medical services in the school - Page 3

[dawningmama]

ITA with everything LiamnEmma wrote. ITA very, very strongly. I find the other side of the argument kind of frightening.

[karne]

Originally Posted by dawningmama

ITA with everything LiamnEmma wrote. ITA very, very strongly. I find the other side of the argument kind of frightening.

Yes, I do too.

Good grief, we're talking about a CHILD here, and CHILDREN, in general. If we are spending money anywhere, this is where it ought to be.

[theretohere]

It seems odd to me that you keep stressing that you aren't anti-special education, and then continue to make statements about how "those children" take resources away from the rest of the kids. It seems like a slipperly slope to determine quality of life based upon the contibutions that someone is able to return. How useful does someone need to be to warrant normal or special attention? Who determines someone's usefulness? Isn't teaching a child that they are worth the time and effort meaningful, even if the therapies and teachers and aides never succeed in teaching them anything else?

Originally Posted by annethcz

What comes to mind more than anything is my mom's experiences in special education classes. My mother was responsible for students who were severely physically and cognitively handicapped. My mom started working in the schools because she wanted to make a difference in kids' lives. But she became disillusioned and eventually quit. My mom came to realize that despite the massive amounts of time and resources and money that was devoted to these students, there would be no long term impact on the children. These were children who were in wheelchairs, unable to communicate, unable to feed or toilet themselves. And yet the children were being provided with an incredibly resource-heavy and expensive "education" despite the fact they would never become functioning members of society. It didn't matter how many years my mom worked with the kids, or how many aides or therapists were provided for these kids, the fact is they would never truly learn anything or be able to do anything on their own. And at the same time special education enrollment was increasing and more special services (therapists, etc.) were becoming common, class sizes for mainstream classes were going through the roof and other cuts were being made.

I will admit that my view of special education may be outdated, since my mom quit working in the schools about 15 years ago. I don't hear stories about what's happening day-to-day anymore. But I do tend to follow general trends, out of my own interest. If anything, it seems like there are even more accomodations made for children now than 15 years ago.

Again, I'm NOT anti-special education. But it does seem that the scope of schools has changed, and I wonder if that's for the better. Schools are no longer responsible for teaching students the 3Rs, but also for keeping kids healthy, providing therapies, and so on. We as a society are asking our school system to provide more than just an education. In some ways, I think this is a good thing. In other ways, not so much.

[LiamnEmma]

Originally Posted by theretohere

It seems odd to me that you keep stressing that you aren't anti-special education, and then continue to make statements about how "those children" take resources away from the rest of the kids. It seems like a slipperly slope to determine quality of life based upon the contibutions that someone is able to return. How useful does someone need to be to warrant normal or special attention? Who determines someone's usefulness? Isn't teaching a child that they are worth the time and effort meaningful, even if the therapies and teachers and aides never succeed in teaching them anything else?

Thank you. I had a long-winded, inarticulate post written earlier today that didn't make it through because I'd somehow logged myself out. This one is better.

[jaye]

Originally Posted by annethcz

themselves. And yet the children were being provided with an incredibly resource-heavy and expensive "education" despite the fact they would never become functioning members of society. It didn't matter how many years my mom worked with the kids, or how many aides or therapists were provided for these kids, the fact is they would never truly learn anything or be able to do anything on their own. And at the same time special education enrollment was increasing and more special services (therapists, etc.) were becoming common, class sizes for mainstream classes were going through the roof and other cuts were being made.

Alegna asked this but I'm curious too - what do you think should be done with these kids?

A lot of them used to be kept in state run institutions, and I assume some of that money has gone to the schools.

How about we all think about it in terms of schools aren't getting enough money to meet all the needs of all children, instead of special ed students take all the resources from the "normal" kids?

And I agree w/ the pp - Your words show that you are indeed anti-special ed.

[theretohere]

Originally Posted by jaye

Alegna asked this but I'm curious too - what do you think should be done with these kids?

A lot of them used to be kept in state run institutions, and I assume some of that money has gone to the schools.

How about we all think about it in terms of schools aren't getting enough money to meet all the needs of all children, instead of special ed students take all the resources from the "normal" kids?

And I agree w/ the pp - Your words show that you are indeed anti-special ed.

I think that's an excellent point- the schools need more money for all students.

[annethcz]

Originally Posted by alegna

What would you suggest be done with those students instead?

Because classrooms for students of that level that I have observed focus on life skills. Giving the children some level of independence. Pottying. Transitioning in and out of wheelchairs if possible/appropriate. Feeding themselves. Washing themselves. For slightly higher functioning kids it may include simple job training, etc.

-Angela

I think that life skills and job training are GREAT for the kids who will benefit from that type of education. I think that teaching life skills is what schools *should* be doing for children with severe impairments. Learning to get around independently, learning to feed themselves, learning to clean and toilet themselves are things everyone needs to know.

I imagine that special education programs vary from place to place, and things change over time. 15 years ago when my mom was teaching, there was a huge emphasis on 'mainstreaming' special education students. Speaking specifically about my mom's experiences, she worked with children who were unable to control their bodies, unable to speak, unable to feed themselves, unable to toilet themselves- and it was these specific students who were placed in mainstream classes for much of the day. Because of their cognitive and physical impairments, these specific students were completely unable to participate in mainstream classes and often created distractions for the other children. I think that this type of special education is inappropriate.

I think that teaching life skills to cognitively impaired children is great. I think that in many cases, speech therapy is great. I think that speech therapy for a child who has never spoken a word in her life is not appropriate. I think that mainstreaming special education students who can understand what is going on in class and are able to learn is fantastic. I think that mainstreaming a child who is unable to understand what is going on and spends the majority of classtime shreiking and distracting the other children is inappropriate.

[annethcz]

Originally Posted by theretohere

It seems odd to me that you keep stressing that you aren't anti-special education, and then continue to make statements about how "those children" take resources away from the rest of the kids.

I was talking about specific students that were students of my mother when she was a special education teacher, I was not generalizing or referring to special education students in general. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.

Isn't teaching a child that they are worth the time and effort meaningful, even if the therapies and teachers and aides never succeed in teaching them anything else?

Call me mean names if you'd like, but I don't believe that this should be the focus of our education system. We should be educating our children, not making them feel warm and fuzzy. Yes, making a child feel special is important, but I don't think it should be the primary objective of the school system.

I don't think we should be teaching 3rd graders calculus. I don't think that it is appropriate for elementary students to write 10 page term papers. Heck, I don't even think we should be requiring our kindergardners to read. And in the same vein, I don't think it's appropriate for children who are physically unable to control their bodies to be given physical therapy so they can learn to tie their shoes. And I don't think it's right that we spend 10 times more than average to "educate" a child who is truly unable to learn anything.

I am all for appropriate education. But I guess my definition of appropriate is different than yours. I'm okay with that.

[dawningmama]

Originally Posted by annethcz

I am all for appropriate education. But I guess my definition of appropriate is different than yours. I'm okay with that.

I think it's your definition of "education" that I find narrow and intolerant.

And I don't think it's right that we spend 10 times more than average to "educate" a child who is truly unable to learn anything.

How can any of us really know if a child is unable to learn anything? I find that hard to believe and I am sad that someone thinks that could actually be the case. As far as amount of money spent on each child, I think it should be in accordance with that child's needs. The way it seems here, the number is mostly influenced by the amount of money the parents can afford to spend on a house.

We *all* benefit from educating the next generation. I want all the children to have their educational needs met.

[annethcz]

I'll say one more thing about the OP, and then I'm done for now. I'm sorry if I derailed the this thread in a way that seems unrelated to the OP.

I think that what I have a problem with more than anything is the sense of entitlement that echoed through the OP. I know that all of this is based on hearsay, so it should be taken with a grain of salt. But the idea of a new student coming into a school and demanding a full-time nurse, when a full-time nurse may not be necessary just turned me off. All of the talk of suing seemed so over the top. I wish that more people would be willing to try and work within the system to get their needs met. I thought that vtgirl's post was fabulous. I loved how the family worked with the school to make sure that everyone's needs were met, rather than approaching the situation with an "I'm entitled to whatever I think I need" attitude. I know that not all school systems are responsive and easy to work with, so it's good that families have the option to sue if necessary. But I do think it should be a last resort.

Oh, and FTR, I do have a child with special needs. It's amazing how far a cooperative attitude will go towards making sure that my child's needs are met in a way that doesn't place an undue burden on the tiny rural school.

[LiamnEmma]

I imagine that special education programs vary from place to place, and things change over time. 15 years ago when my mom was teaching, there was a huge emphasis on 'mainstreaming' special education students. Speaking specifically about my mom's experiences, she worked with children who were unable to control their bodies, unable to speak, unable to feed themselves, unable to toilet themselves- and it was these specific students who were placed in mainstream classes for much of the day. Because of their cognitive and physical impairments, these specific students were completely unable to participate in mainstream classes and often created distractions for the other children. I think that this type of special education is inappropriate.

Here's my issue with your assertions: They are second hand and a generation old. Unless you have first hand knowledge or have done some current reading on the topics, I don't think you can credibly use this as your basis from which to argue in the here and now. There is actually research to suggest that this type of inclusion is beneficial to all the students. It requires training and is labor intensive to do it right, and maybe your mom and her colleagues didn't know how, or didn't get the right training, or didn't believe in it, or whatever. I don't think it works universally, I believe in a continuum of service configurations, but old information like this is not part of the current face of education. Fifteen years ago I was an intern and things were so different than they are today. What we practiced then is so out of date that it's not even a topic of discussion anymore other than to laugh at ourselves. Probably though, the best thing to do would be to agree to disagree because I'm definitely heels dug in based on my experiences as an educator and a parent, and you seem as heels dug in as I feel.

[dawningmama]

Originally Posted by annethcz

I think that what I have a problem with more than anything is the sense of entitlement that echoed through the OP. I know that all of this is based on hearsay, so it should be taken with a grain of salt. But the idea of a new student coming into a school and demanding a full-time nurse, when a full-time nurse may not be necessary just turned me off. All of the talk of suing seemed so over the top. I wish that more people would be willing to try and work within the system to get their needs met. I thought that vtgirl's post was fabulous. I loved how the family worked with the school to make sure that everyone's needs were met, rather than approaching the situation with an "I'm entitled to whatever I think I need" attitude. I know that not all school systems are responsive and easy to work with, so it's good that families have the option if necessary. But I do think it should be a last resort.

But how is what you are arguing not a sense of entitlement of the more traditionally-abled learners? Aren't you arguing that the kids who fit your mode of "normal learners" are the ones entitled to the most money and resources?

If a full time nurse is what a student needs (and I believe quite strongly that a child with type 1 diabetes does), then they are just as entitled to that as a non-diabetic child is to anything else like school security, a librarian, a teacher, etc.

I spent years in the public school system advocating for change, working from the inside. I made very little headway. Sure, a parent can advocate and ask nicely but oftentimes school administrations will take that as a sign to roll right over that family and ignore their needs. I know families that have had to sell their homes and move to a new district to have their children's educational needs met because those kids could not afford the 5 years of litigation it would take to force their home district into compliance. That is shameful. I was an extremely involved parent, spent hundreds of hours a year volunteering and advocating in the school and in the end the district lost me (and my 3 wonderful children) because they refused to acknowledge that we had needs that fell outside their narrow definition of education.

[annethcz]

Originally Posted by LiamnEmma

Here's my issue with your assertions: They are second hand and a generation old.

I totally agree with this.

Unless you have first hand knowledge or have done some current reading on the topics, I don't think you can credibly use this as your basis from which to argue in the here and now.

First of all, I'm not trying to argue. Second of all I readily admit that many many things have changed since then, probably for the better. I was just trying to explain where my views originated. I am aware that I have deviated from the topic of the OP, but it was in answer to specific questions that were asked of me.

[annethcz]

If a full time nurse is what a student needs (and I believe quite strongly that a child with type 1 diabetes does), then they are just as entitled to that as a non-diabetic child is to anything else like school security, a librarian, a teacher, etc.

I can't speak for the OP's school, but in my kids' small rural school there is no security other than the secretary who is usually at the front desk, but sometimes not. Our school's librarian, music teacher and art teacher are all volunteers because the school can't afford to hire even part-time teachers for those positions. And as stated upthread, our school doesn't have a nurse either. With small schools, a few thousand dollars is a BIG deal. Our school does have special education teachers and paraprofessionals.

I know that it seems unbelievable to those who live in big, prosporous school districts, but small schools sometimes DO have to choose between hiring a special education teacher and a librarian. And obviously, if a special education teacher is needed, that is the position that is filled. This means that a handful of kids get a special education teacher and none of the students get a librarian. That's just the way the system works.

My point is that it would be wonderful if the rumored parents in the OP (who may or may not even exist ) would work with the school to see if it's possible for the needs of the student to be met somehow without hiring a full-time nurse. Hiring a full-time nurse would more than likely affect the other 65 students in a negative way. The money would have to come from somewhere. And although big schools may have huge reserves, small schools ususally don't. The only options are to cut other programs or to raise taxes. If a full-time nurse really is the *only* option, than that's the way it will have to be. But the trade-off may be that the school loses a librarian or loses a teacher or class sizes go up or bus service is discontinued.

I spent years in the public school system advocating for change, working from the inside. I made very little headway. Sure, a parent can advocate and ask nicely but oftentimes school administrations will take that as a sign to roll right over that family and ignore their needs. I know families that have had to sell their homes and move to a new district to have their children's educational needs met because those kids could not afford the 5 years of litigation it would take to force their home district into compliance. That is shameful. I was an extremely involved parent, spent hundreds of hours a year volunteering and advocating in the school and in the end the district lost me (and my 3 wonderful children) because they refused to acknowledge that we had needs that fell outside their narrow definition of education.

I'm sorry you had such a bad experience, it doesn't sound like a good situation at all.

[CarrieMF]

For the child in question, insulin injections are mandatory every day for her to have a free education. So of course it's the issue.

sorry I still don't see it as a "free education" issue. Nobody is saying the child can't go to school, for all we know the district this child is going into IS working to find a solution whether it be paid, volunteer, nurse, student nurse, parent, teacher whatnot.

Maybe, maybe not. Schools have reserves for this very issue, and frankly, I think it might be good for the kids to have their school district learn a little tolerance.

Believe me, I understand. I've been doing this for fifteen years. And in fairness, there is a family in my district currently that I hope sues the pants off of us. And administrator had the audacity to tell the parent, "We don't do wheelchairs." Really? 'Cause last I heard, the federal government says you do. I believe in public education. I just don't always believe in the people who are running it, or the people involved in it, and sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. So, if the rumors--which are apparently fine when they are about the child but not so much when objected to--are true, I do hope the parents are suing the previous (keep that in mind too) district.

I have 2 issues with this.

first the automatic reaction to sue if something doesn't go 1 person's way. How does parents suing a district teach tolerance? It teaches intolerance if anything. Lets says the parents did sue & won. Then it leads the way for parents whose child gets a black eye playing soccer at school to sue the school. Then that takes recess sports away JIC someone's kid gets hurt. That leads the way to a kid getting a sliver & the school being sued over that & well we have to take all playgrounds away so while we're at it we may as well get rid of recess all together.

The more money that these lawsuits cost the school divisions the higher your taxes will become in order to pay for this "free education"

The 2nd part is about the rumors. Who said that the rumors about the child are fine?

"We don't do that here" is not acceptable to me. Not when you're gay. Not when you have color to your skin. Not when you have an accent. Not when you're blind, or deaf, or can't walk. Not when you're sick. To me, it's all the same. Discrimination is discrimination, and rampant rumors are ugly and often wrong.

Which of these things costs the school money? If the school does NOT have the FUNDING to provide the service no matter what the "law" says how are they going to pay for it?

Try to look at it this way, a friend of mine teaches & is in charge of special needs students in a school in the district next to ours. It is a small town(less than 1000 people). In the high school there is a girl who is in Grade 7 but is at a Grade 3 cognitive level. In Elementary school she had 1 corner to turn to get to school. It was the same school she'd gone to her entire life. She got lost one day. They've had to put stop signs on doors at the highschool so she wouldn't just wonder out of the school. She needs a TA, but because she's a level 4 instead of a level 5 the school gets ZERO funding for a TA for her(and several other students). When a school hires a TA they either pay the wage from the school budget or a portion of it is covered under special education funding from the gov't. If the school does not have the extra funding to fully pay a TA's wage they do not hire TA's even if it would benefit the student. The school my friend works has has 2 TA's that are partially funded by the gov't but to give full services to those who need it they'd need 14 TA's. They only have 2 TA's becuase they do not get the same amount of funding as a larger school does.

In the case of the student in the OP's thread the parents HAVE to work with the school to find a solution for thier child getting its medication. If the school cannot fund a full time nurse, but can fund a part time nurse then it is up to the parents to work with the school to find a solution to the other half time that someone would need to check the child's levels.

[lilsparrow]

Annethcz

Since the OP's post referred specifically to Type 1 Diabetes and not severely cognitively impaired children, I feel that it is important to point out that children with Type 1 Diabetes are not in any way cognitively impaired.

Typically, they are capable of acheiving anything they could have acheived had they not been dx'd with this wretched disease.

It seems unfair to banish them to the not able to potty and clean themselves crowd (lovely though they are), simply because they need to take a few considerations. An asthmatic child also needs to take a few considerations, but I never see them grouped with mentally challenged individuals. Frankly, I find this *lumping together* indicative of an us/them mindset and woe to them who happen to be condemned (with no logical basis) to "severely cognitively impaired children who will never be functioning members of society anyway."

Where would you suggest my gifted, but Type 1 Diabetic son be educated through the school system, if not in mainstream classes? He would be REALLY bored if he was being taught how to potty and clean himself. lol


Whether each school should have a full time nurse? Yes, absolutely if they can afford it! Should a small rural town forgo a librarian for a nurse? If it came to that, I guess not.

I am not so impressed with credentials as I am common sense. I'd rather a well trained intelligent teacher or, yes even a lunchlady supervise my son, than a foolish nurse. A nurse with common sense, then we've struck GOLD!

I've had good and bad experiences with nurses, and all in all, I have learned that I will trust my gut in each particular situation. In the meantime, I am homeschooling so this isn't something I have to deal with right now.

But, I know how much it means to be able to know that your child is in good hands. But I do believe in the case of Type 1 Diabetes, it doen't necessarily have to be a nurses hands to be good hands. Anyone that sincerely cares, is willing to take the time to learn, and can do simple math, can take care of a child with Type 1 Diabetes.

The thing with Diabetes, is that these children can do EVERYTHING anyone else can do ... but sometimes out of nowhere, something REALLY bad can happen. It is sudden and quick and dangerous and scary. But in between those times, other than the shots and glucose monitering, they are a normal in everyway child, except they have a larger burden to bear. It would be unfair to deny them access to an education, when they have the same potential as any other mainstream child.

[Flor]

In my district(big), there is one nurse who supervises the health assistants at each school. Health assistants get about 8-10 dollars an hour, so it doesn't knock out the budget to have a few diabetic kids. Second, I am a teacher, and as much as I love my students there is NO WAY I would agree to be in charge of monitoring a student's blood sugar. No way I take on the responsibility while teaching my other students (obviously I watch for signs of problems and am sure to send the child for a 10 o'clock check, but there is back up if I forget!).

As far as there being trade offs for including ALL students in public education-- that's just the way it is. All students are included and sometimes it sucks when the money goes to one pot instead of another. But when it comes to medical situations (covered by federal law), that's just the way it is.

I hardly see how suing someone for not following the law teaches intolerance. Why on earth should we tolerate a school district not following federal law?

[annethcz]

Originally Posted by lilsparrow

Annethcz

Since the OP's post referred specifically to Type 1 Diabetes and not severely cognitively impaired children, I feel that it is important to point out that children with Type 1 Diabetes are not in any way cognitively impaired.

Typically, they are capable of acheiving anything they could have acheived had they not been dx'd with this wretched disease.

It seems unfair to banish them to the not able to potty and clean themselves crowd (lovely though they are), simply because they need to take a few considerations. An asthmatic child also needs to take a few considerations, but I never see them grouped with mentally challenged individuals. Frankly, I find this *lumping together* indicative of an us/them mindset and woe to them who happen to be condemned (with no logical basis) to "severely cognitively impaired children who will never be functioning members of society anyway."

Where would you suggest my gifted, but Type 1 Diabetic son be educated through the school system, if not in mainstream classes? He would be REALLY bored if he was being taught how to potty and clean himself. lol

Sigh.

I never equated children with type 1 diabetes to children with cognitive impairments. I never suggested that children with type 1 diabetes or asthma should be lumped together with any other group of children. I would suggest that your son should be placed in classes that are appropriate for his developmental level, whether that be life skills classes, remedial classes, gifted classes, or anywhere inbetween.

Originally Posted by Flor

As far as there being trade offs for including ALL students in public education-- that's just the way it is. All students are included and sometimes it sucks when the money goes to one pot instead of another. But when it comes to medical situations (covered by federal law), that's just the way it is.

Absolutely. The point I've been trying to make is that I think it's great when families are willing to work with the school to minimize the number of tradeoffs that need to be made.

[lilsparrow]

Originally Posted by annethcz

Sigh.

I never equated children with type 1 diabetes to children with cognitive impairments. I never suggested that children with type 1 diabetes or asthma should be lumped together with any other group of children. I would suggest that your son should be placed in classes that are appropriate for his developmental level, whether that be life skills classes, remedial classes, gifted classes, or anywhere inbetween.

But he would REQUIRE special services, for health reasons.

[jaye]

I know I will regret this but here goes -

Originally Posted by CarrieMF

sorry I still don't see it as a "free education" issue.

Of course it is a FAPE issue. The child can't go to school unless there is someone there to monitor blood sugar/give shots - whatever is required.

Originally Posted by CarrieMF

I have 2 issues with this.

first the automatic reaction to sue if something doesn't go 1 person's way. How does parents suing a district teach tolerance? It teaches intolerance if anything.

Are you serious? The example was the principal says "we don't do wheelchairs". This isn't exactly just something "not going 1 person's way". Of course, it would never even get to the lawsuit level because it is so blatantly illegal.

Originally Posted by CarrieMF

The more money that these lawsuits cost the school divisions the higher your taxes will become in order to pay for this "free education"

I don't see it this way - the more $ the districts have to pay, hopefully the pressure will go upwards - to the state and then federal governments who need to provide for these children.

Originally Posted by CarrieMF

If the school does NOT have the FUNDING to provide the service no matter what the "law" says how are they going to pay for it?

They need to come up with the money. If it is a service that is required for that child to attend school, the district can't say it doesn't have the money. That is against the law. They have to go find the money. And believe me, if forced to, they always do! If the district goes bankrupt, they will get bailed out by the government.

Originally Posted by CarrieMF

Try to look at it this way, a friend of mine teaches & is in charge of special needs students in a school in the district next to ours. It is a small town(less than 1000 people). In the high school there is a girl who is in Grade 7 but is at a Grade 3 cognitive level. In Elementary school she had 1 corner to turn to get to school. It was the same school she'd gone to her entire life. She got lost one day. They've had to put stop signs on doors at the highschool so she wouldn't just wonder out of the school. She needs a TA, but because she's a level 4 instead of a level 5 the school gets ZERO funding for a TA for her(and several other students). When a school hires a TA they either pay the wage from the school budget or a portion of it is covered under special education funding from the gov't. If the school does not have the extra funding to fully pay a TA's wage they do not hire TA's even if it would benefit the student. The school my friend works has has 2 TA's that are partially funded by the gov't but to give full services to those who need it they'd need 14 TA's. They only have 2 TA's becuase they do not get the same amount of funding as a larger school does.

I don't really understand this either - you sound irritated that this girl gets lost and the school has had to make accomodations. Of course a school won't hire TAs on their own if it would benefit the students - but if a child needs a TA in order to attend school, then they must hire one. Of course, the parents would have to be the ones to request and fight for it.

Originally Posted by CarrieMF

In the case of the student in the OP's thread the parents HAVE to work with the school to find a solution for thier child getting its medication. If the school cannot fund a full time nurse, but can fund a part time nurse then it is up to the parents to work with the school to find a solution to the other half time that someone would need to check the child's levels.

This is absolutely untrue. The parents do not HAVE to do anything of the sort - this is the school's responsibility.

Originally Posted by lilsparrow

Since the OP's post referred specifically to Type 1 Diabetes and not severely cognitively impaired children, I feel that it is important to point out that children with Type 1 Diabetes are not in any way cognitively impaired.

Typically, they are capable of acheiving anything they could have acheived had they not been dx'd with this wretched disease.

It seems unfair to banish them to the not able to potty and clean themselves crowd (lovely though they are), simply because they need to take a few considerations. An asthmatic child also needs to take a few considerations, but I never see them grouped with mentally challenged individuals. Frankly, I find this *lumping together* indicative of an us/them mindset and woe to them who happen to be condemned (with no logical basis) to "severely cognitively impaired children who will never be functioning members of society anyway.

omg - obviously no one ever said anything about putting a child w/ a medical issue like diabetes w/ severely cognitively impaired children. The thread was about special ed expenses for school districts. God FORBID your kid gets lumped with the REAL severely impaired children.


I'm appalled at the offensiveness of this entire thread. "Those darn retarded kids, taking up our resources, their lazy parents suing districts, raising our taxes."

Of course none of you have come up with suggestions on what exactly we should do with these children - although I'm getting a pretty clear idea of how most of you would choose to handle them.

Originally Posted by Flor

As far as there being trade offs for including ALL students in public education-- that's just the way it is. All students are included and sometimes it sucks when the money goes to one pot instead of another. But when it comes to medical situations (covered by federal law), that's just the way it is.

I hardly see how suing someone for not following the law teaches intolerance. Why on earth should we tolerate a school district not following federal law?

ITA.