Posted on 04/20/2009 5:14:13 AM PDT by reaganaut1
The eight children, ages 5 to 11, who attend the Brooklyn Autism Center Academy need intensive individual instruction to cope with a neurological disorder that can make achieving academic progress slow and grueling.
During the course of the day, one teacher is paired with each child. After successfully completing a task, students are rewarded with a spoonful of vanilla pudding, time on a piano or a few minutes in a bouncy castle. The system repeats itself, interspersing work with small breaks.
“Every child with autism can learn,” said Jaime Nicklas, 32, the school’s educational director. “If they are not learning, it is our responsibility to change our teaching procedure, so they can make the progress they are capable of.”
But this type of focused instruction comes with a high price: The academy’s annual tuition is $85,000. The parents of one of the students, Ruby Kassimir, 5, the only girl in the school, took out a home equity line of credit on their home in Queens to help pay the tuition. “There just aren’t that many options available,” explained Ruby’s mother, Sue Laizik, a project coordinator at Columbia University.
As the number of autism diagnoses has risen, the extraordinary cost of educating the children has become a growing point of contention. In 2001, the city’s Department of Education listed 3,278 students with autism; by 2008, that figure had more than doubled to 6,877.
The public school system is required by law to provide an appropriate education for such children, even if it means paying for private school tuition if there is no public school option (although, as Ruby’s parents found, getting the school system to pay is not always easy).
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
"Special" is the operative word. That implies more expensive.
With such an increase in cases, we ought to be spending more money on research to identify the cause. Whatever happened to the un-PC research that linked autism to older parents?
Not as cut-and-dried as that, unfortunately. My mom was 29 when she had my autistic brother. Does that qualify as old?
They keep broadening the definition of what constitutes autism. It'll be interesting to see how it is defined in another 3 years. I'm not saying the condition doesn't exist-just that it looks like they are doing with it what has been done with ADD, getting fast n loose with what exactly it is.
It would be interesting to find out the salaries of the directors, teachers, etc. I bet they are using autism as a means of jacking up the price.
Hmmmmm.... How does that translate into sending the child off to a school? Does "involvment" mean lawyers and tax payer dollars?
How old was your dad? (As that is the larger part of the latest theory, I believe.)
Do away with public schools and give that money back to the parents. That way, parents can choose the school that best fits their children’s needs (and the quality of education will go WAY up).
Because there is no money in it for the special ed teachers. Special ed is all the rage now. It brings in more money per student.
You have a very valid point. I did not think of it that way before. It is a shame. You can put it down to the victim society. Autistics and their families are seen as "victims" and must be treated with all things extra.
Four years older: 33
I think that’s safely out of the age-related range!
This school charges about 85K per student, which I imagine is not much more than the salary + benefits of one special ed teacher, so I don't think 'top heavy bureaucracy' is the problem. This type of classroom is labor intensive and expensive, costing about 1 million to educate one autistic child, based on these numbers.
Trust me, you do not want the gov’t focusing on your gifted child. I’ve been through a TAG program (in the 70’s).
It’s a Saul Alinsky lite indoctrination program. Almost non of the TAG program involved actual accelerated academic teaching. It was mostly seminar style “trainings” or group therapy style “discussions”. Worse, the kids are told over and over again that they are entitled to be leaders because of their giftedness and they were just creating a bunch of liberal a*holes with a truly warped idea of noblesse oblige. I have no doubt that the Tim Geithner’s of the world were indoctrinated in similar elitist pap.
Is there a need for more funding for gifted kids? Probably. But don't take it from handicapped kids. Take it from the administration salaries, and all the money that is tossed at young men chasing balls and tooting horns!
I just cannot believe that there are those here who begrudge a little help for those who are autistic, downs, or mentally retarded. My son is not a victim. I don't consider him as such. I have paid taxes for years, including property taxes for schools. He deserved better than he got from the public schools.
Finally, those of you who have gifted kids, I am thankful for you. But remember, when they go out to be doctors, engineers, dentists, lawyers, etc., my autistic son will never do such. I am not bitter, as you may think. Our son (who is 33) has been a joy to our lives. But it does get under my skin when people complain about money being spent on autistic children and others who are mentally handicapped. Have we ever heard of compassion on those who are less fortunate than ourselves. Finally, if you want to talk about those who are unproductive to society you are in good company. Guys in brown uniforms felt the exact same way about 70 years ago. It took a world war to defeat their master race ideas.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.