If I were spending the money, I'd spend nothing on students who can't learn, and pour my resources into those who can.
I don't understand this obsession with pouring money down the rathole of the weak, the stupid and the handicapped.
I remember seeing a course catalogue that included a three-part course on "The Exceptional Child". I thought it was going to be neat stuff for the brilliant, but it went something like this: Part I addressed disrupters. Part II addressed the retarded. Part III addressed the physically handicapped. If there was time, the gifted might get a few scraps.
What kind of pathetic society are we going to have in the future, if we give all our attention to those who don't deserve any?
D
Special education children range from those with a learning disability to those with severe and profound disorders. Many, many of them can learn (and do learn) and will be contributing members of society.
I teach children with learning disabilities in a middle school and every year I have a half dozen or so enter a mainstream class--and experience success.
Yes, some of these children will need life-long care, but many will not. As far as the gifted/talented children being shortchanged--I don't see that in my district, if anyone gets shortchanged it's those considered to be "slow learners" Not smart enough to be learning disabled and too smart to be considered mentally retarded. That is the group with little to no services
It just annoys me to no end when people perpetuate the "cold-hearted conservative" stereotype on FR
.
.
And no I am not a member of a union.