Madness and Stupidity in Public Schools

[Unkotare]

Where exactly in the article does it document the proof that the policy is the product of ‘the left’? Or endorsed by ‘the left’? The article doesn’t even mention anything about ‘the left.’

A) I have the ability for reasoned analysis

B) I know the school and the community

C) Stop being disingenuous

A) You have the ability to make subjective partisan inferences.
B) Irrelevant.
C) There remains no proof or even evidence.

B is entirely relevant and demonstrates that you are wrong on A and C.

 

[Unkotare]

I pointed it out, and the poster above is pointing out the same thing. So did Esmerelda.
But it's everybody else who's wrong, huh?

.

Now THAT is a logical fallacy. Make a note of it and try to learn something.

 

[Esmeralda]

I do not agree with hiding our disabled from the general population which is what happens when you don't send them to the local schools. My youngest son was mainstreamed for art and PE. An aide went with him. It worked out great and the general ed kids learned as much from him as he did from them. When he drew a stick figure on the board and wrote his name under it for the first time the whole class cheered. Imagine depriving those kids and mine of that experience.

My suggestion has nothing to do with hiding them. It has to do with what would work best for them. Being in a school that specializes in students with special needs, with the whole school focusing on their needs.

It would effectively hide them from the main population. No, I disagree. And you'll notice that the other parent of an autistic child points out that her child was also in a special class. Your "mainstreaming" isn't what you think it is. You read one article years ago where some school dropped the ball and applied it to all the disabled kids in all the schools everywhere. Mainstreaming an autistic kid for art and PE is a good thing for everyone involved. No reason why an autistic kid can't run around the gym with the other kids.

Now if you want to talk about specialized schools for certain special people, there is a school in Boston that specialized in teaching kids with autism. It is an off shoot of a school in Japan. The one in Japan is paid for by the Japanese people. The one here is private. 15 years ago, when I looked into it, tuition was $56,000 per student and that was for those who commuted. Do you really think you or any other taxpayer is going to agree to that?

No what you want is to warehouse the disabled so your kids don't get exposed. Not good for anyone.

No, I didn't 'read one article about it' (mainstreaming) 'years ago.' I have professional experience of this, years of it. I have been in more special education classes in more different levels of school, from primary through high school, than anyone on this board, most likely. And spent extensive time in them as a trained professional. Anyway, you contradict yourself by acknowledging that the school in Japan, that type of school, is an option. Japan is very expensive, so the school would be expensive: that does not mean it would be any more expensive than any other school in the States. You cannot compare the cost of things in Japan to the cost of things in the States. My perspective is based on the fact that a public school in the States, be it elementary, middle school, or high school, has so many different functions to accomplish, it is impossible for them to be as effective as they should be or as people expect them to be. If we had schools for special education and separate high schools for kids heading to vocational college and university, for example, each school could focus more directly and successfully on the needs of the children, needs which are not the same. At the present time, public schools are fractured with trying to do too much. Under one roof, under one principal, they try to handle too many different issues in education instead of focusing on a more limited task. It is a matter of quality over quantity.

If you go to the doctor, you go to a GP for some things and to a specialist for others. You don't expect the GP to be able to do brain surgery or be a cancer specialist. There shouldn't be any reason to treat education any differently. The analogy is appropriate, but it will take a paradigm shift from current thinking for most people to agree with me. In high schools, for example, the kids who have no ambitions for university bring down the level of teaching and learning for those who aspire to attend university. The special education kids are not really mainstreamed. They spend most of their time in special education classes with other special education kids and their special education teachers. Their needs often get lost in the chaos that is the whole school, and the principal usually hasn't got a clue what their needs are anyway. I know what I'm talking about. I've observed all of this first hand, extensively. Most of the 'regular' teachers in the school do not want to have anything to do with the special education kids. They are ignorant of their needs and unsympathetic as well. I could go on and on with more details. The point is, it isn't working; it is not functioning in the very best interests of the children. I realize it is my opinion and not a popular one, certainly not politically correct. But it is based on first hand knowledge.

Your assumption that I want to warehose special education kids is extremely offensive. You know nothing about me to say such a thing. You are making a very broad and offensive leap in reasoning and a judgement that is completely unwarranted.

 

[Againsheila]

My suggestion has nothing to do with hiding them. It has to do with what would work best for them. Being in a school that specializes in students with special needs, with the whole school focusing on their needs.

It would effectively hide them from the main population. No, I disagree. And you'll notice that the other parent of an autistic child points out that her child was also in a special class. Your "mainstreaming" isn't what you think it is. You read one article years ago where some school dropped the ball and applied it to all the disabled kids in all the schools everywhere. Mainstreaming an autistic kid for art and PE is a good thing for everyone involved. No reason why an autistic kid can't run around the gym with the other kids.

Now if you want to talk about specialized schools for certain special people, there is a school in Boston that specialized in teaching kids with autism. It is an off shoot of a school in Japan. The one in Japan is paid for by the Japanese people. The one here is private. 15 years ago, when I looked into it, tuition was $56,000 per student and that was for those who commuted. Do you really think you or any other taxpayer is going to agree to that?

No what you want is to warehouse the disabled so your kids don't get exposed. Not good for anyone.

No, I didn't 'read one article about it' (mainstreaming), I have professional experience of this, years of it. Anyway, you contradict yourself by acknowledging that the school in Japan, that type of school, is an option. Japan is very expensive, so the school would be expensive: that does not mean it would be any more expensive than any other school in the States. My perspective is based on the fact that a public school in the States, be it elementary, middle school, or high school, has so many different functions to accomplish, it is impossible for them to be as effective as they should be or as people expect them to be. If we had schools for special education and separate high schools for kids heading to vocational college and university, for example, each school could focus more directly and successfully on the needs of the children, needs which are not the same. At the present time, public schools are fractured with trying to do too much. Under one roof, under one principal, they try to handle too many different issues in education instead of focusing.

If you go to the doctor, you go to a GP for some things and to a specialist for others. You don't expect the GP to be able to do brain surgery or be a cancer specialist. There shouldn't be any reason to treat education any differently. The analogy is appropriate, but it will take a paradigm shift from current thinking for most people to agree with me. In high schools, for example, the kids who have no ambitions for university bring down the level of teaching and learning for those who aspire to attend university. The special education kids are not really mainstreamed. They spend most of their time in special education classes with other special education kids and their special education teachers. Their needs often get lost in the chaos that is the whole school, and the principal usually hasn't got a clue what their needs are anyway. I know what I'm talking about. I've observed all of this first hand, extensively. Most of the 'regular' teachers in the school do not want to have anything to do with the special education kids. They are ignorant of their needs and unsympathetic as well. I could go on and on with more details. The point is, it isn't working; it is not functioning in the very best interests of the children. I realize it is my opinion and not a popular one, certainly not politically correct. But it is based on first hand knowledge.

Did you not read the $56,000 tuition? And that was 15 years ago. They provide 3 teachers for each student.

I'll agree with you about the "regular" teachers not wanting anything to do with the special needs. Not one of my oldest son's high school teachers even bothered to look at his IEP let alone abide by it or sign it. IMO everyone of those teachers should have been fired. IYO everyone of those special needs kids should be removed from the school. Yeah, let's reward those incompetent teachers and punish the students.

 

[Esmeralda]

It would effectively hide them from the main population. No, I disagree. And you'll notice that the other parent of an autistic child points out that her child was also in a special class. Your "mainstreaming" isn't what you think it is. You read one article years ago where some school dropped the ball and applied it to all the disabled kids in all the schools everywhere. Mainstreaming an autistic kid for art and PE is a good thing for everyone involved. No reason why an autistic kid can't run around the gym with the other kids.

Now if you want to talk about specialized schools for certain special people, there is a school in Boston that specialized in teaching kids with autism. It is an off shoot of a school in Japan. The one in Japan is paid for by the Japanese people. The one here is private. 15 years ago, when I looked into it, tuition was $56,000 per student and that was for those who commuted. Do you really think you or any other taxpayer is going to agree to that?

No what you want is to warehouse the disabled so your kids don't get exposed. Not good for anyone.

No, I didn't 'read one article about it' (mainstreaming), I have professional experience of this, years of it. Anyway, you contradict yourself by acknowledging that the school in Japan, that type of school, is an option. Japan is very expensive, so the school would be expensive: that does not mean it would be any more expensive than any other school in the States. My perspective is based on the fact that a public school in the States, be it elementary, middle school, or high school, has so many different functions to accomplish, it is impossible for them to be as effective as they should be or as people expect them to be. If we had schools for special education and separate high schools for kids heading to vocational college and university, for example, each school could focus more directly and successfully on the needs of the children, needs which are not the same. At the present time, public schools are fractured with trying to do too much. Under one roof, under one principal, they try to handle too many different issues in education instead of focusing.

If you go to the doctor, you go to a GP for some things and to a specialist for others. You don't expect the GP to be able to do brain surgery or be a cancer specialist. There shouldn't be any reason to treat education any differently. The analogy is appropriate, but it will take a paradigm shift from current thinking for most people to agree with me. In high schools, for example, the kids who have no ambitions for university bring down the level of teaching and learning for those who aspire to attend university. The special education kids are not really mainstreamed. They spend most of their time in special education classes with other special education kids and their special education teachers. Their needs often get lost in the chaos that is the whole school, and the principal usually hasn't got a clue what their needs are anyway. I know what I'm talking about. I've observed all of this first hand, extensively. Most of the 'regular' teachers in the school do not want to have anything to do with the special education kids. They are ignorant of their needs and unsympathetic as well. I could go on and on with more details. The point is, it isn't working; it is not functioning in the very best interests of the children. I realize it is my opinion and not a popular one, certainly not politically correct. But it is based on first hand knowledge.

Did you not read the $56,000 tuition? And that was 15 years ago. They provide 3 teachers for each student.

I'll agree with you about the "regular" teachers not wanting anything to do with the special needs. Not one of my oldest son's high school teachers even bothered to look at his IEP let alone abide by it or sign it. IMO everyone of those teachers should have been fired. IYO everyone of those special needs kids should be removed from the school. Yeah, let's reward those incompetent teachers and punish the students.

No, you are completely missing what I am saying. First off, those teachers who ignored your kids' IEP are not special education teachers. One of the problems is expecting teachers to deal with too many different issues. They should be allowed to be specialists too, like doctors. You think they should be fired because they didn't do their job, but they were never trained to be special education teachers or work with special needs children, and they probably have no interest in doing so. Most schools nowaday employ a special needs specialist, but only one or two, not enough to really deal effectively with the problem. It just isn't being handled effectively. There is a better way to do it. But as long as people are resistant, it won't change. You know the saying, if you keep doing something the same way over and over, you get the same results over and over. You children deserved to have teachers who were interested in being their teacher and working with their special needs. They didn't get them because under the current system that isn't possible. You blame the teacher but it is the system that is at fault. I don't see how putting students in a school that honors them, values them and knows how to best educate them is punishing them. It isn't necessary to provide 3 teachers per student; smallish classes would be good, however.

 

[Againsheila]

No, I didn't 'read one article about it' (mainstreaming), I have professional experience of this, years of it. Anyway, you contradict yourself by acknowledging that the school in Japan, that type of school, is an option. Japan is very expensive, so the school would be expensive: that does not mean it would be any more expensive than any other school in the States. My perspective is based on the fact that a public school in the States, be it elementary, middle school, or high school, has so many different functions to accomplish, it is impossible for them to be as effective as they should be or as people expect them to be. If we had schools for special education and separate high schools for kids heading to vocational college and university, for example, each school could focus more directly and successfully on the needs of the children, needs which are not the same. At the present time, public schools are fractured with trying to do too much. Under one roof, under one principal, they try to handle too many different issues in education instead of focusing.

If you go to the doctor, you go to a GP for some things and to a specialist for others. You don't expect the GP to be able to do brain surgery or be a cancer specialist. There shouldn't be any reason to treat education any differently. The analogy is appropriate, but it will take a paradigm shift from current thinking for most people to agree with me. In high schools, for example, the kids who have no ambitions for university bring down the level of teaching and learning for those who aspire to attend university. The special education kids are not really mainstreamed. They spend most of their time in special education classes with other special education kids and their special education teachers. Their needs often get lost in the chaos that is the whole school, and the principal usually hasn't got a clue what their needs are anyway. I know what I'm talking about. I've observed all of this first hand, extensively. Most of the 'regular' teachers in the school do not want to have anything to do with the special education kids. They are ignorant of their needs and unsympathetic as well. I could go on and on with more details. The point is, it isn't working; it is not functioning in the very best interests of the children. I realize it is my opinion and not a popular one, certainly not politically correct. But it is based on first hand knowledge.

Did you not read the $56,000 tuition? And that was 15 years ago. They provide 3 teachers for each student.

I'll agree with you about the "regular" teachers not wanting anything to do with the special needs. Not one of my oldest son's high school teachers even bothered to look at his IEP let alone abide by it or sign it. IMO everyone of those teachers should have been fired. IYO everyone of those special needs kids should be removed from the school. Yeah, let's reward those incompetent teachers and punish the students.

No, you are completely missing what I am saying. First off, those teachers who ignored your kids' IEP are not special education teachers. One of the problems is expecting teachers to deal with too many different issues. They should be allowed to be specialists too, like doctors. You think they should be fired because they didn't do their job, but they were never trained to be special education teachers or work with special needs children, and they probably have no interest in doing so. Most schools nowaday employ a special needs specialist, but only one or two, not enough to really deal effectively with the problem. It just isn't being handled effectively. There is a better way to do it. But as long as people are resistant, it won't change. You know the saying, if you keep doing something the same way over and over, you get the same results over and over. You children deserved to have teachers who were interested in being their teacher and working with their special needs. They didn't get them because under the current system that isn't possible. You blame the teacher but it is the system that is at fault. I don't see how putting students in a school that honors them, values them and knows how to best educate them is punishing them. It isn't necessary to provide 3 teachers per student; smallish classes would be good, however.

So you don't really want schools geared towards kids specific disabilities, you just want them out of the public schools.

As for the my son's teachers, they are required by law to follow the IEP they don't get to choose not to because it's not convenient for them. For my oldest son, they were required to make sure I got his homework assignments so I could be sure he did them. Not a word during the whole semester then, 2 weeks before then end of the semester the teacher is complaining that my son hasn't turned in ANY homework. Well, I didn't get the assignments so I couldn't make sure he did them. Sorry but I don't think that's out of bounds especially since they had computers paid for with my tax dollars and should have had the assignments listed in an email for all the students.

In one situation during class while the teacher was "grading papers" the other kids were teasing my son. They wrote a program about my son and had it distributed on computers throughout the entire school. The whole time my son was trying to get the teacher's attention and get her to do something to stop it. finally he said "Now I know why things like Columbine happen!" Instant suspension. The police were called, I was called. Did my son have a gun, no, did my son have access to a gun, no. They wanted to expel my son, but I fought for him and tried to get the teacher at least disciplined, but nothing. Apparently they see nothing wrong with a teacher ignoring her entire class while something like that happens DURING CLASS. I wouldn't even let them suspend my son. I told them I was going to keep him home the next day and they were going to have someone come in and talk to the students about what they did and why it was wrong. IMO, each and everyone of those students involved should have been suspended.

After that incident, the school paper did an article on my son and Asperger's Syndrome. The teasing stopped and suddenly he started making friends. I guess something good came out of that teacher's incompetence after all.