ROI in Special Ed

[GRG a/k/a goldenrulegirl]

For Dark and others who question the value of special ed, here is a success story for you.  

Sure, we could have warehoused Tim for a whole lot less money, but that would have been a crime and a tragedy. 


Tim's Place:  Breakfast, Lunch, and Hugs

www.aol.com/video/youve-got-breakfast-lunch-and-hugs/517673454/?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl5%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D276054

[Gardening Grandma]

Sweet story, but I don't think of Special Ed as an "investment.  Some things in life we do because it simply is the right thing to do.  Special Ed is one of those things.

[thyme4change]

What's the deal with the hugs and down's syndrome?  I'm sure it is all very sweet and whatever, but I'm not super excited to be hugged by strangers, and I don't like it when the person bagging my groceries hugs me.  I'm not sure I would be really happy to have someone hugging me when I'm trying to eat my lunch.  And I hope he knew all those people that he was saying "I love you" to - We need more words to mean "love" as it is overused.

[busymom]

Aw, what a great young man! 

[tskeeter]

A heart warming video, for sure.  But, what of the cost of special education?  The LA Unified school district reports that the cost to educate a general education student is $6,900 per year.  A special needs student with mild disabilities, $15,180 a year.  A student with significant disabilities, $25,530 per year to provide the small class sizes (an Issues in Special Education report identifies a size of 5 - 8 special needs students as the optimal class size), speech therapists, physical therapists, special needs counselors, transportation aid personnel to help the student get to and from school, classroom aid personnel to assist the student with their daily needs such as eating and toileting, and other services the child may use.

I think it is fair to accept that most school districts have limited funding.  Therefore, if a school district spends $25,530 per year to educate a special needs child, the school district must have reduced the services it could have provided to other students.  I suspect that many school districts trade off funding of programs for gifted students for funding of special needs programs.  In effect, taking funding from the students who are most likely to provide a high return on the investment in their education and diverting the funding to the students who are more likely to provide a limited return on the investment in their education.  This approach is used on the premise that the smart kids are better equiped to learn on their own than a special needs child.  A question to ask yourself.  Is the quality of your child's education suffering in order to educate children with a less promising academic future?  Have we become so politcally correct that we knowingly place our bet on the horse most likely to lose the race?


Full disclosure:  Mom was a special ed teacher with a Masters in Special Learning and Behavioral Problems.  Dad was a teacher and school administrator, charged with balancing the requirements of special needs students vs. the educational needs of the children of the entire community.  A cousin is also a special education teacher.  A BIL and his spouse are mentally challenged and were both educated in special ed classes. 

[Sum Dum Gai]

I can't watch video on this computer, but I'll watch when I get home and comment.  Promise.

[thyme4change]

They weren't very specific on the "running" part.  His brother is the "Operations Manager" and he said twice that his father "supports him so he can fulfill his dream."  I don't know which duties he actually does to run the place, but I suspect he is more of a greeter and a host.  

[giramomma]

Feb 27, 2013 10:18:40 GMT -5 GRG a/k/a goldenrulegirl said:

For Dark and others who question the value of special ed, here is a success story for you.  

Sure, we could have warehoused Tim for a whole lot less money, but that would have been a crime and a tragedy. 


Tim's Place:  Breakfast, Lunch, and Hugs

www.aol.com/video/youve-got-breakfast-lunch-and-hugs/517673454/?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl5%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D276054

The problem is that you are cherry picking disabilities. Obviously, Tim is on the higher end of  cognitive abilities. It looks like he can function well on his own-no one needs to "shadow" him to tell him what to do after he showers, get him on/off the right bus, etc.

IMVHO, there's a HUGE difference between putting resources into someone like Tim vs. a child that is not self sufficient beyond the "normal" age of two (ie, can't use a bathroom, feed themself), and it's apparent there there is not much cognitive ability.

There's a huge difference between a child with disabilities that will grow up to be somewhat self sufficient (even if it's living in a group home) and a child with disabilities that will ALWAYS need 24 hour care.

[thyme4change]

IMVHO, there's a HUGE difference between putting resources into someone like Tim vs. a child that is not self sufficient beyond the "normal" age of two (ie, can't use a bathroom, feed themself), and it's apparent there there is not much cognitive ability.

Any research into how much of our special ed budget is for people who are high functioning and how much really goes into the "black hole" of uneducatable kids?  [/span]

[Gardening Grandma]

tskeeter,
You ask an unanswerable question.  If we chose to simply warehouse the disabled kids, we'd be warehousing, for life, those who could become working, productive citizens.  And at what cost?

And do we base our decisions solely on the dollars?

Disclosure: I'm the grandparent of a severely disabled student 

[Gardening Grandma]

There's a huge difference between a child with disabilities that will grow up to be somewhat self sufficient (even if it's living in a group home) and a child with disabilities that will ALWAYS need 24 hour care.

Certainly this is true, but
If you propose spending public money on the higher functioning disabled and warehousing the severely disabled, you would be violating the rights of the severely disabled to be treated equally under the law.

 

[kittensaver]

I agree with GG. This is about equal opportunity under the law, not about someone's "worth" as measured by ROI or any other analytical tool.

[thyme4change]

Maybe the law should be that every child gets the same number of tax-payer provided dollars dedicated to their education, not that some kids get the most money, while others are hung out to dry.  

I really don't know how to solve the special ed paradox, but what I do know is that if we don't spend enough resources educating the middle of pack, our society as a whole will be much more at risk than if we fail those whose contributions are more limited.

[Deleted]

I don't know what my wife and I would have done if we found out our baby-to-be had Downs Syndrome. I don't think either one of us would have been able to deal with that. I guess, it was sort of lucky for us, that we found out it was something much worse.

[souldoubt]

Even in the thread DH started some weeks back about sports I don't remember anyone advocating warehousing kids.  The issue is when federal mandates result in a smaller percent of the population getting many times more spent on them each year as opposed to kids without disabilities.  Equal opportunity kind of goes out the window if some kids aren't capable of getting to a certain level because no amount of money will get them there.  Whether or not anyone likes to hear it there's obviously only so much money to go around so yes ROI is a factor with limited resources which is the world we live in.  It's not fair to kids without disabilities to take away from their pool of resources any more than it is to warehouse kids regardless of where they are disability wise.  

[milee]

Archie, I'm so sorry to hear about your news.  My thoughts and prayers are with you and your wife.

[thyme4change]

We won't warehouse people with disabilities, but we won't give most people the tools to thrive, so we end up warehousing them in prison, or in government housing.

[bean29]

And we want better results from our schools but we don't acknowledge that when we mainstream special ed kids we pull all the kids in the classroom down to that one student's level.

DD has a student who she says is bi-polar in some of her classes.  She says the girl is always disruptive and constantly says I don't understand even when things have been explained to her three times in a row.  I don't quite understand - my Dad is bi-polar and bi-polar people are normally highly intelligent and the manic stage is controlled by meds and most of the time my Dad is just like anyone else.  It is almost as if this child has either never been disciplined or she has never been property treated for her condition.  She could also be mis-diagnosed.  Any are really sad, but to allow her to prevent an entire class from learning the curriculum because she is entitled to be treated equally under the law?  The law only allows everyone to have an equally bad education?  That's an argument to end public education funding if I ever heard one.

[formerroomate99]

Feb 27, 2013 14:35:28 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Maybe the law should be that every child gets the same number of tax-payer provided dollars dedicated to their education, not that some kids get the most money, while others are hung out to dry.  

I really don't know how to solve the special ed paradox, but what I do know is that if we don't spend enough resources educating the middle of pack, our society as a whole will be much more at risk than if we fail those whose contributions are more limited.

[973beachbum]

Feb 27, 2013 14:50:48 GMT -5 souldoubt said:

Even in the thread DH started some weeks back about sports I don't remember anyone advocating warehousing kids.  The issue is when federal mandates result in a smaller percent of the population getting many times more spent on them each year as opposed to kids without disabilities.  Equal opportunity kind of goes out the window if some kids aren't capable of getting to a certain level because no amount of money will get them there.  Whether or not anyone likes to hear it there's obviously only so much money to go around so yes ROI is a factor with limited resources which is the world we live in.  It's not fair to kids without disabilities to take away from their pool of resources any more than it is to warehouse kids regardless of where they are disability wise.  

Just wait till sequestration takes effect.  NJ alone is would lose $34 million that is supposed to pay part of the special education for some special ed students.  Without that money to help, it will be like trying to swallow a baby grand whole for some districts to try and cover that out of their regular budget.

[973beachbum]

Feb 27, 2013 15:00:53 GMT -5 @tbird said:

Feb 27, 2013 14:44:08 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

I don't know what my wife and I would have done if we found out our baby-to-be had Downs Syndrome. I don't think either one of us would have been able to deal with that. I guess, it was sort of lucky for us, that we found out it was something much worse.

Archie - did I miss this?  I never heard about this....was this so much worse that you decide to terminate?  But with down's syndrome, would have been torn?

I missed it too.

[Deleted]

Feb 27, 2013 15:00:53 GMT -5 @tbird said:

Feb 27, 2013 14:44:08 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

I don't know what my wife and I would have done if we found out our baby-to-be had Downs Syndrome. I don't think either one of us would have been able to deal with that. I guess, it was sort of lucky for us, that we found out it was something much worse.

Archie - did I miss this?  I never heard about this....was this so much worse that you decide to terminate?  But with down's syndrome, would have been torn?

yes, exactly.  We terminated due to trisomy 13.  

[kittensaver]

Oh goodness, Archie, that sucks. So sorry!

[Sum Dum Gai]

Oh wow.  I'm sorry dude.

[Deleted]

Thank you. It was hard. I always said I support the right to choose, but that I would never be someone who would choose to abort. Apparently I am not that principled.

[kittensaver]

Feb 27, 2013 15:18:58 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

Thank you. It was hard. I always said I support the right to choose, but that I would never be someone who would choose to abort. Apparently I am not that principled.

No, Archie, you probably did the right thing. I hope what I'm about to say is not too painful for you, but the reality is that most trisomy 13 babies don't make it to birth - and those that do die very soon after birth. I don't think "principles" has anything to do with it. I think you spared your DW a lot of agony by not putting her through a stillbirth. JMHO. Hugs going out to you both.

[bean29]

Feb 27, 2013 15:18:58 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

Thank you. It was hard. I always said I support the right to choose, but that I would never be someone who would choose to abort. Apparently I am not that principled.

I am sorry you experienced this.  I would have made the same decison. 

[busymom]

Archie, I don't think anyone knows what they will do until they're in that situation.


I'm so sorry for your loss. 

[973beachbum]

Feb 27, 2013 15:25:09 GMT -5 kittensaver said:

Feb 27, 2013 15:18:58 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

Thank you. It was hard. I always said I support the right to choose, but that I would never be someone who would choose to abort. Apparently I am not that principled.

No, Archie, you probably did the right thing. I hope what I'm about to say is not too painful for you, but the reality is that most trisomy 13 babies don't make it to birth - and those that do die very soon after birth. I don't think "principles" has anything to do with it. I think you spared your DW a lot of agony by not putting her through a stillbirth. JMHO. Hugs going out to you both.

[Gardening Grandma]

What busymom said...
I am so sorry. My best  to you both.  


I've often wished that my granddaughter "only" had to deal with Downs......