexic is a bad thing.

When people are talking about wasteful special education spending, I am assuming they are talking about those cases where the costs are so high and/or the return so low that it really isn't worth it. For example, I knew a family with an autistic child. As a teenager he still couldn't talk, still wore diapers, hits people, and has no realistic chance of ever taking care of himself or doing anything productive. Yet every day the school district sent a special bus to pick him up and take him across town to the school that could handle him, spending who knows how much money to try to teach him something using highly trained specialists, and then bus him home. After 15 years of this he still couldn't change his own diapers. Is that money well spent or would it be better to hire someone to take care of him in a daycare situation and use the rest of the money to educate those who have a chance to someday use that education?

Low functioning autism is a perfect example. In many, or possibly even most cases, no amount of education will ever allow those people to be "normal." Although I'm wondering how state care services would compare to education services?

[TheObserver84]

I don't really care what happens to them. Let their families work it out. It shouldn't be our problem that some people produce defective kids.

A heartless conservative! What a suprise! :vomit: Maybe if the special ed. classes in G.W's school district were better he would have been a better president. On second thought probably not.


Odds are, one of you smartasses will wind up having a crippled kid one day, and then you can snicker at how funny you are. Until then, have a little compassion. These children did not ask to be born this way and a person who scorns a crippled kid is the lowest of scum in my book.

+1
Something tells me these "smartasses" are not capable of having children. Some people have no farking decency.

[paperboy05]

A heartless conservative! What a suprise! :vomit: Maybe if the special ed. classes in G.W's school district were better he would have been a better president. On second thought probably not.


+1
Something tells me these "smartasses" are not capable of having children. Some people have no farking decency.
A liberal appealing to emotion, what a surprise! :rolleyes:

[Rebound]

Low functioning autism is a perfect example. In many, or possibly even most cases, no amount of education will ever allow those people to be "normal."There is no way to tell what a kid is capable of unless you try.

[Krazen1211]

A heartless conservative! What a suprise! :vomit: Maybe if the special ed. classes in G.W's school district were better he would have been a better president. On second thought probably not.




A brainless liberal? What a surprise?

Special education really didn't exist in the 1950s.

[Krazen1211]

Low functioning autism is a perfect example. In many, or possibly even most cases, no amount of education will ever allow those people to be "normal." Although I'm wondering how state care services would compare to education services?


That's not the point. The idea is to allow the teachers union bosses to profiteer. Rebound knows this quite well.

[Rebound]

Special education really didn't exist in the 1950s.Of course it did. Whatever gave you the idea it didn't?

[Krazen1211]

Of course it did. Whatever gave you the idea it didn't?

The federal laws passed by the Democrats in the 1960s cited the 'gross inadequacy' of special education across the United States. Why don't you ask them?

[TheObserver84]

The federal laws passed by the Democrats in the 1960s cited the 'gross inadequacy' of special education across the United States. Why don't you ask them?

Well that just proves my point about G.W not getting the help he needed. :)

[TheObserver84]

A liberal appealing to emotion, what a surprise! :rolleyes:

Complaining about disabled children getting some help from the government is just shameful.

[brbubba]

There is no way to tell what a kid is capable of unless you try.

I'm not saying don't try at all here. I'm simply saying be a realist instead of an idealist. They should be giving these kids assessments throughout, so there should be a very good understanding of where they stand and what they are capable of. Let's be real here, some of these kids are functioning below a middle school grade level and we're supposed to be teaching them high school classes???

[redmaxx]

I'm not saying don't try at all here. I'm simply saying be a realist instead of an idealist. They should be giving these kids assessments throughout, so there should be a very good understanding of where they stand and what they are capable of. Let's be real here, some of these kids are functioning below a middle school grade level and we're supposed to be teaching them high school classes???
The problem I've seen with many teachers though, is that they confuse realism with pessimism and that if that student doesn't get it, then the student is viewed as having less potential. Teachers are often offended that anyone would suggest that they teach something differently to reach all students.

[brbubba]

The problem I've seen with many teachers though, is that they confuse realism with pessimism and that if that student doesn't get it, then the student is viewed as having less potential. Teachers are often offended that anyone would suggest that they teach something differently to reach all students.

That's what I call the idealist's dilemma, or not seeing the forrest for the trees. Yes, in an ideal world special needs children, teenagers, adults should be educated, be able to receive an education, etc. But how many of these special needs individuals will ever have a capacity to retain much of that education. If they can't pass a basic test on what they are learning then I would argue that the teaching should never happen. Whether the methodology needs to be adjusted is another argument entirely but we need some standard by which we can judge effectiveness.

The attitude is similar at many special needs centers, where too much focus is placed on treating special needs individuals as "normal" yet blatantly ignoring the fact that they aren't normal. And of course this standard of normality is hypocritical because they excuse misbehavior as conditional, instead of treating them normally!

[redmaxx]

That's what I call the idealist's dilemma, or not seeing the forrest for the trees. Yes, in an ideal world special needs children, teenagers, adults should be educated, be able to receive an education, etc. But how many of these special needs individuals will ever have a capacity to retain much of that education. If they can't pass a basic test on what they are learning then I would argue that the teaching should never happen. Whether the methodology needs to be adjusted is another argument entirely but we need some standard by which we can judge effectiveness.

The attitude is similar at many special needs centers, where too much focus is placed on treating special needs individuals as "normal" yet blatantly ignoring the fact that they aren't normal. And of course this standard of normality is hypocritical because they excuse misbehavior as conditional, instead of treating them normally!

There's a vast range of special education needs and not all are costly to work with. Some, like me, just required understanding teachers that were patient with my communication difficulties and some basic, cheap adjustments to the way they administered tests. Some teachers were receptive, while others balked at making any adjustment whatsoever. They always perceived me as the problem, when it was my disability getting in the way. They ignored the fact that other teachers could work successfully with me.

So I still see a lot of "wiggle room" in measuring whether or not a student can pass a "basic" test or not. The education system is made up of many pieces and students should not be tossed out summarily. It does a great disservice to our future as a country if we were to toss out the next brilliant astrophysicist, for example, just to meet the next quarter's budget numbers.

[Rebound]

ISome of these kids are functioning below a middle school grade level and we're supposed to be teaching them high school classes???That's not how Special Education works. Each child's progress is reviewed annually and modified for the child's abilities. They don't attempt to teach what the child is incapable of learning. If the result is an adult who can hold a regular job, it's much better than keeping the adult institutionalized or collecting welfare.