| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 846.3 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Mon Mar 31 1997 12:33 | 238 |
| Special Ed, A system disabled: Bad behavior, special treatment
By Kate Zernike, Globe Staff, 03/31/97
Second of two parts
They used to call it bad behavior. Now they call it a syndrome and put
the child in special ed.
Assaulting a coach is diagnosed as an emotional disability. Truancy is
school phobia. Drug abuse is dyscalculia; a student who is stoned can't
add. Mother-daughter battles become anger, and refusing to obey the
teacher - but refusing politely - is passive-aggressive behavior.
Part Two sidebar: More cases, younger children
Part One: Testing the limits
Part One sidebar: In Concord, Back to the basics
All of these cases, chronicled in state records, have been shoved under
the umbrella of special education over the past two years, helping to
give Massachusetts the highest percentage of special ed students in the
nation.
Special education has become the repository for problems that used to
be known as adolescence, as well as the dumping ground for a whole set
of social ills: broken families, drug abuse and violence in schools.
With its generous entitlements and elastic standards, special edis
being forced to take responsibility where parents and social service
agencies have abandoned it.
Today, students with behavior problems are lumped with the learning or
emotionally disabled, categories that make up fully 60 percent of the
state's special education population.
State records show parents are using special education as a way to get
services for children they don't have time for, even as a way to avoid
paying child support. Hundreds of non-disabled students are also using
the label to avoid being kicked out of school, taking advantage of
federal and state laws that prevent expulsion of special education
students. And social service agencies and health insurance companies
are using special ed to force the schools to pay for residential
services and psychotherapy they no longer cover.
These students may have genuine needs, schools say, but they aren't
educational; they aren't what was intended when the framers of
Massachusetts' first-in-the-nation special education law spoke of
``special needs.''
``We catch it all,'' said Robert Doyle, special education administrator
in Sharon. ``The law is broad enough that kids with drug abuse, kids
with willful negative behavior - it's hard for us to say they're not
disabled. But these aren't problems that we're supposed to be
responsible for.''
One goal of the landmark special education law passed in the state 25
years ago was to move children out of institutions for the mentally
ill. So the law's provisions allowed for children with emotional and
behavioral impairments, anticipating that students with severe mental
illnesses would enter the public schools as the state phased out the
institutions.
But today, special educators say the emotionally and behaviorally
impaired labels are too readily applied. Students are hiding behind
them to get away with common truancy, absenteeism, and acting out.
Tex, for example, was a wanderer. The 17-year-old Worcester youth was a
polite A-student when he attended class. But most of the time, he would
get up and walk out midway through the lecture. He'd roam the halls or
leave campus at lunch and not return. His diagnosis: passive aggressive
behavior. He was placed in an alternative school, under special ed,
similar to the ``behavior management'' programs many schools now offer.
In Holliston this year, nine students have been deemed to have school
phobia, a diagnosis lawyers for schools and parents alike say is
becoming more prevalent. Yet school officials say that in most cases,
parents have simply surrendered in the age-old battles over not wanting
to go to school. If students are feeling too pressured by demands of
school or having conflicts with friends, parents send a doctor's note
asking that the student be excused.
Educators say they have to make all the attempts they can to keep
children in school. There is no statute of limitations on special
education cases, so students can, and do, return to the school system
years later to argue that they were not diagnosed properly with a
disability and deserve compensatory services.
Brandon had been absent for the better part of two years when he left
the state, then returned to Foxborough and demanded the town's public
schools pay for him to go to an alternative school. Foxborough offered
him a GED program instead. At a hearing before the state's Bureau of
Special Education Appeals, a psychologist testified that Brandon had
been absent because of ``unresolved conflicts and underlying anger.''
Foxborough was criticized for ``not making the effort'' and ordered to
provide tuition, transportation, remedial tutoring, and individual and
family therapy.
``Human behavior is so complex, you can look at it and believe it's a
disability if that's what you want to believe,'' said David Gotthelf, a
psychologist and director of student services at Wellesley High School.
``The question is, have we gone overboard?''
Statewide, the percentage of special education students peaks between
the ages of 10 and 15. But elementary schools say they are seeing an
increase in behavior disorders, as more children are diagnosed with
hyperactivity or Attention Deficit Disorder. While the diagnosis often
is accurate and controllable with medications like Ritalin, even some
doctors say it is sometimes overdiagnosed in children who are just
being children.
``It's more socially acceptable to say a child has ADD than to say the
child is spoiled,'' said Sharon's Doyle. ``It's a way to explain
behavior.''
The state tightened its eligibility guidelines in 1991 to specify that
students should not be referred to special education because they had
violated a school's discipline code.
Yet state and federal law has unwittingly encouraged a growing number
of students seeking a special ed label precisely for that reason. The
federal special education law, known as the Individuals With
Disabilities Education Act, forbids schools to give more than a 10
consecutive day suspension to special education students, or any
student who asks to be evaluated for special needs. State law goes
further, forbidding schools from suspending those students for more
than 10 cumulative days.
The theory behind the laws was that students with emotional
difficulties or mental retardation might not be able to control their
actions. Yet when the state's 1993 Education Reform Act made it easier
for schools to expel students for weapons, drugs, or violence, it also
prompted many non-disabled students to claim a disability, according to
state records.
The board of appeals estimates that about 30 percent of the 632 hearing
requests it handled last year involved students who had violated a
discipline code. Most of the students had not been classified as
special education students before they broke school rules.
Aaron, the captain of the Holliston High track team, was kicked out of
school for assaulting his coach at a meet in the fall of his senior
year. His parents immediately hired a lawyer and told the school their
son was disabled. The school previously had heard nothing about a
disability, but at an appeals hearing, an expert the parents hired
testified that the boy had an ``emotional disability'' that ``left him
no choice but to act out.'' As part of his remedial program, Aaron had
to be allowed to run track.
``The first response to the process of expulsion is not the family and
the school attempting to deal with the problem of a student who's done
a transgression,'' said Margaret Reed, special education administrator
in Holliston. ``The first response is: `How to blame the transgression
on other factors?' Instead of triggering some family response to get
the kid to accept a responsibility, it's the school's fault for not
recognizing the disability.''
In effect, schools are being asked to be parents, coping with a thicket
of new social and family problems.
Hearing officers at the state appeals board say some cases are
extensions of custody battles, with parents arguing over where a child
should be educated. By sending a child to a residential school, at
public expense, a parent can avoid paying child support. In Swampscott,
divorced parents were arguing over where to educate their son, with the
father asking to put him in a residential school, and the mother and
school urging he be kept at the high school. A school psychologist
attributed the boy's behavioral and emotional problems to the dispute
between his parents. He ``sees himself as unloved and as a pawn between
his parents,'' he testified.
In Wellesley, a mother and her adopted daughter fought constantly. The
girl assaulted her mother and ran away. The mother placed her in a
residential school in Utah then sought retroactive tuition payments at
$100 a day. The school paid, and is now being asked to pay for another
student whose parents placed him in a boarding school for troubled
children after he stole the family car.
And in Harvard, a single mother got the public schools to pay for a
summer program for her 15-year-old son, as well as a one-on-one tutor,
school counseling, and outside psychotherapy twice a week. She admitted
he had no learning disability, but the school approved an ``emotional
disability'' diagnosis. What he needed, she said, was a male role
model.
``These children aren't academically needier, they're emotionally
needier,'' said Peter Sack, principal at Swampscott High School and
head of the state principal's association. ``The nature of children
hasn't changed, but what they're being born into has changed. We're
dealing with the first generation that hasn't been raised.''
Often, schools say they don't know how to deal with the outside
problems - they can't label a parent's divorce as a student's
disability. So they label what they can. An eating disorder becomes a
learning disability, because a girl who isn't eating can't focus long
enough to do her homework.
These problems have landed at the doorstep of special education because
it is an entitlement; there is no such entitlement for social service
agencies or health insurance companies who might more appropriately
pay.
So in Cambridge, parents are now demanding that special education pay
for residential psychiatric programs for five students who are dealing
with substance abuse or psychological problems because of newly
recognized homosexuality. Health insurance companies steer parents
looking for compensation for psychotherapy or residential treatment
programs back to the public schools, where they know it will be paid
for.
And Department of Social Service caseworkers often make referrals to
special education for students with behavior problems caused by abuse
or neglect. This year, DSS added to the schools' caseload by beginning
a program known as Commonworks, which will shift half the DSS
population in residential schools - or about 800 students - back to the
public schools. Public schools in turn face the option of paying the
tuition at the residential schools or dealing with the behavior
problems in the classroom. In places like Somerville, paying those
tuitions has meant that all additional money received from the state
under the new education reform law has gone to special education.
``We're sort of the last entitlement,'' said Marilyn Bisbicos, director
of special education in Arlington. ``When everything else faded away,
we became the only thing left. We've cast our net broadly so we can
provide the services other people used to.''
Schools say they don't want to deny help to students who need it. On
the other hand, they are being forced to drain money from regular
education to pay for a whole set of special education students whose
problems are not educational.
``We're doing this at the expense of academics,'' said Sack, of
Swampscott. ``I used to think that we should be dealing with whatever
problems arrived at our doorsteps: emotional, social, medical. I'm
beginning to think we ought to go back to what our original mission
was, which was to teach.''
This story ran on page a1 of the Boston Globe on 03/31/97.
|
| 846.4 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Mon Mar 31 1997 14:59 | 93 |
| More cases, younger children
By Kate Zernike, 03/31/97
QUINCY - The best view into the future of the state's special education
population is inside a preschool classroom here at the Amelio Della
Chiesa Early Childhood Center, or any other elementary school in the
Commonwealth.
The number of three- and four-year-olds diagnosed as disabled is up 64
percent over the past five years here, and up 150 percent over the last
decade statewide. While overall numbers are still small - 8,058
children last year - children are being labeled earlier than ever,
meaning they will likely stay in special education longer, and cost
more. Preschool programs already are costing the state $60 million a
year.
The numbers show how sophisticated - some would say overzealous -
schools have become about identifying children with special needs. But
schools also say children coming up through the public schools simply
are needier today.
Most of the children here come out of the Early Intervention program
run by the state Department of Public Health. Some are identified
because they aren't gripping crayons as tightly or speaking as well as
specialists say three-year-olds should be. Many of the problems are
behavioral: preschoolers who can't focus long enough on an activity or
play with friends cooperatively, and erupt into temper tantrums easily.
Often, the issues are ones born of a lack of parenting, not a
disability. The Della Chiesa school is in one of the most depressed
neighborhoods in Quincy, and this program serves parents as much as it
serves children, offering classes on what to feed children and how much
television is OK. The most important lesson of the kids' school day is
structure, routine, and basics like learning to clean up after
themselves.
Education officials, including Commissioner Robert V. Antonucci, say
these are problems that shouldn't be labeled. Children develop at
different rates, and it's hard to say what's normal - or even do
diagnostic tests - on a child who's not yet three, he said.
``It's very subjective, it's very, very loose,'' added Susan
Haberstroh, a teacher in the developmental learning center here.
The special education preschoolers are mixed in with regular education
children at this school, and many have such minor disabilities that
it's hard to tell the difference between the two groups. Antonucci says
the children are being labeled ``disabled'' too young, too readily, and
many of their disabilities are normal developmental problems that time
will take care of.
In most schools, the only way to get preschool paid for is to go into
special education. So a diagnosis of a mild speech problem can seem an
attractive way to get preschool free.
But schools say they are also dealing with more genuine needs in the
youngest children. The number of children diagnosed with moderate or
severe developmental delays in the state Early Intervention program has
increased from 60 to 84 percent over the past five years.
Moderate developmental delays include those in fine motor skills - like
holding scissors or crayons - in social interaction, and in speaking.
But they also include children with Pervasive Developmental Disorder,
an autism-like syndrome where children don't make eye contact, fail to
speak, or have difficulty with even the most basic motor skills. One
three-year-old at the Della Chiesa center, no bigger than an 18 month
old child, sits in front of a mirror rocking back and forth, not yet
speaking. An aide sits behind her massaging her tiny face, trying to
encourage her muscle development. There are five other children only
slightly more developed in the classroom with her, and plans for a
second classroom to accommodate children expected to arrive with PDD in
the fall.
``These are the neediest children we've ever seen,'' said Nancy Harvey,
director of the program here.
Many of the children will move on with one on one aides to
kindergarten. Harvey said she hopes that by treating the children now,
schools can avoid dealing with more serious needs later, and that
children will move out of special education.
But with its ample provisions and laws allowing parents the advantage
in deciding when children leave the program, the chances are these
children will be in special education until they graduate from high
school.
``If we have an increase here now, that only means an increase
elsewhere later,'' Antonucci said.
KATE ZERNIKE
This story ran on page a8 of the Boston Globe on 03/31/97.
|
| 846.5 | | ASGMKA::MARTIN | Concerto in 66 Movements | Mon Mar 31 1997 15:04 | 3 |
| What a racket!!!
Consider private education before it is too late!!!
|
| 846.1 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Mon Mar 31 1997 15:04 | 440 |
| Special Ed, A system disabled: Testing the limits
By Kate Zernike, Globe Staff, 03/30/97
First of two parts
Twenty-five years after Massachusetts enacted the nation's first
special education law, it is being used - and abused - in ways its
planners never imagined.
Originally designed to force the public schools to embrace thousands of
severely disabled children declared ``ineducable,'' special education
is now dominated by students who have only minor learning or behavior
disabilities - many so broadly defined they could apply to virtually
any child at some point. Almost 17 percent, or 154,000, of the state's
students are in special education - the nation's highest percentage -
yet fully five out of six are not disabled in the way the law
envisioned.
The nation's vaguest eligibility standards and most generous provisions
have made special education in Massachusetts a way to get everything
from homework help to private school vouchers - even for those on the
honor roll.
A review of state special education records and independent analyses as
well as interviews with educators, parents and lawyers reveal that what
was once a pioneering advance in civil rights for the disabled has
evolved into an entitlement program increasingly out of control.
The key reasons: Soaring legal costs and the threat of litigation are
scaring schools into providing special services to students who may not
warrant them; recent court decisions have required schools to offer an
even broader array of special ed services; and, finally, the clamp on
property taxes in the aftermath of Proposition 2 1/2 in 1980 forced
cutbacks in regular instruction that made special education an
attractive option for parents looking for extras.
And though special ed was intended to safeguard the rights of poorer
parents, a class fault line now runs through the system, with wealthier
families working it to maximum advantage. The percentage of special
education students is surprisingly high in affluent communities like
Newton, Lexington, Lincoln and Cohasset, where expectations for student
success are intense.
Special education isn't so much a stigma anymore; for too many, it's a
perk.
Special education today is the Cambridge family that lives in one of
the city's richest neighborhoods and sends its kindergartners to the
exclusive Shady Hill school at $10,000 a year, yet demanded Cambridge
public schools pay $5,500 for the children's speech therapy.
It is the Springfield 16-year-old who performs on a college level yet
gets the city to pay for a $30,000 boarding school in Connecticut
because on one visit to a public classroom he found it too noisy.
It is the Framingham honors student who got a special ed label for a
disability described as ``difficulty with the quadratic equation and
the Pythagorean theorem.''
``Parents have become skilled consumers,'' said Senate President Thomas
F. Birmingham, the Chelsea Democrat who was co-author of the state's
Education Reform Act of 1993. ``They've been able to navigate the
system to get individualized programs that other children in regular
education are not getting. I'm not convinced that all the kids are what
we would consider `special education.'''
Experts say there is no question the law has accomplished its original
intent. Thousands of workers and college graduates with disabilities
are testimony to its successes. Putting disabled children and regular
students side by side in the classroom has opened doors and minds.
But those who have devoted their lives to special education say its
successes are being demeaned by those who abuse it.
``I'm a real advocate of special education,'' said Vincent Cowhig,
supervisor of special education in Revere. ``I could be in a classroom
quietly teaching history; I'm here because I believe in it. But it's
these abuses that make it so difficult to believe in.''
Seventy-five percent of special ed directors interviewed for a
previously unpublicized 1995 analysis for the state Department of
Education said eligibility guidelines were being abused.
``Parent demands are growing ... and school districts are losing their
ability to deny access to the program,'' said the analysis, done by the
Center for Special Education Finance, an independent California
research group. ``Even when they believe this is warranted.''
And costs are skyrocketing, draining town budgets and regular education
classrooms. Special education expenses rose from $500 million in 1985
to $1.2 billion in 1995. A disproportionate amount of new money under
the Education Reform Act has gone to special ed. To keep up with the
costs, many school districts, including the state's most reputable,
have cut spending on regular education students an average of six
percent since 1992.
Parents exploit generous guidelines
Chapter 766, as the special education law is officially known, was
passed in the spirit of civil rights amid widespread reports of horrors
being inflicted on children with disabilities. A report by the
Massachusetts Advisory Council on Education in 1970 documented
thousands of children languishing on long waiting lists for underfunded
state programs for the disabled. A reform coalition filed suit in state
court, based on arguments used in the landmark school desegregation
case, Brown vs. Board of Education.
The law reflected these influences. Legislators didn't believe they
could simply order public schools to open their doors to the disabled;
they feared schools would become just warehouses. So they included
sweeping language and broad rights, wanting to compensate parents and
children for past inequities.
Parents had the right to demand that a school evaluate their child's
learning needs, and if they didn't agree with the evaluation, to
request a no questions asked, school-paid second opinion by a doctor or
specialist of their choice.
To avoid stigmatizing, eligibility guidelines made no mention of
``disability.'' Instead, they said any child who was not making
``progress'' because of ``a temporary or more permanent adjustment
difficulty'' was eligible for services. Schools had to provide special
education students with whatever service would ``assure maximum
possible development.''
The law was, and still is, the most generous in the nation. Its
eligibility guidelines are looser than the federal standards used by
every other state, which require schools to show that a child has one
of a list of specific disabilities. And it goes beyond the federal
standard limiting states' responsibilities to providing ``a free and
appropriate public education.''
The Massachusetts statute has fostered an atmosphere where parents
believe they can demand any service, and schools believe they have to
provide it, creating a philosophy under which almost any child who
slips, no matter how slightly, is referred to special education.
Consider Michael, a Framingham ninth grader.
His profile in state hearing records describes him as ``well liked by
his teachers and peers, an active member in his school and community.''
He is in several school organizations, plays sports and is in the band.
He has been on an honors track and has consistently gotten all A's. But
six months into his freshman year, he got a 65 on an algebra II quiz.
The poor grade, according to the profile, was due ``in large part to
problems with the concepts of quadratic equations and the Pythagorean
theorem ... which may be related to Michael's learning disability.''
The learning disability, in turn, was characterized as ``difficulty
sorting main idea concepts within a series of details,'' and Attention
Deficit Disorder.
Michael was given tutoring, extra time to complete tests, and
permission to stand up, stretch, and move about the classroom whenever
he wanted and to chew gum or hard candy to help him focus. He also
could sit close to the teacher, and receive a laptop computer and two
textbooks - one to use in school, one to write notes in during tutoring
sessions. His parents argued before the state Bureau of Special
Education Appeals that he needed summer tutoring, saying he would
regress without it. They lost, and have filed a court appeal.
``It's easier to be classified as disabled in Massachusetts - it's just
that simple,'' said Cindi Seidel, who was a special education teacher
and administrator in Missouri, Oregon and Colorado before becoming
superintendent of schools in South Hadley. ``In other states, the line
is much clearer about what is a disabling condition. There were always
kids we agonized over, `Is he special needs?' In Massachusetts, the
definition lets us just put them in.''
Skirting the law: a cottage industry
Yet to understand fully the rates of students classified disabled in
Massachusetts is to understand the influence of an emerging cottage
industry of lawyers and special education evaluators.
The difference between the state and the rest of the nation is in the
number of students termed ``learning disabled.'' At 52 percent,
Massachusetts has twice the national percentage of students with
learning disabilities, according to the 1995 analysis. Many are
genuinely disabled; discovering a disability like dyslexia has been the
turning point in a school career and a launching pad to success for
many students who once thought they just couldn't read.
But studies have shown that 80 percent of the general population could
be found to have a learning disability. Specialists define that as a
gap between potential and performance. Yet there is nothing in the
state's law to define how much of a gap constitutes a disability.
Since the law was passed, doctors have identified a whole new range of
diagnoses, from Attention Deficit Disorder to Oppositional Defiance
Disorder, or resistance to authority. The diagnoses are real in some
children, but educators complain they are so broad as to include
virtually any child at some point.
``When it comes to wondering why your child isn't doing better in
school you refer them to special ed, and it explains things,'' said
Margaret Reed, Holliston's special education administrator. ``It's far
easier for parents to say their child has a disability than to say the
child is a slow learner.''
Schools now have extensive evaluation staff, yet second opinions have
become routine. To test their children, parents can choose from
learning disability clinics at any of the major Boston hospitals, from
independent clinics, or from a growing number of independent
educational specialists.
Schools and hearing officers who preside over the appeals process say
the diagnoses are often boilerplate. Schools can predict what the
disability will be by who does the evaluating. Appeals officers report
getting form letters describing diagnoses, with the student's name as,
say, ``John,'' throughout, except in one space where the evaluator has
forgotten to change the name of the last client, ``Jane.''
``You can shop for a diagnosis,'' said Jim Shillinglaw, director of
special education in Barnstable. ``In all likelihood, the parents will
find somebody who will confirm what they are trying to believe is their
child's difficulty.''
Evaluations cost the state $60 million in 1995-96. Although the state
Rate Setting Commission sets hourly fees for evaluators, schools say
they routinely pay more than those rates. For, increasingly, parents
who don't get what they want are threatening to take the school to a
hearing.
Nothing frightens a school system more.
The law set up the appeals process as a hearing between a hearing
officer and parents. Yet there are at least five law firms in greater
Boston specializing in special education law, charging $150 to $225 an
hour.
Hearings have become laborious and expensive, featuring a parade of
lawyers, expert witnesses, family members, doctors and teachers, for
whom the school system must hire substitutes to fill the classroom.
They commonly last five days and cost $40,000 for each side in legal
fees - the average annual salary for a teacher in Massachusetts. And
federal law requires the school to pay the parents' legal fees if they
win.
School success rates in hearings have risen from 30 to 50 percent over
the past ten years. But schools say they fear going to hearings,
believing they can't defend themselves against a parent seeking to
assure a child's ``maximum possible development,'' which seems like a
bottomless pit of services.
And even a win is expensive. The town of Sharon last year paid $20,000
to win a one-day hearing in which the officer ruled the school did not
have to reimburse parents for speech therapy services a kindergartner
missed when school was canceled because of snow.
So in 95 percent of cases, according to state records, school systems
settle before the hearing, often giving in not because they think it is
educationally sound, but because it will avoid legal fees.
``I call them nuisance fees,'' said Robert Doyle, special education
administrator for the Sharon schools.
The mere threat of a hearing has become a powerful weapon. The number
of hearings is up 76 percent over the past 10 years, from 359 in 1986
to 632 in 1996. But the percentage of cases actually completed has
declined, from 15 percent to 5 percent.
The bulk of hearing requests come from wealthier communities. Since
July 1995, Marblehead and Lexington each has had more complaints to the
Board of Special Education Appeals than Chelsea, Holyoke, Fitchburg and
Lawrence combined.
``These are people who are saying, `Whoa, there's rights here,''' said
Richard Sullivan, a Braintree lawyer who started his career
representing parents and now represents school systems, mostly on the
North Shore. ``The law is not filtering down to those it was intended
to help.''
In Amherst, a high school student classified as mildly learning
disabled had been getting B's in his senior year. But his parents
didn't think he was ready for college. So they asked the school to pay
for an extra year at a $30,000 private school before giving him a
diploma. When the parents threatened a hearing, the school settled for
a $20,000 one-on-one tutor for a year.
``This is the way parents get us to do what they want,'' said Frank
Gagliardi, director of special education in Stoneham and former head of
the state's Association of Special Educators.
Public money going to private schools
Although the intent of the Massachusetts special education law was to
include students with disabilities in public schools, the state is
twice as likely as the rest of the nation to educate them in private
schools, according to federal reports. For the 1995-96 school year,
Massachusetts spent $137 million on private day schools for special
education students and $45.3 million on private residential schools,
including tuition and transportation.
A public school classroom might offer the same services, but many
parents argue that private schools are more likely to meet the standard
of ``assuring'' maximum development.
Federal and state courts have ruled that parents can place their
children in private school, even if the school is not approved for
special education, then come back and demand tuition from the public
schools.
Charles Allen, a Cambridge parent, put his son Chip in the private
Carroll School in Lincoln for students with learning disabilities after
four years in the Cambridge schools, then hired a lawyer and asked
Cambridge for tuition. Chip had been scoring at grade level in the
learning disabilities program in Cambridge. But his father said in an
interview that his son's IQ suggested he should have been scoring two
years above grade level. He hired two experts to testify at a hearing,
who both said the boy needed ``direct instruction,'' the kind of
teaching offered at Carroll. His father testified that Chip was
``totally invested in the Carroll program.''
The hearing officer disagreed that the boy needed a private school,
saying he could have been served in a Cambridge program, with
modifications. But because the parent was seeking retroactive tuition,
that was no longer an option. Cambridge was ordered to reimburse the
parents for two years past tuition, current tuition, plus the price of
the minivan that takes Chip to school each morning. Total cost:
$88,000.
Private school tuitions range from $30,000 a year for a school such as
Carroll to $183,000 for a residential school for autistic children.
But the bulk of special education expenses remain in the public
schools, where 80 percent of special ed students still spend at least
some of their time in regular classrooms. Special education has become
a tutoring service or a way to get a personalized education - in many
cases, whether or not there is a disability, according to teachers and
program directors.
The percentage numbers of students in special ed rose steadily after
Proposition 2 1/2, the property tax limit passed in 1980, from 13
percent to 17 percent of all students. The special education population
rose even as total school population declined. Schools found themselves
with fewer resources, and responded by cutting extras: reading
specialists, teachers' aides, remedial courses. They cut hundreds of
teachers, increasing class size, and giving the teachers who were left
less time to spend with each child. Programs for so-called ``gifted and
talented'' students also were cut.
But schools could not cut special education; it is an entitlement that
state and federal law requires them to pay for, no matter the cost. So
parents saw that as a place to get services.
``There's no other game in town,'' said Gagliardi, of Stoneham.
The most significant increases have been in the percentage of students
who get up to an hour and a half a day of special help, which went from
7 percent in 1980 to 15.7 percent last year.
In communitites with METCO, the program that buses minority students
from cities to the suburbs, special education produces a dichotomy of
class: Teachers say parents of the METCO students generally reject the
special ed designation, fearing it carries a stigma; parents of
resident children often actively seek it.
``It's not a stigma anymore in Brookline,'' said the town's
superintendent of schools, James Walsh. ``Parents want it. It's a way
to get services.''
Schools will allow children with a disability to watch the film version
of a book instead of reading the book. They will offer untimed exams -
in Lexington, one student diagnosed with anxiety took the entire summer
to write his finals. Schools will rewrite tests, giving the student
three, instead of five, multiple choice selections to give those who
have difficulty with complex topics a better chance at getting the
right answer. They will provide lectures on tape or copies of notes
taken by other students. High school students can get an untimed SAT,
which boosts scores an average of 100 points, according to the college
board. The number of students seeking an untimed SAT has doubled
nationally in the past five years.
Colleges don't know which students are geting special treatment since
federal law prevents high schools from indicating on transcripts
whether students have been in special education.
Schools often are complicit in steering non-disabled children into
special ed. One father in a wealthy Boston suburb tells, with some
horror, about his daughter's middle school teacher referring her to
special ed after she clammed up in math class. When he asked her about
it, his daughter explained that she didn't want to speak up; the last
time she did, boys teased her.
A move from Brighton to Brookline, or Somerville to Sudbury can prompt
a need for special education because the courses become harder. In some
cases, special educators grudgingly admit, state Board of Education
chairman John Silber is right when he says some children in special
education are just slow learners.
``Systems like us have been too easy to say, `Let's put them in special
ed,''' Brookline's Walsh said.
All in all, the current picture is a far cry from the old vision of
educating the ineducable.
``The law was supposed to provide for children who had disabilities,''
said Commissioner of Education Robert V. Antonucci. ``What we have now
is a long way from what the original writers of the law envisioned.
There are too many children labeled, too much business for lawyers, and
too much paperwork for schools.''
Yet the system has eluded reform.
Everytime the Legislature proposes to change the special education law,
advocates crowd the State House, bringing children in wheelchairs and
others who can only testify by speaking through computers. They insist
the bill would leave them without an education, and emotion wins the
day: Reform bills have failed the past two years.
Yet the reforms would mainly tighten eligibility to reflect federal
standards. Under those standards, all the children who testified would
be covered.
Advocates and legislators alike are promising this will be the year of
change; costs are threatening not only to blow out municipal budgets,
but also to derail education reform. The state's school administrators
and a group of advocates hired a professional mediator to hammer out a
proposal for change that both could support, and recently announced
their backing for tighter eligibility guidelines and controls on second
opinion evaluations. But much depends on the Legislature, which has two
commissions studying special education. Their reports, and proposed
legislation, are due June 1.
``We've been saying for 20 years that costs are out of control, but
nothing happens except that parents who are dealing with really
challenged kids are somehow made to feel ashamed that they're tapping
into an entitlement, as if they don't deserve it,'' said Holliston's
Reed. ``Meanwhile, the other people, the people who are saying `I'm
going to use this to get whatever I can,' continue to abuse it. They're
taking away from the power of all the really wonderful things that can
happen with special ed. And there's a backlash against all the kids.''
Tomorrow
Special education programs have become dumping grounds for bad
behavior.
This story ran on page a1 of the Boston Globe on 03/30/97.
|
| 846.2 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Mon Mar 31 1997 15:05 | 65 |
| In Concord, back to the basics
By Kate Zernike, 03/30/97
CONCORD - Six years ago, the schools here had the same high special ed
numbers, the same special ed habits as those in other affluent suburbs.
A kindergartner who wrote a B backwards would be declared disabled; 21
percent of children were in special education - one of the highest
percentages in the state.
Then the Concord schools took the step special education reformers say
schools must take: They put the emphasis, and the money, back in the
regular classroom.
Today, Concord's numbers are half of what they were six years ago. At
9.9 percent, the town boasts the lowest special ed rate in the state.
``We've taken away a crutch that in many cases, isn't necessary,'' said
Superintendent Tom Scott. ``And we've proven that you can do it.''
Calling its plan the K-2 Initiative, Concord focused on the first three
years of public school, when many students are first referred to
special education - most of them never to come out.
In those grades, the schools put the specialists who used to work only
with special education students in regular classrooms to work with the
teacher and 22 students. The aides float between classrooms, spending
an hour and a half in each. They work with groups of five students for
reading periods. Difficulty reading was the most common reason to be
referred to special education.
It seems too simple a step, a mere hour and a half.
But teachers and parents here say that by cutting the student-teacher
ratio, students can get the kind of individualized attention that used
to be available only in special ed.
The initiative also made a psychological difference.
``We used to think there was some magic in special education,'' said
Irene Hannigan, language arts specialist at the Alcott School. ``Now
regular teachers realize they have the power to work with these kids.''
In fact, pulling kids out for special education often made their minor
problems worse. Students who left to go to a resource room would miss
what was being taught back in the regular classroom. And they were
learning to read by different methods than the ones the classroom
teachers were using, so when they got back to the regular class,
students would still find themselves confused.
Now, Concord students rarely, if ever, leave class. It's not as if no
one is monitoring for real learning disabilities; teachers are keeping
a closer eye on students because they work with them in smaller groups.
But they say they are more relaxed about the pace at which children
learn, less willing to label as ``disabled'' someone who is simply
taking more time to learn to read.
``We were trying to jump the gun before on things that the gift of time
would take care of,'' said Dru-Ann Kocur, a second grade teacher at the
Alcott. ``Some kids might need a little boost. But we don't need to
blow it out of proportion.''
KATE ZERNIKE
This story ran on page a19 of the Boston Globe on 03/30/97.
|
| 846.6 | | ASGMKA::MARTIN | Concerto in 66 Movements | Mon Mar 31 1997 15:19 | 14 |
| Z The percentage of special education students is surprisingly high in
Z affluent communities like Newton, Lexington, Lincoln and Cohasset, where
Z expectations for student success are intense.
When one lives in affluency, they are more inclined to live in a
sanitized, plastic environment. Due to the baby boomers inert need to
keep up with the Joneses, the children are often given secondary
consideration. Oh they are showered with the guilt money and all that
good murican know how...but once the family unit decays into the black
hole, the children will wither fall into a deep depression or they will
rebel to the core. This is one of those many instances where people's
personal behavior affects everybody!
-Jack
|
| 846.7 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Because I Can. | Mon Mar 31 1997 15:23 | 4 |
|
Jack, I'm changing your name from Meaty to BroadBrush. OK?
|
| 846.8 | | WECARE::GRIFFIN | John Griffin zko1-3/b31 381-1159 | Mon Mar 31 1997 15:26 | 2 |
|
I'd like to hear more about those inert needs. Please continue.
|
| 846.9 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Because I Can. | Mon Mar 31 1997 15:27 | 6 |
|
I'd like to hear more about the sanitized and plastic environment in
which affluent children grow up.
<tapping foot>
|
| 846.10 | 8^) | BUSY::SLAB | Antisocial | Mon Mar 31 1997 15:30 | 4 |
|
Affluent children usually pout and tap their feet until they get
what they want, also.
|
| 846.11 | | WECARE::GRIFFIN | John Griffin zko1-3/b31 381-1159 | Mon Mar 31 1997 15:32 | 10 |
| Let me try to connect the dots.
Sanitized and plastic equals latex.
Latex equals condom.
Condom equals promiscuity.
Promiscuity equals no family values.
No family values equals end of civilization as we know it.
End of civilization as we know it equals need to recycle containers.
Taxi!
|
| 846.12 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Because I Can. | Mon Mar 31 1997 15:36 | 7 |
|
.10
...hey!
8^p
|
| 846.13 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Mon Mar 31 1997 15:54 | 26 |
| re: .0-.3
And we wonder why the current state of education is what it is.
Schools are forced to provide "maximum possible development" regardless
of cost the second one is coded "special needs." Meanwhile, money is
being diverted from the education of the rest of the students, meaning
larger classes and less attention per student, no new books or AV aids,
etc. So guess what happens. Some of the students who have been
neglected due to the diversion of resources into the special ed
programs develop a gap between their potential and their
accomplishments- which qualifies them to be special ed students! There
is no actual disability, it's simply a matter of being educationally
neglected by a system that continues to cater to those declared to be
disabled at the expense of the rest of the children. And despite the
law's refusal to accept the reality that in the end, there is no
endless supply of money for education there are, in fact, limits as to
what constitutes responsible expenditures and what constitutes reckless
profligacy.
The rampant abuse of the system by people seeking to shirk their own
responsibilities is encouraged by a law that lacks even the most
rudimentary bounds or common sense. This is a thoroughly disgusting
example of wretched excess for the few stealing from the basic rights
of the many.
|
| 846.15 | | ASGMKA::MARTIN | Concerto in 66 Movements | Mon Mar 31 1997 16:30 | 14 |
| Mz. Debra:
True I can only go by my personal experiences. My sister n law, who
once boasted having ten of her closest Wellesley Hills friends bite the
bullet in divorce court has recently taken the plunge herself. Seems
to be a predominant mentality in her neck of the woods. It's a contest
with these people....I don't get it!
Consider the following. Her darling gem of a son is costing the city
of Newton a good 230K a year. This kid has a discipline problem...pure
and simple. If you were a property owner in Newton...wouldn't this bug
you to no end?! I'd be pissed. This kid needs a military school.
-Jack
|
| 846.16 | | BIGHOG::PERCIVAL | I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO | Mon Mar 31 1997 16:37 | 7 |
| <<< Note 846.15 by ASGMKA::MARTIN "Concerto in 66 Movements" >>>
>This kid needs a military school.
A single-gendered one I bet!
Jim
|
| 846.17 | | ASGMKA::MARTIN | Concerto in 66 Movements | Mon Mar 31 1997 16:43 | 1 |
| Without a doubt!
|
| 846.18 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Soapbox NCAA ex-champion | Mon Mar 31 1997 16:46 | 3 |
|
I highly recommend the Citadel. lovely school, great tradition.
you would be amazed what they do with nail polish remover.
|
| 846.19 | nevermind | ABACUS::JENNISON | Angels Guide Me From The Clouds | Mon Mar 31 1997 16:47 | 1 |
| like...
|
| 846.20 | | GAVEL::JANDROW | | Mon Mar 31 1997 22:06 | 5 |
|
jack, sorry to hear that your bitter pill (sisterinlaw) has ruined your
perception of the rest of the world. while people like her do exist,
they are not the norm. too bad you can't see past the end of her nose.
|
| 846.21 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Tue Apr 01 1997 11:38 | 12 |
| This is yet another example of a program that started out as having a
very clear purpose and targeted to help a specific group of
individuals, but has grown into another bloated, corrupt government
give-away. the complex problem is how does it get changed?
Anyone who proposes a change to "education" will get eaten alive by the
opposition and media. It was done with Medicare and Social Security
and would certainly happen with this.
Until we start making these programs truly accountable we will see more
of this and get an increasing deficit and fededral intusion.
|
| 846.22 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Tue Apr 01 1997 11:42 | 116 |
| Leaders eye reform of special ed: Weld, legislators say law is abused
By Kate Zernike, Globe Staff, 04/01/97
Governor William F. Weld and top legislative leaders called yesterday
for a tightening of eligibility standards for special education, saying
the pioneering law that set up the system 25 years ago has allowed
parents and a cottage industry of lawyers to abuse it.
Reacting to abuses in the special-education system detailed in a Boston
Globe series, leaders called reforms to the $1.2 billion program long
overdue.
``This is a system that allows those who are more aggressive or
ambitious to beat the daylights out of those who are playing by the
rules,'' said House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran. He said 1997 ``is the
year you'll see some fundamental changes, to inject a little common
sense and equity into this rather than having advocates and aggressive
parents just send us the bill.''
The Globe series outlined how special-education privileges increasingly
go to parents who threaten legal action to get what they want, even if
their children would not have been considered disabled by the framers
of the law, or by other states. By giving protection to children who
break school rules, special education has also become a safe haven for
those who misbehave, with a growing number of students claiming
disabilities simply to avoid being kicked out of school, the series
found.
In Massachusetts almost 17 percent of public school students are in
special education, more than any other state. Increasingly, abuses of
special-education entitlements are costing children in regular
classrooms.
``The choice for the people of Massachusetts is to decide whether we're
going to continue to let any student whose parents decide to exploit
the system rip it off, to take a major portion of the budget and devote
it exclusively and excessively to their own interests,'' said John
Silber, chairman of the state Board of Education. ``The systematic
selfishness has to be removed in the interest of equality of
opportunity.''
The Globe series pointed out for the first time that 60 percent of
students in special education in Massachusetts have learning or
behavioral problems - vague categories open to abuse because of
eligibility standards that are the loosest in the nation.
``That's not the population that the law was originally designed to
benefit,'' Weld said. ``This is a confirmation of a problem we thought
existed. It's kind of like ... the welfare situation. We knew there was
a problem there, but this really brings it home.''
Finneran, Weld, and Senate President Thomas F. Birmingham noted that
past reforms have failed because of the efforts of well-organized
activists who have claimed that reform would deprive severely disabled
children.
The state leaders said they will seek changes in the law that would
guarantee special ed for those who need it but prevent students from
getting such services simply because they misbehave, or to get a little
extra tutoring.
First among the changes, the legislative leaders said, is to bring
Massachusetts eligibility criteria into line with other states, which
have more specific requirements for defining emotional and learning
disabilities.
Under the Massachusetts law, the nation's first and most generous,
schools do not have to specify what a student's disability is, only to
check off a box saying ``disabled.'' Students are allowed into special
education if they are not making progress in the regular classroom, and
once into the system, are entitled to whatever services assure
``maximum possible development.''
The more stringent federal standard, used by every other state,
requires students to be defined according to a specific list of
disabilities, and limits schools' responsibility to merely ``a free and
appropriate public education.''
``We have more kids in special education than any other state, and it
can't be because the kids in Massachusetts genetically have more
problems,'' Weld said. ``It's a matter of how the law is interpreted.''
Silber said the law ought to be restricted to students with genuine
physical and mental impairments. ``If you have above average IQ, it
ought to be an absolute bar to special education,'' he said.
Legislative and education leaders also said they would tighten
eligibility standards so that children can't get into special education
simply because they break school rules. Now, the law prevents schools
from kicking out students who are in special education. The Globe
series pointed out that as the number of expulsions has gone up over
the past three years, an increasing number of students are claiming a
disability to get back in school.
Finneran said he wanted to change the portions of the law that allow
parents generous opportunities to challenge schools, both in deciding
whether a child has a disability, and what to do about it. While the
challenge provisions were included in the fear that schools would cheat
poor parents - whose children were the impetus for the law - the
challenges are now dominated by families in communities where parents
can afford to hire lawyers.
``The whole explosion just goes to show what can happen whenever the
Legislature embraces a program out of the best of intentions but
without any analysis of what might go wrong,'' Finneran said.
Legislative leaders said specific proposals for reform would come after
a special legislative commission on special education makes its report
in early June.
``I think the time is with us now,'' said Harold M. Lane Jr., the
Holden Democrat whos House Chairman of the Legislature's Education
Committee. ``There's momentum building.''
This story ran on page a1 of the Boston Globe on 04/01/97.
|
| 846.23 | This affect everyone | NETCAD::MORRISON | Bob M. LKG2-A/R5 226-7570 | Tue Apr 01 1997 17:12 | 10 |
| This issue affects people who don't have school-age children too. In many
towns in MA's Digital territory, the schools are a black hole that eats up
huge amounts of money. One result of this is that other infrastructure im-
provements, such as safety improvements on streets and town roads, new
libraries, new fire stations, etc., don't get built. And this affects everyone,
whether they have kids or not.
Re special ed and higher property taxes: If you are a renter, you are not
off the hook either, because higher property taxes mean higher rents. The
landlord may "eat" a small part of property tax increases, but most of it is
passed on in the form of higher rents.
|
| 846.24 | | BULEAN::BANKS | Saturn Sap | Wed Apr 02 1997 09:36 | 19 |
| You know, special ed isn't all bad. Yes, the schools do abuse psychiatric
and psychological diagnoses in the name of classroom management. My
favorite (NOT!) is labelling anyone who acts out as having ADHD, then
shoving a class 2 controlled substance down his (usually "his") throat.
OTOH, I have been seeing children who are in special ed, and very much
deserve to be. Things like PDD (Pervasive Developmental Disorder, which is
just newage dogmaspeak for the class of disorders of which autism is the
best known). Things like that, with parents who have no money. The
encouraging thing is that a lot of these kids are salvageable to some
extent or another. I didn't believe it at first, but some are going to go
on to be useful taxpaying members of society.
Not bad, when the alternative has been to toss the kid into a "home," and
encourage them to become animals.
In our zeal to eliminate abuses as shown here (and I have no doubt that
they both exist and are rampant), I sure hope we don't end up tossing those
who really need these services down the toilet.
|
| 846.25 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Wed Apr 02 1997 10:01 | 22 |
| .24
What you have identified is exactly what is wrong with just about every
government program. You can look across the board and find that just
about every government social program is guilty of the same abuses.
the original intent and purposeo fthe program is expanded far beyond
what it was designed to do and the cost goes up exponentially. It
finally reaches a point where the abuses become so apparent. like this,
that the entire program is targeted for elimination, and then the name
calling starts.
The battle lines get drawn between those "meanies" that want to cut the
program and those "caring" people who do not want any changes. So
instead of actually debating and changing the program to get the
maximum benefit for the minimum cost, at best a minor change is made
that gets rolled out against everyone with no affect.
All of these programs need to be eliminated in their entirety and
re-proposed to their original scope. this goes for everything from the
special ed funding to Social Security, Medicare, Genral assistance,
etc.
|
| 846.26 | | BULEAN::BANKS | Saturn Sap | Wed Apr 02 1997 10:04 | 2 |
| I don't debate reforms, I just don't want the baby thrown out with the
bathwater. Again.
|
| 846.27 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Apr 02 1997 12:28 | 9 |
| The article in Sunday's Globe gives the impression that when parents take
the school district to court, the school district will simply throw in the
towel and give them what they want. When we were considering appealing
Boston's refusal to take our wishes into account in education our daughter,
we were told by _every_ professional we consulted that we would be unlikely
to win in court, and that even if we did, we'd have to go back to court
every year. Furthermore, if the court ruled in Boston's favor, and we
decided to bite the bullet and place her privately at our own expense,
we could be found in contempt of court.
|
| 846.28 | Bottom line - it works. Go after the scum. Period. | PERFOM::LICEA_KANE | when it's comin' from the left | Wed Apr 02 1997 12:52 | 26 |
| | Experts say there is no question the law has accomplished its original
| intent. Thousands of workers and college graduates with disabilities
| are testimony to its successes. Putting disabled children and regular
| students side by side in the classroom has opened doors and minds.
So go after the scum-who-steal.
I do not begrudge dime one for the extra money required for special
needs students in regular classrooms. I do not begrudge dollar one for
the enormous money required for special needs students in specialized
residential schools.
But if a student has a desire to attend a prep school before heading
to the Ivy of their whim, by all means send them to a prep school.
On *their* dime, not mine.
The stories in the Globe are not entirely truthful. Part of the
failure of special needs "reform" the last two attempts was that
"reformers" wanted to do away with regular classroom programs
(so called "mainstreaming"). These programs work, are cost effective,
are better for the special needs children, and are better for all of
the children.
-mr. bill
|
| 846.29 | | ASGMKA::MARTIN | Concerto in 66 Movements | Wed Apr 02 1997 13:37 | 7 |
| Raq:
It's not a matter of me seeing past the end of her nose. It's a matter
of her social experiment causing a considerable rise in your property
taxes. This is what bugs me. Her personal choices bit us in the rump!
-Jack
|
| 846.30 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Because I Can. | Wed Apr 02 1997 13:42 | 3 |
|
What, the kid has no father?
|
| 846.31 | speaking about being "not entirely truthful" | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Wed Apr 02 1997 14:02 | 10 |
| >Part of the failure of special needs "reform" the last two attempts was
>that "reformers" wanted to do away with regular classroom programs (so
>called "mainstreaming"). These programs work, are cost effective, are
>better for the special needs children, and are better for all of the
>children.
In your opinion. They are highly controversial, not nearly as cost
effective as you claim, provide some benefits and some detriments. They
are certainly not the unequivocal success you paint them to be,
otherwise there would be no attempt to do away with them.
|
| 846.32 | | ASGMKA::MARTIN | Concerto in 66 Movements | Wed Apr 02 1997 14:57 | 4 |
| Debra:
Sorry...dad has been out of the picture for a few years now. Mom
created the little monster while dad provided the means.
|
| 846.33 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Wed Apr 02 1997 15:07 | 4 |
|
<ducks for cover>
|
| 846.34 | | TUXEDO::GASKELL | | Wed Apr 02 1997 15:20 | 27 |
| .25
>>All of these programs need to be eliminated in their entirety and
re-proposed to their original scope. this goes for everything from
the special ed funding to Social Security, Medicare, Genral assistance,
etc.<<
Oh very nice, and what are those in need supposed to do until the
proposals are approved and implemented, hold their breath and try not to
drown? Scrapping it all and starting again would be a hundred times more
expensive and catastrophic than simply fixing the problems.
The problem with these programs is bad management and lack of
accountability. Having met a few of what passes for managers and
supervisors in government services I came to the conclusion that the only
thing they should be allowed to run is a bath, and no one is motivated
to change that. The civil service has become a pit of patronage jobs
and neither Dems or Pubs wants that to change.
And while we're talking about mismanagement of public money, you have
left one big government money pit out -- the Pentagon. The money they
waste makes the budget for special ed. look very puny. The lads don't
even want to incorporate simple, general bookeeping practices. Hey buddy,
put that Scud back, it's my money you're spending and I can't afford it.
If we're going to scrap it all and start again then let's add them to
the heap.
|
| 846.35 | Separate but equal - where have we heard *that* before? | PERFOM::LICEA_KANE | when it's comin' from the left | Wed Apr 02 1997 15:27 | 26 |
|
| In your opinion. They are highly controversial, not nearly as cost
| effective as you claim, provide some benefits and some detriments. They
| are certainly not the unequivocal success you paint them to be,
| otherwise there would be no attempt to do away with them.
The "controversy" comes down to little more than frequent ranting
that a child in a wheelchair (for example) somehow harms "regular"
children. No facts to back it up, just rants.
**********************************
It has *nothing* to do with fraud.
**********************************
Special education reform to address the fraud "exposed" by the Globe
could be had tomorrow.
But no, the "reformers" want far more, and they want to blame "emotion"
for their failure to pass real reform.
It is a *LIE* to say a child in a wheelchair is still covered by
special education - when the "reformers" want to keep special education
students out of the regular classroom.
-mr. bill
|
| 846.36 | ah, yes, the stupid Fourteenth again... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | And nothing else matters | Wed Apr 02 1997 15:28 | 17 |
|
Who says what persons are "disabled" and what persons are not ?
Whoever it is, do not trust their motives. See where the money goes,
and assume the worst.
Assuming, "authority x" has the power of determination, what are
"authority x"'s motives ? How does authority x benefit from finding
that a person is disabled ? How does authority x benefit from finding
that a person IS NOT disabled ?
Is "special education" in conformance with the Fourteenth Amendment,
which says no state shall deny any of its citizens equal protection
of the laws ? Does a normal student receive an equal protection to
that provided to a "special needs" student ? If not, must not the court
void the law ?
bb
|
| 846.37 | | ASGMKA::MARTIN | Concerto in 66 Movements | Wed Apr 02 1997 15:29 | 13 |
| Z Oh very nice, and what are those in need supposed to do until the
Z proposals are approved and implemented, hold their breath and try
Z not to drown? Scrapping it all and starting again would be a hundred
Z times more expensive and catastrophic than simply fixing the problems.
Rosemary:
We've been through this before. Public assistance is in a continual
state of entropy and in the end, we WILL be stuck making difficult
decisions. Better to get it over with now before our options are
completely limited.
-Jack
|
| 846.38 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Wed Apr 02 1997 16:12 | 55 |
| >The "controversy" comes down to little more than frequent ranting
>that a child in a wheelchair (for example) somehow harms "regular"
>children.
How fitting that you chose this as your example, because you are just
the kind of guy to wheel such an example into the statehouse for some
emotional testimony as how this person will be denied "the least we can
do" if any reform is enacted to the special needs law.
The fact of the matter is that mainstreaming has its negatives. I
fully expect you to demand that we ignore what our own eyes and ears
tell us and take your assertion to the contrary on faith. You know, the
old "No facts to back it up," just emotional appeals.
I completely agree that there are some benefits to _some degree_ of
mainstreaming. But I do not agree with full time mainstreaming because
mainstreaming also has negatives. Practically no one complains about
the mainstreaming of physically challenged students provided they are
placed in classes appropriate to their ability, so I won't even address
that particular canard. The push of the reformers is to get the
distractions caused by the mainstreaming of severely mentally
handicapped and behaviorally challenged children out of the classroom.
Whether or not Bill chooses to accept it, children that cry out
uncontrollably in the classroom ARE a distraction. I know of at least
one child whose parents decided to move him into a private school
because since he got into a class where mainstreaming was being
practiced (3 Down's children) his progress was interrupted due to the
frequent uncontrollable cries' impact on his concentration. This is not
to say that Down's children should be locked in a room away from
"normal" people all the time, because interaction with such children is
good both for the affected children themselves and the rest of the
class. But just as it is inappropriate to have them locked away all of
the time, it is equally inappropriate to dump them in the classrooms
all the time.
>Special education reform to address the fraud "exposed" by the Globe
>could be had tomorrow.
And isn't because the supporters of reform think it's more important
to lock "different" children away than stop the fraud? <guffaw!> How
transparent. It's just not that simple because no matter what, some
people look at any attempt to reign in special ed eligibility as a
direct assault on poor, doe-eyed kids in wheelchairs. Not to mention
the fact that the "cottage industry" of lawyers specializing in
'special ed' cases and 'expert witnesses" therapists and the like whose
very livelihoods are predicated on the existence of this gravy train
lobby long, hard, and loud against ANY change to the status quo.
>It is a *LIE* to say a child in a wheelchair is still covered by
>special education - when the "reformers" want to keep special education
>students out of the regular classroom.
No, it is not. It's a clever ploy to attempt to bind the issues
unequivocally. But it's merely a ploy, and is easily seen through when
your motives are questioned.
|
| 846.39 | The ABUSE can be stopped NOW! Why isn't it? | PERFOM::LICEA_KANE | when it's comin' from the left | Wed Apr 02 1997 16:41 | 100 |
| | How fitting that you chose this as your example, because you are just
| the kind of guy to wheel such an example into the statehouse for some
| emotional testimony as how this person will be denied "the least we can
| do" if any reform is enacted to the special needs law.
Bzzzt. I chose this example because the Globe reporter chose this
example. Or don't you read what you post?
| The fact of the matter is that mainstreaming has its negatives.
The fact of the matter is that public school has its negatives.
The fact of the matter is that private school has its negatives.
| I fully expect you to demand that we ignore what our own eyes and ears
| tell us and take your assertion to the contrary on faith.
No, but pardon me if I call the expected anecdotes - anecdotes.
| I completely agree that there are some benefits to _some degree_ of
| mainstreaming. But I do not agree with full time mainstreaming because
| mainstreaming also has negatives.
Gosh, we can't have *any* negatives can we? The positives far
outweigh the negatives. No matter how you measure. No matter who you
measure.
| Practically no one complains about the mainstreaming of physically
| challenged students provided they are placed in classes appropriate to
| their ability, so I won't even address that particular canard.
Right, next time someone complains about the cost of making a school
building or a school bus accessible, and that it would be more cost
effective to ship the few children off the "special" schools instead,
I'll remember that "practically no one complains."
And next time someone is complaining about the special needs child
with the colostomy bag (seems the infrequent accidents that can
occur was causing a "disturbance" and causing the "regular children"
to be "harmed"), I'll rememer that "practically no one complains."
| The push of the reformers is to get the distractions caused by the
| mainstreaming of severely mentally handicapped and behaviorally
| challenged children out of the classroom.
The Globe series was clear that the reformers were going after
*ABUSE.*
Silly me, I thought maybe pointing out the "reformers" have other things
on their agenda was important. Especially, since it is the *OTHER*
*THINGS* on their agenda that's causing reform to fail.
Disruptive behavior needs to be dealt with as disruptive behavior.
But the problem is when "regular" Joshua disrupts a classroom, the
cry is out that he should be cut some slack (and put on the front
page of a newspaper.) But heaven help the *slightest* problem in
a classroom, the special needs children get unfairly blamed as the
cause.
| [Anecdote deleted.]
Find me a study that compares regular classrooms with some special
education students with regular classrooms without any special education
students. Find me a study that compares special education students
in regular classrooms with special education students in specialized
classrooms.
Tell me what these studies conclude? (Hint, they don't back up
your anecdote.)
| It's just not that simple because no matter what, some
| people look at any attempt to reign in special ed eligibility as a
| direct assault on poor, doe-eyed kids in wheelchairs.
Gosh, for someone claiming that emotion gets in the way, you sure are
pushing buttons here.
Some people do look at any attempt to reign in special ed eligibility
as something to be fought, either because of misdirected worry that
someone will be harmed by such reform, or because of conflict of
interest.
But I'll repeat it here again. IT'S REAL SIMPLE. Special Education
reform to address the ABUSE documented in the Globe series could be
passed immediately. It's really quite easy to count heads in the
House and Senate and say - yup, this could pass tomorrow. THE VOTES
ARE THERE. But some of the "reformers" have a not-so-hidden agenda.
| No, it is not. It's a clever ploy to attempt to bind the issues
| unequivocally.
I'm not the one binding the issues together. Some of the "reformers"
are.
| But it's merely a ploy, and is easily seen through when your motives
| are questioned.
Gosh, heaven help the poor noter who *gasp* questions the Globe.
(Or you.)
-mr. bill
|
| 846.40 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Wed Apr 02 1997 16:51 | 53 |
| >Gosh, we can't have *any* negatives can we? The positives far
>outweigh the negatives. No matter how you measure. No matter who you
>measure.
According to whom? And since it doesn't matter how you measure, how
about some concrete metrics?
>Right, next time someone complains about the cost of making a school
>building or a school bus accessible,
Non sequitur. The ADA made it the law that all schools must be
wheelchair accessible. Next canard?
> And next time someone is complaining about the special needs child
> with the colostomy bag (seems the infrequent accidents that can
> occur was causing a "disturbance"
It was causing a disturbance, was it? Surely the child must have been
suspended. What? No plastic gun? Nevermind.
> The Globe series was clear that the reformers were going after
> *ABUSE.*
You got me on that one. What I meant to say was "the push of those
against mainstreaming..." My mistake.
> Disruptive behavior needs to be dealt with as disruptive behavior.
I completely agree. Disruptive children need to be removed from the
classroom. Oops! Sorry! Can't do that anymore. They've been coded as
special needs. That means it doesn't matter WHAT rules they break, they
cannot be punished by more than a 2 week suspension.
> But heaven help the *slightest* problem in a classroom, the special
> needs children get unfairly blamed as the cause.
And we know that by definition, a special needs child cannot be fairly
cited as the cause of a distrubance, regardless of what behavior
prompted the disturbance (even if he took a real gun to school.)
> Tell me what these studies conclude? (Hint, they don't back up
> your anecdote.)
Pointers to back up your assertion?
> I'm not the one binding the issues together.
Where's the smirk? You say this with a straight face. You should be in
movies.
> Gosh, heaven help the poor noter who *gasp* questions the Globe.
Unless it supports your side...
|
| 846.41 | I'm the emotional one, you've got the facts. (Where are they?) | PERFOM::LICEA_KANE | when it's comin' from the left | Wed Apr 02 1997 16:58 | 37 |
| | According to whom? And since it doesn't matter how you measure, how
| about some concrete metrics?
Hey, I'm the one with emotion on my side, remember?
You're the one with all the facts.
BTW, where are your facts?
|> Tell me what these studies conclude? (Hint, they don't back up
|> your anecdote.)
|
| Pointers to back up your assertion?
Hey, I'm the one with only emotion on my side, remember?
You're the one with all the facts.
BTW, where ARE your facts?
| Oops! Sorry! Can't do that anymore. They've been coded as special
| needs. That means it doesn't matter WHAT rules they break, they cannot
| be punished by more than a 2 week suspension.
Hey, I'm the one with only emotion on my side, remember?
You're the one with all the facts.
BTW, where ARE your facts? (Hint. You are quite wrong here. HTH.)
| And we know that by definition, a special needs child cannot be fairly
| cited as the cause of a distrubance, regardless of what behavior
| prompted the disturbance (even if he took a real gun to school.)
Hey, I'm the one with only emotion on my side, remember?
You're the one with all the facts.
BTW, where ARE your facts? (Hint. You are quite wrong here too. HTH.)
-mr. bill
|
| 846.42 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Wed Apr 02 1997 17:00 | 12 |
| Re .41:
> BTW, where are your facts?
Where are yours?
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
|
| 846.43 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Ferzie fan | Wed Apr 02 1997 17:12 | 2 |
|
<hush falls over the crowd>
|
| 846.44 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Wed Apr 02 1997 17:39 | 20 |
| .34
Yeah, that's just about it. You cut them off and see just who really
is affected. Do you think for one minute that someone on the brink is
not going to get emergency provisions passed in record time. the issue
is that it will be very focused and just a few people will qualify, AS
IT SHOULD BE!!!!
As you yourself said, most of the programs are badly managed by bad
managers. That should be enough to explain that ending them today is
about 10 years too late.
As far as Pentagon spending is concerned, I would rather that they
spend $700 for a toilet seat just so long as they make sure that every
soldier is trained and equiped with the best weapons ans support
avialalbe and we have the best ships, planes, etc that science can
develop. I would rather have the safety of an expensive milatry to
insure I have the freedom to discuss useless spending programs.
Without the first, everything else really doesn't matter.
|
| 846.45 | | DPE1::ARMSTRONG | | Wed Apr 02 1997 19:26 | 14 |
| My understanding from the teachers and SPED specialists I know
is that the law in Mass is just very poorly written, and has huge
loopholes in it. So in MANY MANY cases, the school is advised by
their council to provided demanded services that would not be
provided in other states. The folks demanding them are not
'sleaze bags' or law breakers, they are just parents advocating
for their kids, and they have the law on their side.
The only folks to me mad at about this whole thing are our
reps for not having the spine to modify the law. Whenever it comes
up they are faced with a horde of VERY photogenic disabled kids
and their parents who are afraid they will no longer get the
services they need. So nothing gets done.
bob
|
| 846.46 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Thu Apr 03 1997 08:10 | 36 |
| >The fact of the matter is that private school has its negatives.
Which are?
>No, but pardon me if I call the expected anecdotes - anecdotes.
ok.
>Right, next time someone complains about the cost of making a school
>building or a school bus accessible, and that it would be more cost
>effective to ship the few children off the "special" schools instead,
>I'll remember that "practically no one complains."
Nice hand waving. Not even an anecdote. Tsk tsk tsk.
>And next time someone is complaining about the special needs child
>with the colostomy bag (seems the infrequent accidents that can
>occur was causing a "disturbance" and causing the "regular children"
>to be "harmed"), I'll rememer that "practically no one complains."
Utterly anecdotal. Guess that means it doesn't count, according to
you. Oh, wait, now I get it. YOUR anecdotes are important, others
aren't. Well, at least that's consistent.
>Find me a study that compares regular classrooms with some special
>education students with regular classrooms without any special education
>students. Find me a study that compares special education students
>in regular classrooms with special education students in specialized
>classrooms.
>Tell me what these studies conclude? (Hint, they don't back up
>your anecdote.)
I guess you aren't going to be citing any studies to prove your
assertions. Quelle surprise.
|
| 846.47 | ? | PERFOM::LICEA_KANE | when it's comin' from the left | Thu Apr 03 1997 09:19 | 14 |
|
| I guess you aren't going to be citing any studies to prove your
| assertions. Quelle surprise.
Come on, I'm the emotional one. Why should you be surprised?
I have *NO* *FACTS* to back up my case. I just have bambi-eyed
photogenic disabled kids on my side.
So, mr. fact man. Where are *YOUR* studies backing up *YOUR*
assertions.
-mr. bill
|
| 846.48 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Thu Apr 03 1997 09:56 | 14 |
| You claim that no matter how you slice it, mainstreaming is a
resounding success. I say I'm from Missouri. Now you expect me to try
to prove you wrong? Ho ho. I'm not going to fetch rocks for you. YOU
made the assertion "These programs work, are cost effective, are better
for the special needs children, and are better for all of the
children." YOU can back it up on your own dime.
And I'm sure that'll happen about as soon as you get around to
explaining your accusation that private schools have negatives.
It's quaint that you make a claim that I don't believe and when told to
back it up you try to put the burden on ME to demonstrate why I should
disbelieve you. Intellectually dishonest, but quaint. I guess backing
up your assertions doesn't go beyond simple handwaving.
|
| 846.49 | Amazing.... | PERFOM::LICEA_KANE | when it's comin' from the left | Thu Apr 03 1997 10:49 | 10 |
| | And I'm sure that'll happen about as soon as you get around to
| explaining your accusation that private schools have negatives.
Why am I not surprised that you aren't demanding that I explain my
"accusation" that public schools have negatives?
Your bias showing again. Really, you can't think of a single negative
to private schools? This isn't too hard.
-mr. bill
|
| 846.50 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Thu Apr 03 1997 11:26 | 7 |
| ================================================================================
Note 846.47 Special Ed: a system ripe for abuse 47 of 47
PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" 14 lines 3-APR-1997 08:19
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . .
I have *NO* *FACTS* to back up my case.
. . . .
|
| 846.51 | | BULEAN::BANKS | Saturn Sap | Thu Apr 03 1997 11:28 | 1 |
| Sure have been seeing a lot of that lately.
|
| 846.52 | | CONSLT::MCBRIDE | Idleness, the holiday of fools | Thu Apr 03 1997 11:33 | 3 |
| Well, it is slightly better than chasing him around demanding an
apology, slightly. I don't know why but Khan's little tirade against
Capt. Kirk just popped into my pointy little head.
|
| 846.53 | | BULEAN::BANKS | Saturn Sap | Thu Apr 03 1997 11:41 | 1 |
| "He tasks me!"
|
| 846.54 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Thu Apr 03 1997 12:03 | 12 |
| >Your bias showing again. Really, you can't think of a single negative
>to private schools?
Your assumption is incorrect. I want to hear what William the
Omniscient thinks is the list of negatives for private schools.
THEN I was going to ask you for your list of negatives about
public schools. It's difficult enough getting an answer out of you
at all; asking too many questions reduces the likelihood that
any particular question will get answered to a microscopic level.
\hth
|
| 846.55 | Special education can be reformed NOW! Why isn't it? | PERFOM::LICEA_KANE | when it's comin' from the left | Thu Apr 03 1997 12:35 | 18 |
| | I want to hear what William the Omniscient thinks is the list of
| negatives for private schools.
Tough. End of rock fetching.
----
Bottom line, once again, with feeling.
You want Special Education Reform anytime soon? You want to
end the ABUSE?
Then drop the "reform" of special education in regular classrooms.
Such a "reform" will *NOT* pass in Mass.
It's that simple. It's called counting. The votes aren't there.
-mr. bill
|
| 846.56 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Thu Apr 03 1997 13:30 | 18 |
| | I want to hear what William the Omniscient thinks is the list of
| negatives for private schools.
> Tough. End of rock fetching.
Bwahahahahaha! It's ever so much easier to tell others to fetch rocks
than it is to actually provide some sort of support for your own
contentions. Especially when you are just blowing smoke. And it's also
far easier to argue using innuendo and handwaving than to come up with
specifics. You adore making statements like "it's better for all the
students" but you refuse to offer any evidence whatsoever to support
your contention. Then you berate your opponents for failing to accept
your assertions on their face. It's utterly hysterical.
At least I got you to admit that there are some people who oppose any
sort of reform whatsoever. I suppose that's worth something.
|
| 846.57 | Do you want reform? Yes or no? | PERFOM::LICEA_KANE | when it's comin' from the left | Thu Apr 03 1997 13:40 | 18 |
| | Bwahahahahaha! It's ever so much easier to tell others to fetch rocks
| than it is to actually provide some sort of support for your own
| contentions.
As you have so often demonstrated here. (You provided no "list"
of the benefits or detriments of special education in regular
classroom settings, for example.)
| It's utterly hysterical.
You are easily amused.
| At least I got you to admit that there are some people who oppose any
| sort of reform whatsoever. I suppose that's worth something.
About 2 cents more than your contributions to this topic.
-mr. bill
|
| 846.58 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Apr 03 1997 13:50 | 2 |
| Boyz, boyz!! That's enough! Both of you provide some facts or you'll go your
room without supper.
|
| 846.59 | | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Thu Apr 03 1997 13:51 | 10 |
|
My observations are that Mr. Bill rarely provides 'rocks' until after other
participants have gone down an incorrect path has they try to work out the
issues in discussion. He then prefers to throw 'the bomb' in his 'superior
presentation of information' while chastising others for not gathers those
particular rocks.
If he did it any other way he would have no fun :-)
Doug.
|
| 846.60 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Thu Apr 03 1997 13:54 | 6 |
|
> <<< Note 846.58 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>
here: "to"
|
| 846.61 | For talking back | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Apr 03 1997 13:55 | 1 |
| You to, young lady!
|
| 846.62 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Thu Apr 03 1997 13:56 | 5 |
|
<pout>
|
| 846.63 | plus changer, plus rester le m�me | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Thu Apr 03 1997 14:22 | 6 |
| re: 846.57
Ooh, "I know you are but what am I?" How original.
Still nothing to support your contentions. Nothing like consistency.
|
| 846.64 | | ASIC::RANDOLPH | Tom R. N1OOQ | Thu Apr 03 1997 14:40 | 3 |
| > <<< Note 846.59 by BRITE::FYFE "Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without." >>>
Then he does his superior dance.
|
| 846.65 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Thu Apr 03 1997 14:47 | 94 |
| My complaints with "mainstreaming" and the related concept of ignoring
ability when putting children into classes are summed up in the
following passages (taken from another conference):
"Mainstreaming introduces one benefit but many detriments (as you
stated). Perhaps the biggest problem I have with mainstreaming and the
elimination of grouping students by their potential is the squandering
of talent such a system ensures. 12 years of development time are
squandered by putting gifted and slow students in the same class. It's
a tragic waste, and positions America poorly for future generations in
the world economy. The fact of the matter is that artificially
insulating our children from competition puts them at a disadvantage to
other kids in other cultures. In the business world, there is no
teacher to enforce fairness and mutual success. That's reality. We do
our children a disservice by pretending reality is something else, only
to give them a harsh wakeup the day after graduation.
The benefit of mainstreaming can be accomplished by blending children
of different differing scholastic aptitudes during non-scholastic
classes like art, music and phys-ed. Classes like math and english and
the sciences, etc should have students segregated according to ability.
This facilitates the learning process for all students as it minimizes
potential conflicts by keeping the students together. Students which
are bored either because they are way ahead of the class or so far
behind the class that they'll never catch up become behavior problems,
which only prevents the remaining students from getting anything out of
the class."
"There's no reason not to mainstream for less academically oriented
classes, such as music, art, etc. The advantage of this is that the
children get to see that talents are distributed. When a child from a
slower academic class demonstrates an aptitude in music or art, the
kids can see that talent is not just about "smarts". This is beneficial
because it is both humbling to the brighter students and a source of
self-esteem and respect for the young artist, musician or athlete."
"There is a fundamental reason why education is important not only to
those being educated, but also to the country at large. It's no longer
good enough to be barely more than functionally illiterate. We have
entered a global economy, which means that our workers are no longer
competing with workers across the state lines, they are now competing
with workers from across the globe. As consumers, we think nothing of
buying the product that presents the most efficacious compromise
between quality, functionality and price no matter who produced it.
That's the modern paradigm in which we as consumers operate. The flip
side of that, of course, is that that is also the paradigm we as
workers must operate in. The talk of "the global economy" is not just
smoke. It's a very real issue, and one which certain industries have
discovered more than others; it's why we have a "rust belt." So when we
talk about education, we do have to keep in mind the fact that
educating children is more than an academic exercise, it vital to our
long term economic health and future standard of living."
"The simple fact is that our children don't compare favorably to the
children of other nations when tested head to head on basic subjects,
and this is slowly translating into the business world. Like it or not,
there is a relationship between this and things like company layoffs
and outsourcing and moving jobs abroad."
"It is also a fact that we as a nation have finite resources with which
to educate our children. Every other government program from defense to
social security to medicare to congressional pensions to the FBI
competes with education for federal funds. And a similar battle is
waged over state and local funds. At some point we need to stop viewing
education as an open ended, unquantified experiment and start measuring
what we are getting for the resources we are committing. Furthermore,
we need to assess where we need to be and create a plan to get us
there, ever mindful of the restrictions that budgets and finite
resources bring to bear."
"It's very clear to just about anyone who honestly assesses the
situation that our current education system falls far short of the
mark. The current system allocates resources disproportionately at the
low end, inadequately addresses the middle of the curve, and completely
ignores its responsibility towards the upper end of the curve. This
isn't about making the gifted kids rich at the expense of the others,
it's about preparing ALL of our children for their roles in the global
economy to the very best of our ability.
Like I already said, inclusion is fine for non-academic subjects and
those in which academic aptitude does not unduly impede the ability to
bring the whole class along at a reasonable and consistent pace.
Because everyone's talents are different, it is important that the
smart kids see that the not so smart kids have talents and that the
kids with other talents see that the academically gifted kids struggle
at certain things, too. It's important to promote social interaction
between all children, developmentally disabled, gifted, those with
physical challenges and those that are simply average. But not to the
exclusion of a full and proper education for students of all abilities.
That should be the number one priority."
These fragments are not entirely about mainstreaming, but they are a
reflective of my thoughts on education. Unlike Bill, I am not afraid to
expose my thoughts to criticism by getting down to specifics.
|
| 846.66 | My son has benefited already from inclusion.... | PERFOM::LICEA_KANE | when it's comin' from the left | Thu Apr 03 1997 15:02 | 67 |
| How about this quote:
"There is strong philosophical, legal, and EMPIRICAL SUPPORT
[emphasis added for you, Lady Di] for integrated educational
programs for students with severe disabilities."
How about this quote:
"Inclusion BENEFITS EVERYONE [emphasis added again], from children
to parents and staff."
What do you figure the National Downs Syndrome Society might have to
say?
"Inclusion in the regular classroom is only one of the many options
available to children with Down syndrome. It is, however, an
IMPORTANT ONE [emphasis added]."
(An important one that some "reformers" would like to have taken away.)
On one of the reasons the reform will *NOT* happen in Mass as long as
the "reformers" are trying to stop special education in regular
classrooms:
Beginning with President Kennedy's New Frontier in the
United States, a peaceful revolution toward independent
living and community-based support was launched and
continues to this day. Gradually, we moved away from the
paternalism and protectionism that characterized public
attitudes and government policies toward people with
mental retardation. Old approaches such as
institutionalization came to be seen as out-dated
policies that fail to adequately recognize the true
value of human potential. People with mental retardation
began to be thought of for what they are--real people
with real talents capable of meeting and mastering real
challenges.
As a result of this peaceful revolution, more and more
citizens with mental retardation moved out of the back
wards of institutions and into group homes and supported
living. They moved from sheltered workshops to supported
employment. They moved from being treated as perpetual
children to becoming citizens who vote. They moved from
classrooms in the basement to full inclusion in regular
schools. They moved from tax dependency to tax payers.
Through participation in education , employment, and may
other aspects of community life, people with mental
retardation moved into the mainstream--and we are all
benefiting.
The above was published in the Congressional Record. For a hint,
the speaker is from Mass. For another hint, his nephew is a
Representative for the 8th Congressional District. Howard Winston
Carr III calls him "FB" and his nephew "the wizard of uhs." For
the final hint, he was talking about his brother in the first
sentence of the quote. You're a bright guy, see if you can guess.
BTW, for "support" of your position, you might want to turn to the
Family Research Council for more information. Of course, they also
want Darwin out of the classroom. You take what you can get, I
suppose.
-mr. bill
|
| 846.67 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Thu Apr 03 1997 15:03 | 16 |
| .65
How do you know the other cultures don't mainstream? It happens
in many European cultures.
Also, the old saw about "being unable to compete" is getting a bit worn
now. The US is still the world's most robust economy, but people have
been saying such things about education in the US for 20 years now.
Unemployment in Europe, for all their supposed educational advantages,
has been running at a steady 10-15% for almost two decades. It's at
an all time low in the US.
Heck, it may even be "holding people back" that produces a better fit
between the labor requirements of industry and the abilities od schools
leavers. Othewise you might have a glut of unemployable graduates.
|
| 846.68 | He is *proud* of his unsupported opinions.... | PERFOM::LICEA_KANE | when it's comin' from the left | Thu Apr 03 1997 15:06 | 7 |
|
| How do you know the other cultures don't mainstream? It happens
| in many European cultures.
Please don't confuse him with facts.
-mr. bill
|
| 846.69 | Name it.... | PERFOM::LICEA_KANE | when it's comin' from the left | Thu Apr 03 1997 15:07 | 6 |
| "Mainstreaming introduces one benefit but many detriments (as you
stated)."
Uh, one benefit? Is that a fact?
-mr. bill
|
| 846.70 | In your *opinion* this is a fact? | PERFOM::LICEA_KANE | when it's comin' from the left | Thu Apr 03 1997 15:10 | 13 |
| | Perhaps the biggest problem I have with mainstreaming and the
| elimination of grouping students by their potential is the
| squandering of talent such a system ensures.
What data do you have to support such a fact? I'll accept any study
that shows that test scores in regular classrooms that exclude special
education students are above test scores in regular classrooms that
include special education students. Also, find a study that shows
that "gifted" students benefit from tracking. Please don't forget
to take into account that *smaller* number of students in classrooms
has a huge correlation with the success of that classroom.
-mr. bill
|
| 846.71 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Apr 03 1997 15:12 | 4 |
| > How do you know the other cultures don't mainstream? It happens
> in many European cultures.
Japan certainly doesn't mainstream.
|
| 846.72 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Thu Apr 03 1997 15:16 | 23 |
| > "There is strong philosophical, legal, and EMPIRICAL SUPPORT
> [emphasis added for you, Lady Di] for integrated educational
> programs for students with severe disabilities."
What EMPIRICAL SUPPORT? Show me. I'm from Missouri. I'm not going to
buy it on your sayso, any more than you buy things on mine.
> "Inclusion BENEFITS EVERYONE [emphasis added again], from children
> to parents and staff."
How? What is it about inclusion that makes so many of these people
who are ostensibly benefiting from it oppose it? Is it possible that it
provides some benefits but in an inefficient manner? Is it possible
these benefits could be provided in a more efficient manner? Is it
possible that it is not the final word in education?
>The above was published in the Congressional Record. For a hint,
>the speaker is from Mass.
A completely unbiased source, eh, bill? <smirk> In case you've
forgotten since the last time representatives of the Family Research
Council testified before congress, not everything published in the
Congressional Record is a fact.
|
| 846.73 | Another "fact"? | PERFOM::LICEA_KANE | when it's comin' from the left | Thu Apr 03 1997 15:17 | 7 |
| | We do our children a disservice by pretending reality is something
| else, only to give them a harsh wakeup the day after graduation.
Reality is in the "real" world only people of like abilities ever
work together? Tell that to Dilbert.
-mr. bill
|
| 846.74 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Thu Apr 03 1997 15:17 | 3 |
| >Japan certainly doesn't mainstream.
Only european cultures need apply.
|
| 846.75 | do you feel superior enough YET? | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Thu Apr 03 1997 15:22 | 18 |
| | We do our children a disservice by pretending reality is something
| else, only to give them a harsh wakeup the day after graduation.
> Reality is in the "real" world only people of like abilities ever
> work together? Tell that to Dilbert.
True to form, bill takes things out of context, distorts them into an
argument they do not make, thrashes his fake argument to the ground,
and starts his superiority dance.
Here's what he DOESN'T do (emphasis for the EMPHASIS man)
He DOESN'T support his contentions
He DOESN'T make an honest attempt to discuss differences of opinion
He DOESN'T attempt to refute counterarguments logically
It's more fun to throw rocks. And less mentally taxing. Kinda like
quoting FatBoy's writahs and pretending they are, uh, "facts".
|
| 846.76 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Apr 03 1997 15:25 | 7 |
| Of course, Japan effectively separates the disabled from society at large
in a way that I think most Americans would find repugnant. Japanese companies
are legally obligated to hire a certain number of disabled. Rather than
integrate them in the workforce, they have special factories where most
workers are disabled. Many of these factories are in one city (whose name
escapes me), with the result that it's common to see disabled people in that
city. It's very rare to see disabled people in larger cities.
|
| 846.77 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Thu Apr 03 1997 15:27 | 5 |
| I wouldn't know about Japan, although their economy is currently
little better then that of Europe and their standards of living
somewhat worse than many of the European cultures. Of course,
this little diversion doesn't change the fact that economic
superiority does not seem to correlate with educational excellence.
|
| 846.78 | Juliard, Berkely, Parsons, RISD, what dolts.... | PERFOM::LICEA_KANE | when it's comin' from the left | Thu Apr 03 1997 15:27 | 13 |
| | "There's no reason not to mainstream for less academically oriented
| classes, such as music, art, etc.
Unbelievable. Compare and contrast Mark Rothko and Warren Selig.
How does their choice of media effect their approach?
But lets just understand this for a moment. Grouping students
together by academic abiltity is good good good, because, uh,
why? But grouping students together by musical ability or artistic
ability is bad bad bad, because, uh, why?
-mr. bill
|
| 846.79 | Is that a fact? | PERFOM::LICEA_KANE | when it's comin' from the left | Thu Apr 03 1997 15:29 | 7 |
| | It's no longer good enough to be barely more than functionally
| illiterate.
And of course special education students in regular classrooms
causes functional illiteracy.
-mr. bill
|
| 846.80 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu Apr 03 1997 15:29 | 18 |
|
As far as the entry that identified our "enlightened" attitude towrds
mental retardation goes. Please refer to the statistics making up the
homeless. As of last count, the overwhelming majority of the homeless
were made up of mentally retarded or drug dependent. Yes it is so much
more enlightened to pretend that we can just ignore the needs of people
who need ongoing help and just throw them in with everyone else because
it helps with self-esteem.
More psycho-babble and feelgoodism.
Anyone who supports, even for an instant, backing off of a demand for
excellence in every aspect of education, is without merit. We need to
expect and demand that every educational instituion identifies and
provides the maximum educational opportunites, based on ability, to all
students. It won't be the same, nor "fair" but it is what is
necessary.
|
| 846.81 | Is that a fact? | PERFOM::LICEA_KANE | when it's comin' from the left | Thu Apr 03 1997 15:31 | 9 |
| | Like it or not, there is a relationship between this and things like
| company layoffs and outsourcing and moving jobs abroad."
Special education students in regular classrooms are the cause of
our problems at "troubled Digital Equipment Corporation."
Whew, that's a relief.
-mr. bill
|
| 846.82 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Apr 03 1997 15:33 | 4 |
| When certain school districts started using special methodologies to teach
reading to mainstreamed learning disabled children, they found that the
reading of the non-LD kids improved as well. Apparently, the non-LD kids
eavesdropped on the tutoring that the LD kids were getting.
|
| 846.83 | See Gartner and Lipsky | PERFOM::LICEA_KANE | when it's comin' from the left | Thu Apr 03 1997 15:40 | 33 |
| | What EMPIRICAL SUPPORT? Show me. I'm from Missouri. I'm not going to
| buy it on your sayso, any more than you buy things on mine.
No my sayso. That's why I was quoting someone else.
| What is it about inclusion that makes so many of these people who
| are ostensibly benefiting from it oppose it?
I don't know. What is it about Darwin that gets people's goat?
| Is it possible that it provides some benefits but in an inefficient
| manner?
Anything is possible. Do you have the answer to that question?
| Is it possible that it is not the final word in education?
Anything is possible. But that's not the question. People agin it
are taking the position that special education in regular classrooms
is *NEVER* a word - (except in Art and Music I suppose).
| A completely unbiased source, eh, bill? <smirk>
Oddly enough, Senator Kennedy's informed views on the subject
probably have more sway with more state lawmakers than your views on
the subject. I have no facts to back that up, call it a hunch.
| not everything published in the Congressional Record is a fact.
No, I don't forget that. Heavens, *you* might be quoted there
someday. (Or worse, *I* might be quoted there.)
-mr. bill
|
| 846.84 | The benefits of the few, the benefits of the many.... | PERFOM::LICEA_KANE | when it's comin' from the left | Thu Apr 03 1997 15:42 | 10 |
| | When certain school districts started using special methodologies to teach
| reading to mainstreamed learning disabled children, they found that the
| reading of the non-LD kids improved as well. Apparently, the non-LD kids
| eavesdropped on the tutoring that the LD kids were getting.
Very similar results have been found with speech in younger children
as well.
-mr. bill
|
| 846.85 | straw men are easily defeated, right, bill? | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Thu Apr 03 1997 15:49 | 8 |
| >| Like it or not, there is a relationship between this and things like
>| company layoffs and outsourcing and moving jobs abroad."
> Special education students in regular classrooms are the cause of
> our problems at "troubled Digital Equipment Corporation."
Yeah, that's DEFINITELY (emphasis for mr. disingenuous) the argument I
was making.
|
| 846.86 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Thu Apr 03 1997 16:14 | 6 |
|
William, dear, all I did was ask you what the emphasis meant,
so that I could understand what you were getting at. Why you
made such a big flippin' deal about it, I'll never understand.
|
| 846.87 | | SHOGUN::KOWALEWICZ | Are you from away? | Thu Apr 03 1997 16:31 | 4 |
|
Di, it could be that is how a one handed typist has the MOST fun :-)
ohh er
|
| 846.88 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu Apr 03 1997 17:09 | 11 |
| .82
I suppose it didn't occur to you, or those reporting the results, that
the methods had nothing to do with the reulsts as much as it had to do
with the extra exposure. So I guess the actual report should state
that as students receive more exposure to a subject, their performance
improves.
Wow, that's a real revalation that should get a couple of $million from
the government for a study.
|
| 846.89 | resources for fact-oriented people | SX4GTO::OLSON | DBTC Palo Alto | Thu Apr 03 1997 17:12 | 32 |
| I haven't yet found any formal research papers, but there are sites on
the web created by people involved in special needs education.
The Scottish Sensory Centre of Edinburgh;
http://www.ssc.mhie.ac.uk/
I also found an advertisement for a book detailing experiences working
with special needs children in a mainstream class.
from http://www.heinemann.com/hbbc/43508594.html
"Special Voices is a book of stories, the stories of children with
special needs in a regular fifth grade classroom. It is also the story
of how their teacher learned to create a classroom environment that
enabled them to overcome many of their problems. Ms. Five describes how
students with various learning needs and emotional and behavioral
problems became part of, and flourished within, the classroom community
instead of working in isolated settings. Readers will become involved
in the struggles and successes of learners whom they will easily
recognize. They will hear the voices of Angela, a child with learning
disabilities; Tomoko and Yasuo, two ESL children; Andrew, a child at
risk; and others. Classroom teachers will be inspired by these eight
children and their dedicated teacher.
"Although Special Voices tells stories of eight children, these
students' successes can be generalized and applied to all children.
Regular-classroom teachers will find answers to many of their own
problems related to special learners. They will discover how they too
can include them in their classroom communities."
DougO
|
| 846.90 | | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Thu Apr 03 1997 17:17 | 15 |
|
> Wow, that's a real revalation that should get a couple of $million from
> the government for a study.
There are few greater motivators to a child than trying to copy what
another child can do. I suspect that this is a significant player in
putting disabled children in with the mainstream.
So while more exposure to a subject may be benificial, more exposure
to a subject in an environment where mainstream children can be observed
is likely even more beneficial (and for the right students, cost effective
as well).
Doug.
|
| 846.91 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Thu Apr 03 1997 17:21 | 17 |
|
But that's in Yoorp!
There are hundreds of studies showing similar results. Benefits for
both the disabled children and for the others. We don't even start to
educate children academically for the first few years anyway - most of
the effort goes into socialization. Mainstreaming at this time of life
helps to develop a society that does not see things in terms of
exclusion. More importantly, it will develop the kind of society we
need to solve social problems such as this.
But SW? Even if you present the data, you'll then have the motives of
the scientists questioned.
|
| 846.92 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Apr 03 1997 18:08 | 8 |
| > I suppose it didn't occur to you, or those reporting the results, that
> the methods had nothing to do with the reulsts as much as it had to do
> with the extra exposure. So I guess the actual report should state
> that as students receive more exposure to a subject, their performance
> improves.
Wrong. The school districts have adopted those methods for all students,
and reading scores are up.
|
| 846.93 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Thu Apr 03 1997 18:19 | 5 |
| Interesting in that it is probably more cost effective than having a
separate program for disabled children - there's a synergy from using
all the teaching resources in the same class room that probably pulls
up the lower-performing children. These kids wouldn't get special ed
normally.
|
| 846.94 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Fri Apr 04 1997 09:29 | 38 |
| Additional resources on the web:
from the University of Pittsburgh's LRDC:
Learning Disabilities and Special Education publications:
http://www.lrdc.pitt.edu/publications/topics/topic17.html
Learning and Teaching in the Classroom Publications:
http://www.lrdc.pitt.edu/publications/topics/topic16.html
Learning Research and Development Center homepage:
http://www.lrdc.pitt.edu/welcome.html
Comparative Education Research Centre (CERC) (University of Hong Kong)
http://hkusuc.hku.hk/cerc/
US Dept of Education homepage:
http://www.ed.gov/
The Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
http://www.ed.gov/IDEA/
Cognitive and Psychological Sciences on the Internet
(Stanford University)
http://www-psych.stanford.edu/cogsci/
A link to many learning/intelligence/psychology journals and magazines:
http://www-psych.stanford.edu/cogsci/journals.html
American Federation of Teachers AFL/CIO homepage
http://www.aft.org//index.htm
(they even have a union boycott list) :-)
BOSTON COLLEGE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/soe/
National Education Association
http://www.nea.org/
|
| 846.95 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Fri Apr 04 1997 10:21 | 8 |
| .92
Apparently I misread your entry .82 where you stated that the students
eavesdropped on the teaching of the LD kids. Now you claim that these
methods were used for all students.
One of these entries is incorrect or saying opposite things.
|
| 846.96 | | SPECXN::BARNES | | Tue Apr 15 1997 11:12 | 14 |
| From Associated Press
"...Boston Univ Pres Jon Westling told a federal Judge Monday, there
really was no "Somnolent Samantha".
He admitted that he invented the student -- a woman who supposedly
demanded extra help from the Univ. because she fell asleep in class --
as an example of how demands by learning-disabled students have
supposedly gone too far."
Nothing like "facts", as some in here like to say all too often...
deadhead
|
| 846.97 | Learned from the best.... | PERFOM::LICEA_KANE | when it's comin' from the left | Tue Apr 15 1997 11:46 | 13 |
| Uh, it was far more than just extra help from the University.
This took place when *HE* was a professor. Samantha would fall
asleep in *HIS* class, and because she had a letter certifying that
she had a "quote learning disability unquote" he was forced
to spend *HIS* valuable time tutoring Samantha on the material
she missed.
Helpful hint. When Jon Westling tells you a fact, make sure he also
says "I'm not making this up!"
-mr. bill
|