Want to balance every school budget in the country? Eliminate special education.

[Peeping Wizard]

The problem with school budgets is silly administrative overhead. There are too many people on the payroll, bottom line.

[twa]

In some instances' date=' you are probably talking a voucher of $25,000. And even then, what private schools have the facilities and staff ready for this kind of comittment?

[/quote']

W/o vouchers of that size you wont ever find out.

[aREDSKIN]

I listened to an interview with a very senior, very experienced administrator and he basically said the very same thing. According to him, most administrators agree that keeping Special Needs children in the current system is eventually going to bankrupt the entire public education system but none have the backbone to make the case. His point seemed to be that if you take the Special Needs children out of the system and create special schools that specialize in Special Needs Education, it would be much cheaper.

I thought is was a very interesting interview. Very thought provoking.

Sometimes, reality is a * i t c h. Perhaps, those with those levels of needs need to contribute more. Just a thought.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

His point seemed to be that if you take the Special Needs children out of the system and create special schools that specialize in Special Needs Education, it would be much cheaper.

That used to be the system in many districts. Of course, those schools often resembled dungeons. (My school district used a school that once was the "black school" during segregation days. It finally closed in the 90s. You can imagine the shape it was in). Mainstreaming has been the trend for two decades so you are going to have to a) reverse the course of knowledge in the field, build those schools, and c) fund them.

And you are still paying for the kids except now you have new facilities. I don't see how this works unless the new schools are someone federally controlled.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

The problem with school budgets is silly administrative overhead. There are too many people on the payroll, bottom line.

Who do you cut? Choose a district and show me where to slash.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

W/o vouchers of that size you wont ever find out.

So, are you advocating Texas give parents $25,000 to send their kids to private schools? Because that will make for an interesting discussion in Austin.

[GhostofSparta]

The cost of that meeting was whatever the salaries were of those involved. I attend IEPs all the time, and I don't get paid per.

It's part of the job and doesn't cost you a penny more.

That's not the entire cost. I know this because I'm currently a substitute teacher. And when these meetings last for 1-2 hours each day, somebody's gotta cover that teacher's class. Sure, you might be able to get away with only 2-3 substitutes each day that these IEPs take, but that's just 1 extra cost that I can point out that you didn't consider. And at, say, $70/day for a sub (not what I make, but it seems like a fair number from a number of friends who sub at various places), that's $210 per school per day in any given district. Sure it's not a back-breaking amount of money for 99.9% of school districts, but it can add up and that money then can't be spent on new technology or new supplies or teacher's salaries or whatever. The district I work in has 5 high schools (7-12 for each) and I don't know how many elementary schools (I'm secondary certified). So that's extra ~$1000 day just for the high schools for about a week, minimum. Sure it's not a huge dent in the grand budget scheme, but it doesn't cost "nothing." At least not until these types of meetings take place after school or during a "professional day" (but then the salaried employees would hate the unpaid overtime that it would take).

Not that the above facts justify eliminating special ed, I'm not saying that. But it is something that LKB's article is hinting at. There are hidden costs associated with anything a school does, and nobody would think of touching the way IEP meetings work for various reasons, even if each school or district would save a couple of grand each year with a minor tweak.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I made a point. You can't discuss public school budgets without talking about the 20 to 25 percent (and rising) that is being spent on special ed. So you can talk salaries' date=' unions, vouchers all you want. It does not matter until you address the real meat of the budget.[/quote']

So are you or are you not advocating cutting and or eliminating special education programs in public schools?

[twa]

So' date=' are you advocating Texas give parents $25,000 to send their kids to private schools? Because that will make for an interesting discussion in Austin.[/quote']

I guess I shoulda added for extreme special needs students

I thought that would be obvious...apparently not:)

[skinfan133]

My second cousin lives on his own and has a job, all thanks to the efforts of people who never wrote him off as a worthless part of society.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I guess I shoulda added for extreme special needs students

I thought that would be obvious...apparently not:)

So, Texas gives each TMI family a check for $25,000 a year until the student turns 21 or something. And then hope that private schools are created to teach them.

That strikes me as a very expensive welfare program.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

So are you or are you not advocating cutting and or eliminating special education programs in public schools?

I said I was not. I said that if you wanted to balance school budgets, that's the place to do it.

Special ed really didn't exist 50 years ago, and school budgets were easy to maintain. Now, even relatively wealthy districts can't deal with them.

[twa]

So' date=' Texas gives each TMI family a check for $25,000 a year until the student turns 21 or something. And then hope that private schools are created to teach them.

That strikes me as a very expensive welfare program.[/quote']

Being deliberately obtuse?

Would offering it as a option(it being comparable funding to what the state receives) not create schools that both accept and cater to them?

I certainly ain't the one trying to kick them out of public schools,though I like giving more choice to parents.

[NewCliche21]

Obviously not. But how many psychologists' date=' counselors, and aides are on the payrolls of school districts versus 25 years ago?[/quote']

What was education like 25 years ago? What was the population like/total?

There need to be MORE social workers (I'm not a psychologist fan), counselors, and aides to work with these children. Times are very different from 1985, and human service workers are critical to:

A) Keeping kids in school.

Keeping schools from being blown up.

C) Keeping kids from fighting each other or themselves.

D) Keeping kids alive.

It's very easy to take something out when you don't realize how much it adds.

[ABQCOWBOY]

That used to be the system in many districts. Of course' date=' those schools often resembled dungeons. (My school district used a school that once was the "black school" during segregation days. It finally closed in the 90s. You can imagine the shape it was in). Mainstreaming has been the trend for two decades so you are going to have to a) reverse the course of knowledge in the field, build those schools, and c) fund them.

And you are still paying for the kids except now you have new facilities. I don't see how this works unless the new schools are someone federally controlled.[/quote']

His idea seemed to be that if we spent to build these schools in the short term, we could see a savings in as little as 3 years of completion. The number of Special Needs Students were such that he believed the number of schools required would be a nominal amount. According to him, the cost of educating and caring for a Special Needs student was like 70% hire then a student who did not need special care. He also went on to say that the costs associated with teaching and training, literally, every teacher, every administrator, who would come into contact with Special Needs students was staggering. He seemed to think that by just creating a specialized faculty, trained to deal with Special Needs Students on a day to day basis would be a significant cost saver. He made many, many points on the subject and showed how it would be more cost effective but unfortunately I don't have a copy of the interview so I'm going off memory, so to speak. The bottom line was that in a specialized setting, the cost burden would be delt with much more effectively but I do agree with you. It would have to be set up with a high degree of oversite. Unfortunately, the Government has not shown a very high degree of capability in this regard. The over all premise you mention, however, is correct in my opinion. For that to work, some sort of oversite would be necessary. We would not want them to become miserable boot camp settings, so to speak.

[NewCliche21]

That's not the entire cost. I know this because I'm currently a substitute teacher. And when these meetings last for 1-2 hours each day, somebody's gotta cover that teacher's class. Sure, you might be able to get away with only 2-3 substitutes each day that these IEPs take, but that's just 1 extra cost that I can point out that you didn't consider. And at, say, $70/day for a sub (not what I make, but it seems like a fair number from a number of friends who sub at various places), that's $210 per school per day in any given district. Sure it's not a back-breaking amount of money for 99.9% of school districts, but it can add up and that money then can't be spent on new technology or new supplies or teacher's salaries or whatever. The district I work in has 5 high schools (7-12 for each) and I don't know how many elementary schools (I'm secondary certified). So that's extra ~$1000 day just for the high schools for about a week, minimum. Sure it's not a huge dent in the grand budget scheme, but it doesn't cost "nothing." At least not until these types of meetings take place after school or during a "professional day" (but then the salaried employees would hate the unpaid overtime that it would take).

Not that the above facts justify eliminating special ed, I'm not saying that. But it is something that LKB's article is hinting at. There are hidden costs associated with anything a school does, and nobody would think of touching the way IEP meetings work for various reasons, even if each school or district would save a couple of grand each year with a minor tweak.

While a substitute teacher does need to get paid, what do you think it costs to keep a child with ODD in jail for the rest of his life because nobody intervened? Or replace the school that was blown to hell because nobody intervened? Or bring in more human service workers when a child kills herself because no one intervened?

I have about a dozen children that anyone here could talk to that are alive because of IEPs. Not just educated, not just acclimated, but alive. And who knows if they would've killed anyone else?

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I have about a dozen children that anyone here could talk to that are alive because of IEPs. Not just educated, not just acclimated, but alive. And who knows if they would've killed anyone else?

Out of curiosity, when did Middletown, Delaware become "Escape from New York?" My brother in law lives there and he never told me it was a post-apocalyptic hell scape where roaming bands of teenaged miscreants terrorize the population.

[ABQCOWBOY]

My second cousin lives on his own and has a job, all thanks to the efforts of people who never wrote him off as a worthless part of society.

According to the Administrator I listened to, the chances of Special Needs Children growing up and becoming more productive would actually increase in specialized teaching centers, such as the one he proposed. Now, I don't know if that is true or not but the idea was that teaching techniques and skills associated with teaching special needs children would be much improved because you are not trying to boil the ocean by teaching these specialized skills to all teachers and staff. A certain amount would be highly trained and educated in the skills required and as such, a better teaching model would be in place for Special Needs Students to receive education.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I said I was not.

Fine then if you aren't advocating cutting or eliminating special education then the only way forward is to look at special ed funding as a "cost of doing business" as such special education funding is off the table because we don't want it cut or eliminated. As such I go back to the original point that was made that said you didn't make a point because you posted a thread about cutting special education as a way to balance school budgets and yet you yourself are not willing to advocate for cutting or eliminating special education from schools.

I guess I could make a similar point, "Want to balance every school budget in the country? Eliminate books, teachers and lunches."

[NewCliche21]

His idea seemed to be that if we spent to build these schools in the short term, we could see a savings in as little as 3 years of completion. The number of Special Needs Students were such that he believed the number of schools required would be a nominal amount. According to him, the cost of educating and caring for a Special Needs student was like 70% hire then a student who did not need special care. He also went on to say that the costs associated with teaching and training, literally, every teacher, every administrator, who would come into contact with Special Needs students was staggering. He seemed to think that by just creating a specialized faculty, trained to deal with Special Needs Students on a day to day basis would be a significant cost saver. He made many, many points on the subject and showed how it would be more cost effective but unfortunately I don't have a copy of the interview so I'm going off memory, so to speak. The bottom line was that in a specialized setting, the cost burden would be delt with much more effectively but I do agree with you. It would have to be set up with a high degree of oversite. Unfortunately, the Government has not shown a very high degree of capability in this regard. The over all premise you mention, however, is correct in my opinion. For that to work, some sort of oversite would be necessary. We would not want them to become miserable boot camp settings, so to speak.

These sound like great ideas, but having specialized schools will stifle development of these children in academics and much more.

You'd be shocked as to what mainstreaming can do for the children with special needs and the children who are in their classes.

[NewCliche21]

Out of curiosity' date=' when did Middletown, Delaware become "Escape from New York?" My brother in law lives there and he never told me it was a post-apocalyptic hell scape where roaming bands of teenaged miscreants terrorize the population.[/quote']

I've worked in Annapolis, Baltimore City, Baltimore County, Columbia, Kent County (Maryland), and New York City in this field.

I earned my undergraduate degree in social work as well as my master's and have my LGSW.

Any other questions?

And ask your brother to go Lake Street. He'll change his tune.

[TMK9973]

Who do you cut? Choose a district and show me where to slash.

Every district is different. And not every district in in the red.

For instance - In Texas they do Schools by district and not county. (Like say VA). So a county in Texas might have 4 or 5 school districts. That means 4 or 5 supervisors, boards of education, administrative staff, etc.....

Meanwhile In CA schools are suffering because of the limit on property taxes.

Every district is different.

[bird_1972]

The fact that you'd even try to bring this up demonstrates a dearth of knowledge about a **** ton of aspects of life and makes you come off as extremely egocentric.

He does that most of the time with his posts.

I seem to remember when he was just a normal member of the community.

I guess when self-styled provocateurs (such as MSF was back in the day) leave here someone always feels compelled to emerge out of the woodwork to replace him. I have a feeling the OP is our new "MSF".

[ABQCOWBOY]

These sound like great ideas, but having specialized schools will stifle development of these children in academics and much more.

You'd be shocked as to what mainstreaming can do for the children with special needs and the children who are in their classes.

I have not seen any data that suggests negative impact on social development one way or the other. It's possible but I don't have any data on that. However, the better the teacher, the better the education. This I know for a fact. Good teachers can not be replaced by improved facilities. It would seem to me that a higher degree of capability, with regards to teaching Special Needs would show dividends. I don't know what the answer is but the interview was certainly thought provoking and the statistical analysis the man provided, with regards to education budgets over the next 10 years was staggering. At some point, we may not have any choice. According to him, a continued path down the current road would force a much worse alternative in the short term. Obviously, that was a very scary scenario to consider.

[stevenaa]

Here's something to refute everything that you've posted and everything that you possibly could:

Every child deserves an education. That is the law, and that is the way that it should be."

Like most things in life, it isn't so cut and dried. At the point that a drain on the system has a significant affect on educating most others, a line has to be drawn. If it gets to a point where educating the majority is jeapordized by Special Ed programs, hard choices will have to be made. And I have a child getting a little Special Ed assistance with early speech development. If it wasn't an option in the school system, you can bet I'd find another way. Not all can, but many who are using the system as is, can. I'd have no problem with minimum income requirements for Special Ed assistance. I'd pay for my sons if asked.