Special Education

[boppaid]

How else do we explain the 30% failure to graduate from high school? How do we explain that many who do graduate are unable to read and write?

I guess it depends on what is considered “success” and what is considered “failure”. For example, some students, who have major LD and EI issues, just getting through school learning lifeskills is extremely important. (Yes, that is one aspect of special education offered through the schools.)

Also, regarding the 30% figure you are quoting…is it 30% of learning disabled students aren’t graduating? or 30% of the emotionally impaired students? or 30% of all special ed students? or 30% of all students in general? If I know that, I will know how to answer your question.

 

[boppaid]

Seventy percent graduation rate is “rather impressive?”

Would you buy a car from a company that advertised, “We have an impressive reliabiltiy rate – 70% of our cars actually run!”

Children aren’t cars, though. They aren’t “Created” on assembly lines. They are individuals, with varying capabilities, parental support, and expectations. They will, therefore, have varying degrees of success. I guess I’m failing to see how children can be compared to machines in regards to how effective they should “run”?

Yes, indeed it should. And every normal child should be brought to that level, not just those who live in certain districts.

I assure you that the “mentally challenged” do not equal 30% of the entire population!!

But this thread is talking about special education, rather than “normal” children. (I cringe at that term, though. Perhaps “regular ed” sounds better.)

 

[boppaid]

Ideally we would have an educational system that nurtured each child to their highest potential. And for those who’s highest potential isn’t a high school diploma, isn’t that okay? DId God make a mistake in how he made them?

Or should we instead make sure we have jobs that pay living wages to men and women of any education?

Wow. You said it perfectly. Thank you. I SO agree with you. People are under the false impression that everyone’s capabilities are the same. They simply aren’t.

 

[Smber2c]

I guess it depends on what is considered “success” and what is considered “failure”. For example, some students, who have major LD and EI issues, just getting through school learning lifeskills is extremely important. (Yes, that is one aspect of special education offered through the schools.)

Also, regarding the 30% figure you are quoting…is it 30% of learning disabled students aren’t graduating? or 30% of the emotionally impaired students? or 30% of all special ed students? or 30% of all students in general? If I know that, I will know how to answer your question.

Hey Bob, I’m now suspecting the 30% may be the general student population. I’m not sure, but that’s what it looks like me after taking another look from Vern’s post.

But I fully agree that graduation isn’t the goal for some people. To show this in a way that we can more easily see, I offer the story of a guy I knew in college.

There was a young man who didn’t really want to go to college but felt that he’s be a failure if he didn’t get a college degree. After 3 horrible semsters, he decied no thanks. He went home, took over his dad’s land scaping business. By the time he would have been graduating college; he owned a new truck, had purchased a home, and was doing very well for himself with the lawn care buisness.

He has no reason to be ashamed. He’s not less a man for lacking a college degree. Similarly, a person with a learning disability isn’t less of a person for lacking a high school degree. They should be learning what they are able. If they can graduate, great. If they can’t do math or even can’t read, fine. They are still people. Still productive members of society. Still potential Saints.

 

[boppaid]

But once you pin that label on them, they’ll never get out from under it.

There are masses of studies that show when you label a child, the child will live up to (or down to) the label.

There is some truth to that. However, if you don’t label a child, you don’t have the benefit of all the research done on that “labeled” diagnosis. ADD is a label we hear of much more often. However, teachers are more equipped to deal with students who have ADD & ADHD much more now than in years past. The same is true for Autism.

 

[Stolen_Rutters]

How else do we explain the 30% failure to graduate from high school? How do we explain that many who do graduate are unable to read and write?

Hey wait. This is the graduation rate of our local high school’s general population, not the special needs population. I don’t see how this statistic has any bearing on the special needs group. Special Needs graduation rate is much lower, and they are not 30% of the population.

FWIW, most of the kids I knew of who failed to graduate high school aren’t mentally retarded or challenged. Many of them were living through substance abuse at the time. Others were simply raised to vilify anything educational. Only a few were mentally handicapped.

 

[boppaid]

Hey wait. This is the graduation rate of our local high school’s general population, not the special needs population. I don’t see how this statistic has any bearing on the special needs group. Special Needs graduation rate is much lower, and they are not 30% of the population.

FWIW, most of the kids I knew of who failed to graduate high school aren’t mentally retarded or challenged. Many of them were living through substance abuse at the time. Others were simply raised to vilify anything educational. Only a few were mentally handicapped.

This is what I’m thinking, too. I don’t think the 30% rate has any bearing on what we’re talking about here…special education.

 

[aaronjmagnan]

I’m a teacher in San Diego, California, and I have worked in both severely developmentally disabled classrooms as well as classes with students who would never be “recognized” as having learning disabilities and problems by talking to them or looking at them.

Here where I work, a majority of the students who are mainstreamed have shown sufficient capacity to do the work in a mainstream classroom.

There are also a significant number of students who won’t reach a level of intellectual maturity until they are in their mid-twenties. This is at least a scientific fact based on the development of their brains. This doesn’t mean they will never read nor write, but that certain brain functions that are related to maintaining focus in work, and thinking abstractly (algebra, critical thinking in literature classes) have not and cannot develop yet. Usually this development happens between the ages of 10 and 14. We see “regular” students who have the same problem when they are twelve or thirteen, who are not capable of understanding how a letter can stand for a range of numbers, and thus they hate math; but given a year it makes perfect sense to them, and math is not so daunting. The “special” students or special needs students will have this frustration for a good ten years longer than "regular students.

Then again, there are students who think at this level at the age of five who are also considered “special needs” students because of their advanced intellectual maturity.

A mystery and question I have is whether these students who are behind developmentally, with intensive education, could have a sort of forced mental development (though I don’t know if this is physically possible).

God bless,
Aaron Magnan

 

[vern_humphrey]

Hey Vern, I’m sorry if “mentally challenged” is offensive to you. Please do tell me what would be a better alternative. As I explained in my opening that I definantly don’t mean to offend or lessen the dignity of anyone.
You used “normal” to explain ‘the general pubilc’, but I certainly won’t use the opposite of that (abnorman?) for special ed children.

I don’t care what terms are used – I’m not hung up on Political Correctness.

I really think that reading my post on the 70% again may help. I didn’t suggest anything about 30% of the nations population being in special educaiton. I said that if 70% of the mentally challenged graduated high school that seemed (name removed by moderator)ressive.

But that’s not what you said, and not what I said.

Only 70% of all children graduate from high school.

I was merely pulling the % from your earlier post. If the 30% failure you refrenced wasn’t ment as the overall graduation scores, then no I don’t see that as impressive. And if so, I apologise for misunderstanding your post.

Thirty percent of all children fail to graduate from high school. Of those who do graduate, a significant percentage are functionally illiterate.

Consider those who go on to college – the “best and brightest.” I don’t have a nation-wide figure, but in Arkansas 56% of these kids must take remedial classes in college. In other words, more than half of the “best and brightest” did not achieve a high school standard of work while in high school.

But I also don’t think we can ever expect that 100% of the population learn to read, write, and do algebra at a high school level.

I had a high scool math teacher tell me that, and I asked why. She said she didn’t know. And I said, “Could it be because the teachers don’t expect them to be able to do the work?”

She had the good grace to blush.

Human learning theory holds that all humans within the normal rage can master any subject – albeit some will be faster than others.

There are definantly a portion of the population that this won’t be capable of this. And no it isn’t nearly as big as 30%, I agree. But the answer isn’t slap diplomas in their hands anyway.

Any normal human can learn everything that is supposed to be taught in high school.

Ideally we would have an educational system that nurtured each child to their highest potential. And for those who’s highest potential isn’t a high school diploma, isn’t that okay?

No, it’s not okay – it’s not okay because it becomes an excuse. “It isn’t our fault all these children can’t read – it’s something wrong with them.”

There are, of course, children who can never be taught to read – or even to talk. But such children are very rare – and certainly not 30% of the population!!

DId God make a mistake in how he made them?

No, we made a mistake when we allowed the education system to get out of hand.

Or should we instead make sure we have jobs that pay living wages to men and women of any education?

We have plenty of jobs for people with education. It’s those who are deliberately left behind for whom there are no jobs.

 

[boppaid]

I don’t care what terms are used – I’m not hung up on Political Correctness.

No offense intended, but you should be “hung up” on sensativity, I would think. Using words like “normal” and “abnormal” are not sensative whatsoever. It has nothing to do with politics, or political correctness…it has to do with treating others with dignity to their faces AND when they aren’t around.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I guess it depends on what is considered “success” and what is considered “failure”.

Not graduating from high school would be a good candidate for “failure” in my book. And when 30% of children don’t graduate, that word can be applied to the education system, as well.

For example, some students, who have major LD and EI issues, just getting through school learning lifeskills is extremely important. (Yes, that is one aspect of special education offered through the schools.)

And those students make up 30% of all high school students!!

Also, regarding the 30% figure you are quoting…is it 30% of learning disabled students aren’t graduating? or 30% of the emotionally impaired students? or 30% of all special ed students? or 30% of all students in general? If I know that, I will know how to answer your question.

Where do you get the idea that I mean anything other than 30% of all children?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Hey wait. This is the graduation rate of our local high school’s general population, not the special needs population. I don’t see how this statistic has any bearing on the special needs group. Special Needs graduation rate is much lower, and they are not 30% of the population.

FWIW, most of the kids I knew of who failed to graduate high school aren’t mentally retarded or challenged. Many of them were living through substance abuse at the time. Others were simply raised to vilify anything educational. Only a few were mentally handicapped.

Bingo!

And there was no help for them, was there?

(If there was help, how come they didn’t manage to graduate?)

 

[djrakowski]

There are fads in schooling, as in all government programs. Special education usually means, “Separate these kids from all the others and forget about them.” Mainstreaming means, “Put them in the same class with the others and forget about them.”

Two of my children qualify for special education, and my personal experience has largely proven this to be the case. But, some districts (and states) are better than others when it comes to valuing, accomodating and educating these students.

We’ve finally gotten reasonable services for our son (exceedingly better than the “warehouse and forget” and “mainstream and forget” scenarios you’ve mentioned above), but it took several years of fighting to do so. We’ve given up on public school for our three younger children, and have decided to educate them at home instead.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Children aren’t cars, though. They aren’t “Created” on assembly lines. They are individuals, with varying capabilities, parental support, and expectations. They will, therefore, have varying degrees of success. I guess I’m failing to see how children can be compared to machines in regards to how effective they should “run”?

When a high school dropout rate of 30% is condidered okay, the children are being regarded as** less** than machines.

But this thread is talking about special education, rather than “normal” children. (I cringe at that term, though. Perhaps “regular ed” sounds better.)

We’re so hung up on what to call them that we neglect to educate them – and have a nation-wide high school drop out rate of 30%.

 

[djrakowski]

That’s exactly right.

I am reminded of a piece “60 Minutes” did on American Somoa, and the impact of the Great Society. At one point they interviewed a Special Education teacher who had been sent out there. The interviewer said, “This is a small country. What if you don’t find any children who need Special Education?”

She said, “I was sent here to educate children, and I’ll find children who need Special Education.”’

When she said that, my blood ran cold.

And it should’ve had the same effect on anyone who watched that report.

Special education costs tons of money, and those resources should be directed toward those who need it, and likewise, the stigma needn’t be attached to children with mild to moderate learning challenges who could easily be taught in mainstream classrooms with a few extra supports.

 

[djrakowski]

There is money in Special Education and that can lead to all sorts of abuses. The general rule is, if you suspect your child has a problem, take him or her to a child psychologist of your choice and do not tell the psychologist what to look for.

Heh… this reminds me of the first appointment our son had with a private psychologist. He asked, “So, you’re here to get a diagnosis of autism?” I answered, “Of course not - unless that’s the appropriate diagnosis. How about we test him before making any more conclusions?”

 

[djrakowski]

Here where I work, a majority of the students who are mainstreamed have shown sufficient capacity to do the work in a mainstream classroom.

That’s good - that’s how it should work everywhere. However, we’ve recently been faced with a special education administrator who suggested that our 7 year old daughter, who’d never been enrolled in school before and gets agitated at the slightest bit of disorder and change of schedule, be enrolled with her age-based peers in 2nd grade. The only reason stated was her age, and her abilities weren’t even considered. Three years ago, this same individual recommended kindergarten for our then-5 year old son, who was (and still is today at age 8) non-verbal and not toilet trained.

This administrator wanted to mainstream our children for the simple fact that autistically-impaired education costs loads of money, and they didn’t want to spend it. It had nothing to do with needs-based and abilities-based planning and evaluation.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Mainstreaming can be a wonderful experience for all involved. But and it is a big but, mainstreaming should never hold back any of the students in the classroom. The hard part is to know when mainstreaming becomes a social service and not an education. As I have said before “mainstreaming and special education” can bring people together or divide them. Both sides need to see the other peoples point of view.

 

[Smber2c]

Hey vern humphrey, in reading your posts I can see that you have high expectations for all students and I think that’s great. But I’d request that we not try changing this thread into an analysis of the American education system in general, of %'s getting into college, or any of that.

The topic is Special Education. Really that’s why the 30% figure was misunderstood, because we’re talking about Special Education. So, if you could avoid stats or focusing on General Education and aviod any comments on college at all, I would greatly appreciate it.

 

[Smber2c]

QUOTE=aaronjmagnan;2340327]I’m a teacher in San Diego, California, and I have worked in both severely developmentally disabled classrooms as well as classes with students who would never be “recognized” as having learning disabilities and problems by talking to them or looking at them.

Here where I work, a majority of the students who are mainstreamed have shown sufficient capacity to do the work in a mainstream classroom.

There are also a significant number of students who won’t reach a level of intellectual maturity until they are in their mid-twenties. This is at least a scientific fact based on the development of their brains. This doesn’t mean they will never read nor write, but that certain brain functions that are related to maintaining focus in work, and thinking abstractly (algebra, critical thinking in literature classes) have not and cannot develop yet. Usually this development happens between the ages of 10 and 14. We see “regular” students who have the same problem when they are twelve or thirteen, who are not capable of understanding how a letter can stand for a range of numbers, and thus they hate math; but given a year it makes perfect sense to them, and math is not so daunting. The “special” students or special needs students will have this frustration for a good ten years longer than "regular students.

Then again, there are students who think at this level at the age of five who are also considered “special needs” students because of their advanced intellectual maturity.

A mystery and question I have is whether these students who are behind developmentally, with intensive education, could have a sort of forced mental development (though I don’t know if this is physically possible).

God bless,
Aaron Magnan

Hey Aaron, thanks for offering all of that. I’ve been learning a bit more on all this lately and I appreciate your effort to help me learn more.

I’m sorry to admit that when I saw California I was scared for a second. I’ve somehow grown to have some prejudice against California that I think I need to start working on. I almost expect to be disappointed from things I hear from there, and it isn’t fair.

Back to your comments though, I found the age of developement concept to be very interesting. So, for students that you suspect may only be a year to 2 behind, you mainstream and for ones that may be 5 or 10 years back they would be in a specialized classroom? Just wondering how some of it is organized.