Hispanics, especially, dump their retarded babies onto the social services, special education system. Someone I know told me about one severely retarded mexican boy at his school that got a 20000 (yes, with four zeros) dollar special electric wheel chair, paid entirely by the government. Not only was he not even legally born in the USA, but he was also too retarded to even know which direction to aim his wheelchair toward! This type of thing happens all the time, and so much taxpayer money is wasted on the severely retarded, yet we never hear about this in the liberal news.
And what you should do? WTF. Your lack of humanity fears me. This people are human, whatever from where they come and need help. I am getting tired of your xenophobism, inhumanity and a lot of other inhuman feelings of the American conservative fascists.
The problem is not the Mexican boy, but the system that charges You the taxpayer close to a million dollars a year to manage the boy. That is the problem. If you gave the Mexican boys family $50K a year, it would save the taxpayer over $350K a year. As yourself: is that kid living the life of a kid who has $250K a year?
I'm sorry, Catch, but like most liberals you have a problem with degree. Slow? I realize that hanging out with liberals it might seem fair to consider someone who is blind and non-communicative as a little slow. Actually, pretty close to normal for liberals. I had to deal with a kid, a really big kid, who was blind, brain damaged, had two teachers and a private room. If he got loose he attacked other children. His life expectancy was 20-years. Why was he in school? Because, it meant he wasn't at home. The parents were exhausted coping with him. I sympathize with them, appreciate their decision to keep him at home, and think we should help them but not in a school. So no one except one liberal, you, has considered "killing off" education for those who are "slow". Nope. Just you. Does it get lonely out there on the left wing? I do sympathize. Any program, like advanced placement classes, probably does neglect liberals.
The bigest cost to the taxpayer comes in the early years of development. As the disabled transition into the adult years, they will be placed and linked to developmental disabilities services via the State and taxpayer monies. However as an adult their budget will be significantly less in the $40K to 60K per year range depending on the state. You must understand that the disabled people provide significant employment and money opportunities for those who are involved with the special education development and maintenance of the individual. The $200+ thousands you speak of goes to many people who are paid well for their participation in managing the developmental disabled, and there is almost no accountability of the money spent during the developmental years. The service providers that manage the adult developmental disabled get paid a lot less, as they are not with the public education system. Most are contracted private (non-profit) organizations and are held to accountability standards my the state's contracts for services, and the oversight of 1 targeded case manager for about 40-50 of these disabled individuals. The private (Not for profit) services also provide activities as well as transprotation and housing with special RN monitoring if needed. So, as you can see the schools system utilize about 4-5 indivudals in the training/development of services and charge a lot more for their serivices, and the adult system provides more hours of service for a lot less. A solution to this problem would be to have the private service providers do all the services for the individual from development to adult. It would save the taxpayer hundreds of billions for each of the USA States. Keep in mind that I am talking about the USA. Other countries have various system for the developmental disabled. Most importantly, ask yourself this; Is that student living the life of a person who makes over $200,000.00 a year? Nevertheless, the adults in the USA's State Department of Education have it so good, and have so much political influence over the State govenrment, that the cost for educating a developmental disabled student that you describe, will only cost more and more. As they figure a way to increase Union membership, and find more people to take a pinch of the opportunity to work with this individual and get money out of the taxpayer. That's they way jobs are created.
The parents should be the responsible persons to transport their child. This isn't a school choice issue. Its a big government issue. Government is not obligated to transport or pick up children from school.
Those 4 or 5 people could be doing something else and actually provide something to society instead of wasting it on disabled people.
I'm not against spending money on the disabled if it would mean they could support themselves at some point. I'm a proponent of self sufficiency wherever possible to get people off government assistance. However, we don't need to bus kids across the state to teach them how to live on their own. Maybe if our country invested more in those who show an aptitude for learning, the money would be better spent. I'd rather bus a gifted student from MD to MIT than this. Right now, we spend more money per student than any country in the world, and the results are getting worse and worse. Maybe we should look at the waste.
True, they and society would benifit more if thy had the ability to do more that a few hours work a day. But most of the aids and assistants are there for physical and safety support and to be directed under the teacher/coordinator. People who serve in these jobs don't need a lot of qualifications, and get paid on the low end of services. Most who work in the Aid/assistant services don't stay in the job long and use it as experience to acuire higher positions in the service provider field. However, there are many who are relics, and have no motivation, skill, or cognitive ability to do anything else.
I agree, with not bussing most students, especially the gifted or MENSA kids. They allready live a privilaged sheltered, secure, structured, safe, life and will allway be living like that. When they are young they need to be exposed to the eliments of nature, physical stamina, and a social environment. They are the types that will need human character more than the underprivilaged kids. All kids should walk to and from school. Prior to the 70s, there were a lot less schools than there is today. Back then many kids walked several miles a day to and from school. Today there are so many schools in the USA that in most major cities the kids are about 1-2 miles from all their schools. If more kids walked, they would be more fit and not so fat and lazy. As adults they will have the same habbits.
This is true. However, some school districts have a monopoly going. They often contract friends and family to manage and run transportation departments of the school district. Also, they get more Government public Union membership, that makes them more powerfull than any union in the state. Hence, the DOE is too big to fail. Most kids walk only 1 mile to and from school. And others like to use the Taxpayer funded bus to ride. I't no wonder the USA has so many fat kids with health problems. At any rate this is good for the Medical Insustry of the USA, as they can make more money and capitalize off the chubby ones with their associated issues, and it also creates more government jobs for the DOE by creating opportunities for Nutritionist, and healthcare workers who are friends and family of teachers or DOE administrators.
I may be "liberal" on certain issues, but that is ridiculous. Just put the **** down *cough* don't waste anything more on it than we have to.
My point is that no matter what you do, the best and brightest are going to want to be scientists and doctors (especially doctors). The only thing that will keep them from going into medicine is if it totally stops paying.
I'd rather have the smart ones be scientists instead of doctors. Anyway, I was saying we need to have the smart kids learn and be creative instead of sitting in a classroom bored to death, wasting time and not paying attention. I could have finished all the toughest classes in high school by the time I was in 7th grade if they cut out all the worthless classes and all the time wasted. We need a lot more smart people, and we need a lot smarter smart people. Also, most of those smart people should be going into science and engineering instead of other things.
Good point. You are correct. However, public schools are for adults to realx and enjoy, not for students. Almost everything public schools do are to make adults happy at the cost of the taxpayer and the students. They seem to keep the bad employees and the good employees move on to other opportunities, because they do not like the massive BUREAUCRACY that public schools impose. Moreover, good teachers usualy have asperations for success and want to move on rather than rot away in a dead-end job of public school employment.
Being a school teacher is one of the easiest jobs out there. We don't have enough teachers for upper level classes. This is why I think the government should pay for students to take college classes if their grades are good enough and want to get ahead.
Why do the taxpayer need to pay for college? If he kid want's to go to college, the government and taxpayer should pay 3x the amount just for support. I would like the taxpayer to pay for everyones college. I would like to see the US States go more in debt and take out more loans to keep their failing school districts happy. The interest to be made on municiple bonds is so low at this point, there is hardly a return on invetsment. The only way to improve the interest investment is to drive the public schools and States further in Debt. That way investors can charge higher interest rates, and there will be more money to make off the States' failing systems. After all, once most of these college kids graduate, they will not have jobs to pay off their student loans, and the taxpayer will end up paying the banks off anyway. Great systm to make some profit off failing schools systems, and government.
Nobody who has ever taught and has worked another career would say that. I taught for 8 yrs. Toughest job I've ever had. I work for about twice the pay and half the headaches now. Where don't we have enough teachers for upper level classes? If your state/local district decides that great. It shouldn't be up to the government (which I think of as meaning the federal government).
Why does it matter if local governments set it up or federal government if it is a good idea? In high schools they don't have enough teachers for upper level classes because half the teachers are teaching retarded kids. If you think being a school teacher is hard, you are not very smart.
And how many years did you teach? My IQ is over 130. My 1982 SAT was 1380. My 1982 ACT was 30. Teaching is one of the most intensive jobs per hour worked. There are no breaks other than planning (which is spent making copies and calling parents). Lunch (at least in the schools I worked in) is 25 minutes, and I had to supervise the students while scarfing down my lunch. Bathroom breaks are nonexistent. The only reason it is a decent job is the time off. Otherwise, no sane person would teach. High schools (outside of the inner city) have plenty of teachers that can teach the upper level courses. The opposite is true--they are running out of teachers to teach the "retarded" kids. The Constitution doesn't authorize educational spending. It's not a duty of the federal government.
When you are done instructing and give time for students to do homework, there is free time. Screw the Constitution. It is worthless as far as I'm concerned.
