How far should public schools go for special ed students?

Great Debates
1

Who Pays for Special Ed?

excerpt:

I am extremely sympathic towards parents with special needs children, especially those with children who are as profoundly handicapped as the child in the article. I can’t even begin to imagine the stress of raising and educating a child who, at least on the surface, seems so hopeless and limited. I think we as a society need to provide services for families caring for handicapped children, both to ease their burdens and to help all children to reach their full potential.

But how far should we go in this quest? Having the taxpayer pick up a six-figure tuition bill seems outrageous to me. Outrageous and unfair. I totally understand the parents’ need to have a son who can function at home, but is this boarding school the only place where this child can be trained? No place cheaper? It seems to me that if the Perkins expect to be reimbursed by the taxpayer for going out of the school system, the taxpayer should have had a choice in picking out a facility. If I’m paying for your lunch, I’d rather you buy the cheeseburger than the filet mignon. If you want the filet mignon, fine. But be willing to make up the difference when the bill comes.

If the Perkins win their suit, what will this mean for others in their situation? Will school districts all over the country be called to pay for high-end tuition costs to educate its most disabled students? If so, will school districts be called upon to pay for high-end tuition costs for those at the other end of the spectrum, the most gifted of the gifted students? If I have a ten-year-old who’s frustrated that he can do advanced calculus while everyone else is still learning fractions, will the school system pay for his classes at the state university? If I find an elite boarding school for uber-geniuses, can I send them the tuition bill each year?

I admit another reason why I’m having a problem with their suit is that I think they used their upper-middle-class priviledges to game the system. If the Perkins were a poor family, they wouldn’t have had the means to enroll their son in a top-notch boarding school half-way across the country. They would have made do with local programs and hoped for the best. If school districts are going to pay for parents to take their kids to high-end boarding schools, will such a program favor the rich and poor equally? Or will it favor the former, since these parents will have the know-how to find the best schools and the ability to pay for fees before being reimbursement.

I’d like to hear what other Dopers have to say, particularly those with special-needs kids.

2

I don’t have kids, so maybe I shouldn’t post in this thread, but I still pay school taxes. I have friends who have kids, and the main complaint I hear about mainstreaming special needs kids is that the kids without problems suffer when there is a disruptive child in the class. The kids don’t get the teacher’s help, because the teacher is trying to get the disruptive child to behave. The special-needs kid doesn’t really benefit much, and the other kids don’t get the help they need with the school work.

I wish I had an idea for a solution. I don’t think a school board should have to pick up an uber-thousand dollar tab for one student for anything. Like it or not, there is a limited amount of money in the pot, and when X thousand of dollars is taken out for the benefit of one child the others have to do without.

3

Both my kids need special services and we have considered residential placement for my son on several occasions. On the other hand, I would not expect the school district to pick up the whole tab. (To the extent that the residential facility could document specific classroom expenses, I would prefer that the district pick it up, but the whole residential and therapy aspect is outside their domain.)

As a concrete example, my son spent a year and a half at a school where residential treatment was available, although he was enrolled only during the day. During the school year, our district picked up his tab. When summer rolled around, the facility recommended that he stay in the program to maintain continuity, but he was not, technically, going to remedial summer school, so our district did not provide a bus to get him there and back and I wound up hauling him to school and home each day from early June to late August. While I would have been delighted to avoid the expense and hassle of scheduling my work day around his school day, I recognized that the summer plan was not directly educational and went along without complaint. His summer classes were funded by a combinnation of my insurance and a separate county fund for mental health.

4

Things may have changed, but I spent 9 years on my local Board of Education. IIRC, the local district always paid – in full – for any educational *needs * of any special ed. child that the special ed evaluation team deemed necessary. Please note that this was not necessarily at the whim (or even the well-studied opinion) of the parent or guardian.

We were compensated, at least in part, by federal funding. Where possible, this was in a “mainstreamed” classroom. When that wasn’t feasible, there were classes specifically for the special needs. The next step was a day program, then a residential program. The goal was the least restrictive program suitable for the individual.

Parents were supposed to be involved at every step of the way. There was even a PTA of parents of special needs children, and they were as active as any of our other district PTAs in working with and for the children, lobbying the school board, etc. Obviously some parents are more involved that others; we have a very diverse community, from quite wealthy to public-assistance families.

Again, the key was that the credentialed district educators, with input from parents, chose the placement. I don’t think a parent could have simply picked out a specific school and demanded that the child be placed there.

Could a more wealthy, educated or involved parent have “gamed” the system for preferential treatment? Possible. Blatantly? Not likely. However, the rule was, and I believe still is, that a free public education is the right of any resident child. I am sure we sent students to residential programs both in- and out of state on rare occasions, and yes, it was paid for out of public funds.

5

In my opinion, schools spend too much on special ed and other problem students and little to nothing on gifted students.

6

It’s difficult to say how much is “too much.” However, I agree that there is far too little attention paid to gifted students, unless, of course, they are gifted in athletics. Add up how much is spent on facilities, coaching, equipment, uniforms, etc. for football. Compare it to the funding for most schools’ G&T program. Pitiful. But that’s another subject entirely. As you were.

7

That is especially true now with the emphasis on getting schools through the hoops of fire that No Child Left Behind Program has provided. I saw statistics recently that indicated that for every $100 spent on children with learning disabilities, three cents is spent on gifted students! All of it is considered Special Education.

Of course, not nearly enough funds are available for any of the children anymore.

Monstro, I wish that we could fund every child according to her or his needs. We would have to cut back on a lot of war though and quit spreading “democracy” throughout the world.

8

In the interests of full disclosure, my daughter is Special Ed, and I am a member of the school board.

However, it sounds for all the world like there are no saints in this fight. The board screwed the pooch when they (allegedly) refused to consider the local district that the Perkins family (allegedly) had requested; the family, it seems, is trying to pull an end run around the district (I mean, damn! 135 large and more than half a continent away?); and the federal government is on the hook for never fully funding their mandates.

As a parent, I have no trouble whatsoever doing as tomndebb did. Picking up the tab for things that are not educationally necessary is not the responsibility of the school district. Indeed, much as MLS reported, the district on whose board I serve will pick up the tab for educational needs. The corollary being that the parents don’t get to choose whatever in hell they want. Nor, for that matter, does the school get to make a decision as to the placement of a child. It’s done in a cooperative fashion. This is yet another thing that it appears was done badly in this case. And as an aside I wish like hell that there existed a PTA of Special Ed parents here.

And this:

is all part of why I became a board member in the first place. Yes, gifted students get screwed. But where I’m at, anyway, there aren’t wheelbarrows full of money being lavished on Special Ed at their expense. Just like MLS, I believe that the sports programs are the ones getting the lion’s share of the available scratch, to the detriment of everyone else.

Dunno what, precisely, Mr. Perkins does for a living, but I sort of doubt that he can make this sort of statement with any degree of certainty. Frankly, this entire article seems to be going at this from a “Special Ed=Drain on resources better spent on regular students” angle. Which bothers me to no end. The Perkins family are the nominal stars, but since they appear to have tried to take huge advantage of the district, it appears to me that there is a bit of an anti-Special Ed slant.

And finally, just like monstro, I think that if this family had been poor, then they would have simply accepted the ruling of the district (which, if it was as it appears to be from the article, I cannot disagree with strongly enough), and a suit would never have been filed. And if this is the way of the future, then I most assuredly do not think that it will benefit rich and poor alike. I’m torn, to be honest, because as I said, there are no good guys in this story. Whenever we have fought for our daughter in the past, the school district was not always in agreement with our take on things. As a matter of fact, I have a breakfast with our superintendent tomorrow morning to discuss what I think is a bad deal for Special Ed kids. But I’ve never encountered anything similar to what this article presents, namely parents who pull their student from district schools and want to have an expensive boarding school paid for instead.

9

Anecdotally, Mrs. Mercotan’s former part-time position as Gifted & Talented Program aide (which she left a few years back) was eliminated completely this school year to provide money to repave the track.

10

And this really steams my beans. Because I’ve not seen anything to indicate that a child who runs track is in any way better for society than a gifted student.

And I daresay that from where I sit, the gifted kid has got it all going on over the kid who may or may not be able to beat another kid who is running a race.

I’ve enough vitriol inre this topic to fill an entire thread.

11

I think it would be an interesting thread to read. Vitriol aside, I’m sure that many people don’t really know how money is spent in schools. I know I don’t.

12

This issue is not going to get any better unless and until we have a good look at school funding. The money for schools comes from a large number of different pots, ranging from the federal level to the extremely local. About half for any given school comes from the local government budget (county, city). Mostly it has historically come from property taxes.

So inequity is built into the system from the get-go. For everybody.

As a policy matter, this makes no sense. If this child can become even a partially functioning member of society by virtue of attending Boston Higashi*, I’m all for it. It’s cheap in comparison to the alternative. But why the costs must be cast upon the local community to pay for a national priority I have no idea.

For special ed specifically, the issue also will not get any better unless we have a good look at health care provision, and particularly in the area of mental health care. The areas overlap quite a bit in the case of children whose disabilities are “invisible” that is, are mental or neurobiological in nature. And considering the bubble of kids now being considered to be on the autistic spectrum who are heading for the schools at this very moment, I think it’s an issue we may need to get a handle on pretty quickly.

Not that this is likely to happen: as my dad once said apropos of something else: “We don’t design good planes. We make great parachutes. Sometimes on our way to the ground, we make 'em”.

Overinclusion, that is, mainstreaming kids for whom it is inappropriate, is the current scourge of the schools and that is not going to get better. Because it is cheaper. A child who needs three shadowing aides at one time to function in a regular classroom would benefit from consideration of another educational setting. But alternative options are even more expensive.

It is a false conflict in short: the real conflict is between federal mandates and local provision of services (not to mention the burgeoning and expensive beauracracy in between which sucks up huge amounts of funding).

**Which is the only school in the US offering this particular mode of treatment/education/what have you as far as I know; two years ago anyway, the next nearest Higashi school was in Uruguay. *

13

We have the same issues in the UK - my mum is head governor of a local college, and the funding required for a small number of special needs pupils eats massively into the school’s budget.

However, where I disagree with some posters is whether that money should be spent on gifted pupils. For me, the most gifted pupils will succeed regardless - the money would actually be better spent getting D-grade pupils up to a B-grade (rather than A-grade to A±grade).

There’s too much bias at either end of the spectrum - it’s the kids in the middle who will most benefit from extra resources, rather than a few unruly kids or a few genuis kids.

14

I don’t think as an earlier poster pointed out that this is for the middle class to game the system. Sending a kid across the country to the best facility in the nation just ain’t right at taxpayers expense.

I have a developmentally lagging daughter that I hope outgrows her issues before first grade. My heart goes out to all that have much greater challenges than I have - simply can not imagine it.

15

Aaaah, you’re one of the teachers in my high school.

I was part of the 10% of students called “pillows” (a nickname we gave ourselves). Our grades didn’t depend on whether we were in a good class or a bad class, so we were used to “pillow up” the numbers of a class that had started by selecting all the bad seeds. The multi-repeats, the abusive, the abused… and then, us.

Only, for some of us, the grades were only C or B. They just didn’t depend on the other students. We would have been bored shitless and unmotivated by our too-demanding parents in a regular class same as we were bored shitless and unmotivated by our too-demanding parents in the bad class. The two teachers who gave us materials above official course level happen to be the ones who had consistent high amounts of As (and they weren’t “inflated”, many of us ended majoring in their fields).

16

Please note that a) This is a genuine question and b) I don’t normally post in GD, so if the question itself is out of line and should be in something like IMHO, or whatever, I apologise in advance. Also, it’s past midnight and I have work on the morrow, so I can’t sit around all night tweaking my post.

With that out of the way: what is the benefit of putting these kids in school anyway?

I can understand trying to bring the D-grade kids up to a passing grade and instil some useful skills, but when we’re talking about a child such as the OP mentions - who is lucky to learn to be toilet trained - why pay for schooling at all? It is absolutely inconceivable that this child will end up doing anything other than being on a disability pension all its life; why are we investing in teaching that simply will not - cannot! - stick?

Wouldn’t the money be better spent on parents’ Respite care? At least then the parents get a break (which is probably the primary purpose of sending the child to ‘school’ anyway) and the other children in the school aren’t forced to compete for the teacher’s attention and school’s resources against a child to whom book learning will *never *be a useful achievement.

Try as I may, I cannot see the reasoning in this system. Sending the child in the OP’s story to a six-figure school is absurd; paying for a couple of days respite care per week would be far less expensive and at least the child would have some time with its parents.

It’s probably clear I have zero experience in this area - but I’d like to understand it better. If anyone can help to explain the purpose and justification of the current system, I’m listening. (Well, I’ll be listening after work tomorrow - I can’t read the boards from there, unfortunately.)

17

Sounds like my wife’s experience. At her high school, there was a separate class for “troubled” kids-- juvenile delinquents and other hard cases. In this class, most of the teacher’s energy was spent on just keeping the kids under control-- actually teaching the material was a secondary concern. One year, the top five or six academic achievers at the school found themselves unexpectedly absorbed into the troubled class. The school told them right out that the teacher needed a break, and gifted students needed less attention anyway. :rolleyes: Talk about punishment for success.

18

I feel your vitriol, but wonder if it couldn’t be spun the opposite way. Dangerously unsafe track goes unpaved while a majority of students grow ever more obese, just so the minority of already brilliant kids can have special gifted classes to prepare them for college.

19

I know that some autistic kids, even those as profoundly handicapped as the child in the OP, have been shown to not be mentally retarded, but simply locked in a body that doesn’t process information normally. Children that have been written off as mentally retarded have “broken through” the gauze of their autism, revealing intelligence, creativity, and emotions not previously ascribed to them. I imagine desperate parents hear about these stories and they become motivated to do all it takes to reach their children. And who wouldn’t? If I believed my child was locked in a dark, sound-proof basement, wild horses wouldn’t stop me from breaking down the door. Even if I couldn’t hear a peep from them.

I suppose that’s what makes the condition so horrible. It’s so easy to write severely autistic people off as hopelessly retarded or crazy, but we don’t really understand the condition enough to separate the hopeless cases from the not-so-hopeless. Which means, inevitably, someone gets deprived of the treatment or care they need.

As far as knowing when to stop teaching, I don’t really know the answer. However, I think eleven is too young to just give up, especially when it comes to things like dressing and tolieting. An individual who can do the very basics will become easier to place in day care programs, sheltered workshops, and group homes. They are also easier to live with, care for, and take places. So there is a societal benefit to educating severely handicapped people. I don’t know if it’s worth $130,000 a year per individual, but there is a benefit.

20

This argument would carry more weight if schools made sure that all students participated in a genuine phys. ed. program every year that they were in school. However, few schools do anything similar and while tens of thousands of dollars are devoted to the gridiron, backboards, and bleachers, most kids get herded into a couple of classes where the gym teachers simply assign teams for poison/slaughter ball and let the real jocks take turns hurling balls at the less athletic kids who then sigh with relief and go sit out the rest of the game.