NationStates Jolt Archive

Which is almost exactly what I have been saying.
I still feel some of the, dope-heads, so to speak have promise even if they don't show it.


Honestly, I'm of the opinion that if they aren't going to make an attempt to show promise, then the lack of ambition will be their downfall anyway...

However, by that idea, I'm not saying that standards of living should stay as vastly separated as they are or anything to that effect, nor promoting social darwinism. Naturally, 50% of the population is going to be under the mean standard of productivity, intelligence, and all other traits, so that should simply be recognized.

You know, you could have actually been paying attention to the point being contended instead of just spouting irrelevancies.


Your post had nothing to do with the retardation subject.
It was focussing on effort placed in school, which has nothing to do with what is at hand.

Great! let's take the money for emergency medical technicians, police, and firefighters and put it into waterparks! Not everyone will have a heart attack, a fire, or be robbed, so it's not fair we all should pay for it! But everyone loves waterparks!
.

You might be missing what I'm saying slightly. But basically I'm arguing for those services and everyone should have equal use of them. If two houses have a fire and one of the houses is poor or has a special needs person the firetruck should not aim to go their first as they are more needy they should be regarded as equal. Same with education, crime or hospital treatment.


Yes. Removing funding from those who need it certainly would raise educational standards for them, wouldn't it?
.
Not removing funding. Making it equal. Currently they are given resources that most ordinary kids would love to have had, I know I would. Forgetting disability, less intelligent children need more help to understand basic times tables so should we give them more teaching time than an able student whos already moved onto division or multiplication? Or should we hold them back till everyone is at the same place.


So, give MORE to those who are more able.
.
Not at basic education keep it equal. But as for as the very best who would miss out on university because the can't afford it, I'm happy to sacrifice some extra money in persuit of advancing humanities best intelectuals.


Of course. Because everyone has had the same opportunities and life experiences no matter what neighborhood he has grown up in.

Saddly no. But thats why I'm arguing for a more fair system so that schools should spend the same on each pupil regardless of where they're from. True some private schools offer better education but they still pay taxes for everyone else to go to public funded schools and they take less government resources.

I admit my reasoning around here is a little blurry (it's based somewhat on Kant's categorical imperative, which strikes me as ironic since Rand hated Kant).

Kant's categorical imperative, like pretty much of the attempts to establish absolute morality, was highly flawed. Subjective assumptions lie at its base, and thus it is no better than any of the other moralities he condemns. Furthermore, the line between the identity of an action and the context of an action is rather vague.

Ayn Rand isn't perfect, I understand that.

A start.

I think I may be the odd person out in thinking that the problem at hand is less the educational system and more the economy.

If the problem of the vastly widening rich-poor gap was addressed, in addition to the ridiculous requirement of some jobs for college degrees (it went from just being doctors and lawyers to being everyone who wants to make more than $10.00/hr, doing even menial labor), then allocation of resources at lower levels of education would be less of a concern.

Your post had nothing to do with the retardation subject.
It was focussing on effort placed in school, which has nothing to do with what is at hand.

That is NS General. Furthermore, it is not comparable to taking my statement out of context and inserting a meaning into it that was never there so that you could pretend to refute it.

There are plenty of other institutional inequities, one primary one being the hierarchies and exploitation inherent in the current system of ownership and management of the means of production. Furthermore, even public education is considerably undermined by economic inequities. People lacking access to parents with time and money at home are at a considerable disadvantage.
.
That is a difficult factor. But we can't control how good every parent will be. Some parents will be better than others does this mean we should remove parents and replace them with androids who can all parent at an equal level? No because thats not possible. Inequalities in some aspects are just inevitable such as what parents you'll have, how attractive you are, who you just happen to meet. Its not within our control.


What if he is being supported by the government/society to live comfortably because he was financially well off?
.
Could I have an example of that?



As soon as you turn "rational self-interest" into pursuing whatever values you believe in, or which add happiness and meaning to your life, you have made it meaningless. No one does what they do not value.
.[/QUOTE]
If you notice everyones self interest is different and you nor I can know what it is, you will realise its up to the individual to persue. If you think we are all rational, then yes. No one will do what they do not value.

I think I may be the odd person out in thinking that the problem at hand is less the educational system and more the economy.

If the problem of the vastly widening rich-poor gap was addressed, in addition to the ridiculous requirement of some jobs for college degrees (it went from just being doctors and lawyers to being everyone who wants to make more than $10.00/hr, doing even menial labor), then allocation of resources at lower levels of education would be less of a concern.

The point is that the higher paying jobs generally require the education. Thus the people who are wealthy often had the good education. Thus getting the good education becomes important for later wealth therefore resources at lower levels of education is the point which you tackle to solve how the heirachy of todays society is built. If that made sense.

The point is that the higher paying jobs generally require the education. Thus the people who are wealthy often had the good education. Thus getting the good education becomes important for later wealth therefore resources at lower levels of education is the point which you tackle to solve how the heirachy of todays society is built. If that made sense.

It makes sense... what I'm saying, however, is how stupid it is that factory jobs require a bachelor's degree now, even floor work in some of them, and the relevance of the degree doesn't matter.

That is a difficult factor. But we can't control how good every parent will be. Some parents will be better than others does this mean we should remove parents and replace them with androids who can all parent at an equal level? No because thats not possible. Inequalities in some aspects are just inevitable such as what parents you'll have, how attractive you are, who you just happen to meet. Its not within our control.

But we can limit them, and reduce their effects.

Could I have an example of that?

Sure. Take someone like George W. Bush.

That is a difficult factor. But we can't control how good every parent will be. Some parents will be better than others does this mean we should remove parents and replace them with androids who can all parent at an equal level? No because thats not possible. Inequalities in some aspects are just inevitable such as what parents you'll have, how attractive you are, who you just happen to meet. Its not within our control.

Honestly, who the parents are accounts for much more of how the child will be, as opposed to how the child is raised...

It makes sense... what I'm saying, however, is how stupid it is that factory jobs require a bachelor's degree now, even floor work in some of them, and the relevance of the degree doesn't matter.

Up to the company I suppose. If such an abundance of floor work people exist, that they need to start hiring floor workers with degrees than thats sad. But atleast the company has very well qualified floor workers :rolleyes: . A degree isn't always about the direct information you learn, but that you've shown the ability to learn and work independently and understand complex concepts. If you go to Oxford/Harvard it doesn't really matter what you study you know when you come out your tought many other life skills and information that will help you with anything you may want to do and employers know it.

Up to the company I suppose. If such an abundance of floor work people exist, that they need to start hiring floor workers with degrees than thats sad. But atleast the company has very well qualified floor workers :rolleyes: . A degree isn't always about the direct information you learn, but that you've shown the ability to learn and work independently and understand complex concepts. If you go to Oxford/Harvard it doesn't really matter what you study you know when you come out your tought many other life skills and information that will help you with anything you may want to do and employers know it.

That's nice and all, but very very harmful to the economic system as a whole when the cost of education really does nothing more than put people in debt for years to come, and continues to rise faster than inflation.

Honestly, who the parents are accounts for much more of how the child will be, as opposed to how the child is raised...

I suppose thats part of the incentive that drives the economy. Your not only working for yourself, but your working to give your kids a good life. Yeah your at a worse position if your dad was a slacker and your in a fairly poor family but alot of the incentive to work say when your 40 if all your money is gonna be taken away from you when you die you'd spend it or stop earning it when that time is close. You want to work to provide something for your kids to inherit.

That's nice and all, but very very harmful to the economic system as a whole when the cost of education really does nothing more than put people in debt for years to come, and continues to rise faster than inflation.

Well its up to you then to make a rational choice if university is for you. I know its a tough choice at 17/18 but the same applies for most things in life. If you make a decision that reqires investment and you don't make back what you put in it wasn't a good choice.

I suppose this depends on what you're classing as "retarded". I'm autistic and I'm just left to get on with it. No "life skills" lessons were ever thrown my way.

In fact, "Gifted and Talented" classes are more highly funded in my school than anything for lower-achieving pupils - not that they're worth the money, based on my experiences in them.

So basically:

You'd rather NOT try to educate them and train them to do SOMETHING, but be willing to pay for them to be supported for the rest of their life with no chance of contributing to society?

Cost-effective?

I suppose thats part of the incentive that drives the economy. Your not only working for yourself, but your working to give your kids a good life. Yeah your at a worse position if your dad was a slacker and your in a fairly poor family but alot of the incentive to work say when your 40 if all your money is gonna be taken away from you when you die you'd spend it or stop earning it when that time is close. You want to work to provide something for your kids to inherit.

You're missing my point. You suggested earlier that how a child was raised by parents left them off worse or better... However, the home environment is generally accepted as resulting in less than one tenth of personality trait variance. Even if you're adopted, a little under half of variance results from your biological parents. (Likewise, a little under half is attributed to peer groups.)

Well its up to you then to make a rational choice if university is for you. I know its a tough choice at 17/18 but the same applies for most things in life. If you make a decision that reqires investment and you don't make back what you put in it wasn't a good choice.

And this is where you're lost. I'm meaning the problem in a wide scale economic means, rather than personally... and it IS an institutional problem.

You're missing my point. You suggested earlier that how a child was raised by parents left them off worse or better... However, the home environment is generally accepted as resulting in less than one tenth of personality trait variance. Even if you're adopted, a little under half of variance results from your biological parents. (Likewise, a little under half is attributed to peer groups.)

Hmm wasn't awear of that. I guess John Locke and Aristotle have had too much influence on me.

And this is where you're lost. I'm meaning the problem in a wide scale economic means, rather than personally... and it IS an institutional problem.

Okay well its a difficult problem. I wouldn't know how to solve that other than discourage university goes from taking too many loans and fully educate them on what they're committing themselves to. I'm not sure what else the government can really do if people are stupid and get themselves into problems.

Which is basically pure disciminination as the special needs kids cannot get by on the same amount as everybody else. That's whole point in being someone who needs help. It is not in any sense of the word "fair" and "equal" what you are suggesting. All it is is cheap and, well, jerkish.

I think the point is that they can't 'get by' per se on any amount of help - they'll never rise above the level of early elementary school at best, they'll never get a level of value out of their education even close to the expenditure put in, they'll never provide a return on the investment of the people who paid the tax dollars for their education, they'll never make something of themselves or contribute to the economy or society. What's the point? The only contribution they offer is to the families that love them, and that doesn't require education.

I think the point is that they can't 'get by' per se on any amount of help - they'll never rise above the level of early elementary school at best, they'll never get a level of value out of their education even close to the expenditure put in, they'll never provide a return on the investment of the people who paid the tax dollars for their education, they'll never make something of themselves or contribute to the economy or society. What's the point? The only contribution they offer is to the families that love them, and that doesn't require education.

Yep. I think we have a pretty good education system in the U.k. and if you're unable to make the most of it for whatever reason then perhaps persure pleasure and joys that don't require educational skills.

BTW, I love the quote in your sig.

The mentally challenged/retarded need more help, and thus they should get more help. It's that simple. No matter what some (ironically enough) idiots might think about their lives being "pointless" or what novel way they may find to belittle their endeavors as "worthless."

Amen.

And I wonder what those geniuses would do with the mentally challenged if we don't try to a least minimally educate them? Some kind of cages?

I think the point is that they can't 'get by' per se on any amount of help - they'll never rise above the level of early elementary school at best, they'll never get a level of value out of their education even close to the expenditure put in, they'll never provide a return on the investment of the people who paid the tax dollars for their education, they'll never make something of themselves or contribute to the economy or society. What's the point? The only contribution they offer is to the families that love them, and that doesn't require education.

You paint with an awfully broad brush. Not everyone is mentally challenged to the same degree. And we don't know a person's limits until they are stretched.

Equal protection under the law does not ask what one contributes. Merely that one is a person.

Equal protection under the law doesn't come into it - the government is not obliged to provide education to people who can't be educated. That's like saying not providing subsidized housing to the rich is in violation of the Constitution.

Amen.

And I wonder what those geniuses would do with the mentally challenged if we don't try to a least minimally educate them? Some kind of cages?

They could all step in this big room I built for them, there is a present in the center.

Equal protection under the law doesn't come into it - the government is not obliged to provide education to people who can't be educated. That's like saying not providing subsidized housing to the rich is in violation of the Constitution.

First of all, who says that anyone that is mentally challenged cannot be educated?

Secondly, there is a basic right to equal treatment and to education.

Dress up your discrimination however you like. It still stinks.

They could all step in this big room I built for them, there is a present in the center.

That appears to be the consensus solution. Just lock 'em up somewhere.

That appears to be the consensus solution. Just lock 'em up somewhere.

Genocide isn't such a bad thing.
It could save alot of the world's problems.

Genocide isn't such a bad thing.
It could save alot of the world's problems.

The morality of your position speaks for itself and needs no comment from me.

My morals have been lost with waves of hatred for politics and people's stance on things, which always seems to be a terrible combination of liberal and conservative in the same bucket.

My morals have been lost with waves of hatred for politics and people's stance on things, which always seems to be a terrible combination of liberal and conservative in the same bucket.

Admitting your problem is the first step towards recovery.

I'm too cynical and filled with teenager angst to get over it until at least twenty.

Equal protection under the law doesn't come into it - the government is not obliged to provide education to people who can't be educated. That's like saying not providing subsidized housing to the rich is in violation of the Constitution.
actually, they are required. "All students are entitled to a free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive of environemnts" (FAPE-LRE) by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) laws. You know, those laws that protect the very people you consider to be worthless?

I'm talking about Constitutional law, not statutory. Obviously statutory law mandates Special Ed programs; that's why we have them. I'm addressing the claim that the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment requires that retarded kids be given education.

I'm talking about Constitutional law, not statutory. Obviously statutory law mandates Special Ed programs; that's why we have them. I'm addressing the claim that the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment requires that retarded kids be given education.

So are "retarded kids" not persons?

So long as there is a right to something -- like education -- all persons have an equal protection under the law of that right.

EDIT: And statutory law can create interests which are subject to 14th Amendment protection.

I'm talking about Constitutional law, not statutory. Obviously statutory law mandates Special Ed programs; that's why we have them. I'm addressing the claim that the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment requires that retarded kids be given education.
and you argue that there is no right to education in the US? Because I know that Cat-Tribe has a nice list of several rights that aren't enumerated in the constitution, but are still enjoyed by Americans. And if it is a right we have, then yes, special ed students are covered.

At my school, special education students empty the recycling bins. Is this pitiful, or is it encouraging?

I try not to think about them.

money would be better spent on the Athletic Department....
:headbang: :headbang:

can we declare this the creepiest thread of '06 so far?

this advocacy of denying citizens the right to an education sure makes my skin crawl.

can we declare this the creepiest thread of '06 so far?

this advocacy of denying citizens the right to an education sure makes my skin crawl.

No. its ok because we've deemed them inferior. Only the inferior get denied rights.

No. its ok because we've deemed them inferior. Only the inferior get denied rights.
oh ok i feel so much better now

ive checked in on this thread several times today and each time i get so upset that i cant possibly respond without flaming.

have we gotten so stingy as a society that we really feel we have to choose between educating the smart kids or educating the mentally challenged? if average students arent getting the education they need its not because the money is going to the handicapped, its because their community has decided that they arent worth the extra tax money. we should look to where the real problem is, not get tricked into worrying about a false economy

have we gotten so stingy as a society that we really feel we have to choose between educating the smart kids or educating the mentally challenged? if average students arent getting the education they need its not because the money is going to the handicapped, its because their community has decided that they arent worth the extra tax money. we should look to where the real problem is, not get tricked into worrying about a false economy

Now you're just being reasonable.

I told you this is about depriving the inferior. The fact that logic doesn't dictate that the mentally challenged go uneducated in order to educate others doesn't figure into it.

What are your views on the treatment of mentally retarded people.
Not about your thoughts on the actual person but on the treatment they recieve from the educational facilities and the government. Do you think not enough is being done for them? Too much money is being spent on a lost cause? What are your views on their treatment in particular.

I personally do not approve of all the funding they recieve.
I know they need lots of help and attention but I attent a very budget-scraping high school.
It's not welfare status but it's very low on the chain of education although it offers some nice programs.
In short, there simply isn't that much money however a great deal of cash is spent on the LLS program (Learning Life Skills), quite a portion of which could be better used to educate the rest of the school.

I know they have problems.
But honestly, their education will never get them as far as our education will get us, it sounds cruel but it is the hard truth.
I respect helping them and teaching them as far as it can go.
I just feel too much money is spent on these types of 'specialized' programs.

Thoughts?


Would you rather have functional retarded people in positions where they are able to work to their fullest potential and, therefore, be able to contribute to society, or would you rather have them on welfare or in institutions somewhere? Either way, public funding will support them. Or do you just advocate setting them adrift and hoping for the best?

I think people with disabilities deserve education. It's not their fault they're unique in their needs. The only thing I don't approve of is when students are put in classes that do nothing for them. Sometimes, normal classes are great for disadvantaged students (eg: I've got a disabled girl in my foods class who participates in all the labs and has plenty of friends), but other times, students need a different type of attention (eg: in 7th grade, there was a boy with cerebral palsy in my class. It was so severe, he could not participate in any lessons, and simply listened to music at the back of the classroom). Sure, that may require funding, but isn't it worth the money to help people live fuller lives?

What are your views on the treatment of mentally retarded people.
Not about your thoughts on the actual person but on the treatment they recieve from the educational facilities and the government. Do you think not enough is being done for them? Too much money is being spent on a lost cause? What are your views on their treatment in particular.

I personally do not approve of all the funding they recieve.
I know they need lots of help and attention but I attent a very budget-scraping high school.
It's not welfare status but it's very low on the chain of education although it offers some nice programs.
In short, there simply isn't that much money however a great deal of cash is spent on the LLS program (Learning Life Skills), quite a portion of which could be better used to educate the rest of the school.

I know they have problems.
But honestly, their education will never get them as far as our education will get us, it sounds cruel but it is the hard truth.
I respect helping them and teaching them as far as it can go.
I just feel too much money is spent on these types of 'specialized' programs.

Thoughts?


That is disgusting.

Now you're just being reasonable.

I told you this is about depriving the inferior. The fact that logic doesn't dictate that the mentally challenged go uneducated in order to educate others doesn't figure into it.
maybe its because they are way too young to know what used to be done with handicapped children. how they were locked away in institutions with the mentally ill and given essentially no education. the thought of anyone wanting to go back to that and to deny children whatever level of education they can get is very creepy.

but i feel MUCH better now.

Hell, they didn't want me to enter school (this was 1973) and I'm obviously not retarded. They made me take an IQ test to "prove" that I needed to be placed in a "special" school. I blew the doors off the test, scoring 7th grade intelligence at 6 years old. :D

This is the same bitching argument that happened in my highschool

At the school the same people who were arguing to cut special needs funding were the same that took funding from the band to support their precious football team that had not won in 5 years


There is PLENTY of lot less important things that could be cut without taking funding from the special needs student that need it

I'm too cynical and filled with teenager angst to get over it until at least twenty.


Little boy/girl, you need to grow up.

I think the point is that they can't 'get by' per se on any amount of help - they'll never rise above the level of early elementary school at best, they'll never get a level of value out of their education even close to the expenditure put in, they'll never provide a return on the investment of the people who paid the tax dollars for their education, they'll never make something of themselves or contribute to the economy or society. What's the point? The only contribution they offer is to the families that love them, and that doesn't require education.

The entire purpose of IDEA and ADA is to provide a level playing field. So that I and other disabled Americans have just as much chance as you to succeed.

oh ok i feel so much better now

ive checked in on this thread several times today and each time i get so upset that i cant possibly respond without flaming.

have we gotten so stingy as a society that we really feel we have to choose between educating the smart kids or educating the mentally challenged? if average students arent getting the education they need its not because the money is going to the handicapped, its because their community has decided that they arent worth the extra tax money. we should look to where the real problem is, not get tricked into worrying about a false economy
Have my babies :fluffle: :fluffle: (you know you are the first female poster that I have said that to lol)

No. its ok because we've deemed them inferior. Only the inferior get denied rights.
no no no...inferior people still get rights. I think we've deemed them sub-human. I mean, they're braindead, which puts them on the same cognitive level as a rock.

Little boy/girl, you need to grow up.

Nah, no such thing as a mature teenager.

In any case, you people are being impractical.
If all human life was of the same value, racism wouldn't exist.
You are putting morals before logic, thus why we have terrible politicians.

So that I and other disabled Americans have just as much chance as you to succeed.

And so would that require giving the special needs kids and (normal but) lesser intelligent kids massess of funding while virtually abandoning the smart gifted kids. The ammount of help you would need to give disabled kids in order to put them on an EQUAL line with the best kids would be a vast distortion of funds and just unfair to everyone else. We should encourage and help the best succeed as much as we can, as to should we encourage the disabled to still try their best and make the most of their education. But specifically going out of your way to give one group in society more education than another is just wrong.


Nah, no such thing as a mature teenager.

In any case, you people are being impractical.
If all human life was of the same value, racism wouldn't exist.
You are putting morals before logic, thus why we have terrible politicians.

Pleantly of teenages are mature, I'm sure many who come on this forum. Don't use your age to act in a unpleasent way. They may be somewhat impractical bit we have human rights regardless of what race or ability your are and everyone should be entitled to the same services. Human life isn't all of the same value but that has NOTHING in the slightest to do with race, some black people are more intelligent to white people and vice versa. And stephen Hawkin is the classic example that disabled people can have very valid and wise opinions as well. Denying anyone education isn't logic, who never know who might flourish.

I'm sorry, I just can't bring myself to read all 21 pages of this thread. There are some very interesting views expressed so far, when I say interesting, I mean sickening. It really says something about society (and I'm willing to bet most of the awful comments posted are from Americans) when people are actually suggesting that education of any child is a waste of money.

I suppose it doesn't help that your government insists on budgetting the way it does, so little goes to education and healthcare, so you have to fight for scraps. If the appropriate level of funding were given to education I'm sure many of you would feel differently about the education of mentally impared children.

That's not to say that I would agree with putting a "practically brain-dead" child through a traditional education at great expense. They are entitled to an education, but it must be the right kind of education, one that they will benefit from. That may well be more expensive than a traditional one, but the money is beside the point, they are entitled to the same opportunities as others and sometimes equal opportunities means more funding for some than others.

I wish more people could value all life and respect every child's right to an education, no matter what obstacles are in their way.

I'm sorry, I just can't bring myself to read all 21 pages of this thread. There are some very interesting views expressed so far, when I say interesting, I mean sickening. It really says something about society (and I'm willing to bet most of the awful comments posted are from Americans) when people are actually suggesting that education of any child is a waste of money.

I suppose it doesn't help that your government insists on budgetting the way it does, so little goes to education and healthcare, so you have to fight for scraps. If the appropriate level of funding were given to education I'm sure many of you would feel differently about the education of mentally impared children.

That's not to say that I would agree with putting a "practically brain-dead" child through a traditional education at great expense. They are entitled to an education, but it must be the right kind of education, one that they will benefit from. That may well be more expensive than a traditional one, but the money is beside the point, they are entitled to the same opportunities as others and sometimes equal opportunities means more funding for some than others.

I wish more people could value all life and respect every child's right to an education, no matter what obstacles are in their way.

There is a difference between an academic education and life skills they could learn from their parents at no cost.

I can't believe how fucked up Americans are. Well, some Americans. People like Ashmoria and Cat-Tribe obviously understand the whole fucking point.

Personal Story: I just finished my first term as a teacher at a high school. There was a kid in one of my Year 9 English classes who was ascertained at Intellectual Impairment 6 (the highest a kid can be). He's now been identified as being autistic as well. This kid, because I actually thought about my program, and adapted my planning to accomodate his needs, and went to learning support and read up on how to help him, went from turning in nothing to a single teacher, to giving me an 800 word fractured fairytale challenging the class stereotypes present within the story. All it takes is for people to accept that they have the same ability as everyone else, they just need an extra push.

That is disgusting.

See that's what I tried to say. In a very long-winded way.

All it takes is for people to accept that they have the same ability as everyone else, they just need an extra push.

Should we not be giving everyone an "extra push". Its great your student made progress but that should be the expectation you have from every student. We shouldn't expect everyone to get the same results and I'm sure writing the 800 word essey took more effort than most other students put in, however I still deem it unfair to spend extra time and resorces on one individual to do 800 words when someone working on a 2000 word essey with more help could have good progress as well.

I don't see the reason everyone needs to be held back or pushed in order to keep everyone at the same level. Let the best excell let the weaker students still try their best with the same help and resources.

Should we not be giving everyone an "extra push". Its great your student made progress but that should be the expectation you have from every student. We shouldn't expect everyone to get the same results and I'm sure writing the 800 word essey took more effort than most other students put in, however I still deem it unfair to spend extra time and resorces on one individual to do 800 words when someone working on a 2000 word essey with more help could have good progress as well.

I don't see the reason everyone needs to be held back or pushed in order to keep everyone at the same level. Let the best excell let the weaker students still try their best with the same help and resources.

What makes you think I don't have the same expectation of every student? And to be honest, while there are several kids in that class with amazing intellect, i would much rather expend my time and energy on this student who works hard and tries, than on the students who:
A) call him a retard
B) spend their classtime arguing about who stole their 50c pen and then whinging about how I don't care because I didn't do anything about it. Considering it was my pen in the first place, I think I should be the one complaining.
C) Spend the rest of the time in English complaining about the fact that I don't take them out for sport. It's English for god sakes.
D) explain to me patiently when I express my concerns about their low work output that they already know how to fill out a Centrelink dole form, and thus do not require the services of state education.

I am not suggesting that everyone achieve at the same level, merely that your so-called "retards" can actually achieve. I still had my A+'s right down to my E-'s. I didn't have to "drag anyone down", I just provided him with modified versions of the definitions I used in class, and ensured that I checked his understanding by calling on him in class. I made sure I praised him when he answered a question, and I watched what I said because he is autistic and can't really grasp sarcasm. All in all, the "extra prep and resources" came to about one day of reading, and 10 minutes extra on each lesson in prep. Oh such a huge price to pay.

By the way, the word limit on their assignment was 400 words.

What makes you think I don't have the same expectation of every student? And to be honest, while there are several kids in that class with amazing intellect, i would much rather expend my time and energy on this student who works hard and tries, than on the students who:
A) call him a retard
B) spend their classtime arguing about who stole their 50c pen and then whinging about how I don't care because I didn't do anything about it. Considering it was my pen in the first place, I think I should be the one complaining.
C) Spend the rest of the time in English complaining about the fact that I don't take them out for sport. It's English for god sakes.
D) explain to me patiently when I express my concerns about their low work output that they already know how to fill out a Centrelink dole form, and thus do not require the services of state education.

I am not suggesting that everyone achieve at the same level, merely that your so-called "retards" can actually achieve. I still had my A+'s right down to my E-'s. I didn't have to "drag anyone down", I just provided him with modified versions of the definitions I used in class, and ensured that I checked his understanding by calling on him in class. I made sure I praised him when he answered a question, and I watched what I said because he is autistic and can't really grasp sarcasm. All in all, the "extra prep and resources" came to about one day of reading, and 10 minutes extra on each lesson in prep. Oh such a huge price to pay.

By the way, the word limit on their assignment was 400 words.

If I was a teacher I'd love to spend more of my time on the hard working kids as well especially the polite ones but my position atleast remains constant, that everyones being given free education and the whole point is that regardless of how much tax your parents have paid everyone gets the same. A kid who calls someone a retard or disrups a class complaining about a pen or lack of sports in all rights has justification to be punished either with a detention or whatever your school does. Discipline and manners are things that need to be taught to everyone.

If there are two students one on an A on on an E (or one special needs kid). If extra time is given to the E kid or the special need kid to help them improve while the A kid with equal attention and time could have got an A+ but didn't I think the smart kid is being dragged down (by not being given the same help).

This one off class yes doesn't seem like a huge price to pay. But the topic was talking about a general trend where personal laptops and classrooms of 6 students to a teacher were given to many special needs groups. While its great that a teacher respects the student (as all should) and makes the effort the disproportunate funding and time while not a waste, is unfair on everyone else. Especially if one family is paying more in taxes and is getting less in education than someone else, which is happenig.

If I was a teacher I'd love to spend more of my time on the hard working kids as well especially the polite ones but my position atleast remains constant, that everyones being given free education and the whole point is that regardless of how much tax your parents have paid everyone gets the same. A kid who calls someone a retard or disrups a class complaining about a pen or lack of sports in all rights has justification to be punished either with a detention or whatever your school does. Discipline and manners are things that need to be taught to everyone.

If there are two students one on an A on on an E (or one special needs kid). If extra time is given to the E kid or the special need kid to help them improve while the A kid with equal attention and time could have got an A+ but didn't I think the smart kid is being dragged down (by not being given the same help).

This one off class yes doesn't seem like a huge price to pay. But the topic was talking about a general trend where personal laptops and classrooms of 6 students to a teacher were given to many special needs groups. While its great that a teacher respects the student (as all should) and makes the effort the disproportunate funding and time while not a waste, is unfair on everyone else. Especially if one family is paying more in taxes and is getting less in education than someone else, which is happenig.

Yes, and without giving any kid any extra attention, they'll all fade to mediocrity. I offer all my kids the same amount of help (I rarely get a lunchbreak), however, many don't bother to accept it.

As for your point about funding, education is not about equality. No, really, it ain't. Its about EQUITY. Equity is giving all students the same access to success, rather than the same opportunity. It's about ensuring that all kids have an equivalent, rather than the same, opportunity to succeed at the same level. For instance, ESL kids may require extra tutoring, an aide in the classroom, a slightly modified assessment task, etc. in order to have the opportunity to get the same result as a background English speaker.

I haven't read through the topic. What's NS' definition of mentally retarded?

Yes, and without giving any kid any extra attention, they'll all fade to mediocrity. I offer all my kids the same amount of help (I rarely get a lunchbreak), however, many don't bother to accept it.

Thats fine. A lot of education is about responcibility for yourself and how much your willing to put into it. My main concern was giving some kids extra attention while others still seek teaching. My bigger concern was one group of kids recieving more public money than others rather than how one teacher allocates her time. If a child refuses to be taught or doesn't want to do an extra work than other than the basics they're not using whats been giving to them effectively and its up to them. I guess there isn't too huge of a difference between our opinions, which is interesting as this thread has had both extremes.

I haven't read through the topic. What's NS' definition of mentally retarded?

They are viewing mental retardation far too wide.
A slow child isn't fucking retarded.
A mentally retarded child is somebody who can't control himself physically, verbally or mentally. It's not that he doesn't get it, he can't get it.

People in this topic seem to think I'm against slow-witted kids.
That is complete bullshit, I think they deserve all the chances in the world.
I'm talking about the ones in the wheelchairs who can't speak except in loud slurs, who can't comprehend even the most basic of instructions and basically need a nurse around at all time to ensure they don't go wheel out infront of a car.

Here are the levels of academics in High School:
Academic - University level
Applied - College level
Essential - Extremely slow level
LLS - Mentally retarded/handicapped

To Saint Jade, you are not teaching a mentally retarded person.
NORMAL TEACHERS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO TEACH LLS STUDENTS
I can assure you, there is 0% chance you have an LLS student in your class unless you are teaching gym.

Have my babies :fluffle: :fluffle: (you know you are the first female poster that I have said that to lol)
now before i accept this offer..... you seem to be implying that you have offered to make babies with male posters.... or am i reading too much into this?

There is a difference between an academic education and life skills they could learn from their parents at no cost.

Sure. Mom can just stay home and take care of them. She was probably already going to do so anyway. Not like she needs a job to pay the bills or anything.

Personal Story: I just finished my first term as a teacher at a high school. There was a kid in one of my Year 9 English classes who was ascertained at Intellectual Impairment 6 (the highest a kid can be). He's now been identified as being autistic as well. This kid, because I actually thought about my program, and adapted my planning to accomodate his needs, and went to learning support and read up on how to help him, went from turning in nothing to a single teacher, to giving me an 800 word fractured fairytale challenging the class stereotypes present within the story. All it takes is for people to accept that they have the same ability as everyone else, they just need an extra push.
Nicely done.

They are viewing mental retardation far too wide.
A slow child isn't fucking retarded.
A mentally retarded child is somebody who can't control himself physically, verbally or mentally. It's not that he doesn't get it, he can't get it.

People in this topic seem to think I'm against slow-witted kids.
That is complete bullshit, I think they deserve all the chances in the world.
I'm talking about the ones in the wheelchairs who can't speak except in loud slurs, who can't comprehend even the most basic of instructions and basically need a nurse around at all time to ensure they don't go wheel out infront of a car.

Here are the levels of academics in High School:
Academic - University level
Applied - College level
Essential - Extremely slow level
LLS - Mentally retarded/handicapped

To Saint Jade, you are not teaching a mentally retarded person.
NORMAL TEACHERS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO TEACH LLS STUDENTS
I can assure you, there is 0% chance you have an LLS student in your class unless you are teaching gym.
maybe where you are, but we have heavy mainstreaming here. I assure you, it is entirely plausible, and infact, likely, that she has had severely handicapped students, depending on the handicap.

maybe where you are, but we have heavy mainstreaming here. I assure you, it is entirely plausible, and infact, likely, that she has had severely handicapped students, depending on the handicap.

Maybe in elementary.
In high school, the classes are split up in academic levels.
I'd love to know how someone could be teaching both essay-writing and the alphabet at the exact same time.

Maybe in elementary.
In high school, the classes are split up in academic levels.
I'd love to know how someone could be teaching both essay-writing and the alphabet at the exact same time.
even in high school. "mental retardation" is pretty quickly becoming less diagnosed as it turns out many have autism, ADD/ADHD or other severe developmental disorders. It requires the same prep time and other resources as retardation did, however.

now before i accept this offer..... you seem to be implying that you have offered to make babies with male posters.... or am i reading too much into this?
Maybe :p (there is no halo smily damn it)

They are viewing mental retardation far too wide.
A slow child isn't fucking retarded.
A mentally retarded child is somebody who can't control himself physically, verbally or mentally. It's not that he doesn't get it, he can't get it.

People in this topic seem to think I'm against slow-witted kids.
That is complete bullshit, I think they deserve all the chances in the world.
I'm talking about the ones in the wheelchairs who can't speak except in loud slurs, who can't comprehend even the most basic of instructions and basically need a nurse around at all time to ensure they don't go wheel out infront of a car.

Here are the levels of academics in High School:
Academic - University level
Applied - College level
Essential - Extremely slow level
LLS - Mentally retarded/handicapped

To Saint Jade, you are not teaching a mentally retarded person.
NORMAL TEACHERS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO TEACH LLS STUDENTS
I can assure you, there is 0% chance you have an LLS student in your class unless you are teaching gym.

So. All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others?

It is OK to discriminate if the retardation is particularly severe? We should kick them because they are down?

Maybe in elementary.
In high school, the classes are split up in academic levels.
I'd love to know how someone could be teaching both essay-writing and the alphabet at the exact same time.

In Australian high schools streaming is forbidden. Stop being so US-centric. There's a whole world out there.

As to your second point, it's really very easy. And since Queensland's education system fucked itself in the arse a few years back, I have to do that anyway, since most kids can't read and write properly.

Nicely done.

thank you. Not to be immodest, but I was pretty proud too. :p

My HS is also spending too much...where are thes people going to end up in 20 years? We really should let nature take its course and let them "die off" as mean as that may seem...I have trouble thinking about it. There are some that just need a little boost and are fine.

As to your second point, it's really very easy. And since Queensland's education system fucked itself in the arse a few years back, I have to do that anyway, since most kids can't read and write properly.


So, in Queensland you don't have curriculums?

My HS is also spending too much...where are thes people going to end up in 20 years? We really should let nature take its course and let them "die off" as mean as that may seem...I have trouble thinking about it. There are some that just need a little boost and are fine.

That would work. So, if, or when, you have a retarded child, how are you going to handle it? Starvation, dehydration, refusal of medical attention? You are quick to hand this out to other people's children, I doubt you would be so quick if it were your own.

That would work. So, if, or when, you have a retarded child, how are you going to handle it? Starvation, dehydration, refusal of medical attention? You are quick to hand this out to other people's children, I doubt you would be so quick if it were your own.

Adoption.

My HS is also spending too much...where are thes people going to end up in 20 years? We really should let nature take its course and let them "die off" as mean as that may seem...I have trouble thinking about it. There are some that just need a little boost and are fine.


I'm glad you weren't my parent. So, polluting the gene pool am I? You, sir, are an ass. Who are you to play God? By what right do you decide who should "die off"? No, you know what? I'm not stooping to your level. I wish you a happy, healthy life and may you never, through injury or illness, find yourself with a disability or brain damage. Because I doubt you could handle it. You wouldn't last a month. You're not nearly strong enough.

I'm glad you weren't my parent. So, polluting the gene pool am I? You, sir, are an ass. Who are you to play God? By what right do you decide who should "die off"? No, you know what? I'm not stooping to your level. I wish you a happy, healthy life and may you never, through injury or illness, find yourself with a disability or brain damage. Because I doubt you could handle it. You wouldn't last a month. You're not nearly strong enough.

Yeah, he's so weak he's right-wing.
Like a twig compared to the lefties, right?
Critical Logic Error!

Incorrect. Because the funding that the mentally challenged receive does NOT come out of the same budget as 'everyone else', it comes our of their own funding.

So basically, if y'all think the funding should be stopped because it's not cost effective, then let's stop handing out scholarships as well. After all, why should poor people get money for college if everyone doesn't? Why should women get money over men? Why should African Americans have their own scholarships, and Latinos? And why, for god's sake should SMART PEOPLE get them? After all, they ALREADY are at an advantage -- if they're so smart, they can make their own damned money for college!

The amount of heartless, selfish, childishness in this thread is sickening. You all would be first on line begging for help if God forbid someone in YOUR family were in this predicament.
Amen. :)

Maybe :p (there is no halo smily damn it)
http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/engel/angel-smiley-014.gif

What are your views on the treatment of mentally retarded people.
I think the US approach to mentally retarded people (throwing the all into one party, naming it "Republican" and putting the most retarded of them into the government) sucks badly :rolleyes:

I think the US approach to mentally retarded people (throwing the all into one party, naming it "Republican" and putting the most retarded of them into the government) sucks badly :rolleyes:

rofl, I like you :p

Adoption.
Abortion if possible. Frankly, I'd rather try for a secound who won't need babysitting his whole life and won't cost the family loads rather have one who can really enjoy life to a much greater extent. I'd almost claim its unfair on the child not to abort if you can viably have another.

Yeah, he's so weak he's right-wing.
Like a twig compared to the lefties, right?
Critical Logic Error!



What are you talking about?

You seem to think that because you have different morals, you're a stronger personal mentally. Which of course is complete crap.

My view is that the name of the thread is so poorly written as to make no sense at all. I mean, are we talking about educating the retarded, educating the population-at-large about mental retardation, or is it something else.

Before the OP or anyone else asks, no - I couldn't be bothered reading a single post in this thread, nor am I so inclined. 23 pages? Hunh. I shouldn't really validate it by posting here, is what my gut is telling me.

My view is that the name of the thread is so poorly written as to make no sense at all. I mean, are we talking about educating the retarded, educating the population-at-large about mental retardation, or is it something else.

Before the OP or anyone else asks, no - I couldn't be bothered reading a single post in this thread, nor am I so inclined. 23 pages? Hunh. I shouldn't really validate it by posting here, is what my gut is telling me.

Thanks for the helpful post.
Now, get the fuck out.
The name is so fucking specific I don't understand how you couldn't comprehend it's message, perhaps you're illiterate to some extent?

My view is that the name of the thread is so poorly written as to make no sense at all. I mean, are we talking about educating the retarded, educating the population-at-large about mental retardation, or is it something else.

Before the OP or anyone else asks, no - I couldn't be bothered reading a single post in this thread, nor am I so inclined. 23 pages? Hunh. I shouldn't really validate it by posting here, is what my gut is telling me.

Oh? If your not inclined to read our "Shit", then so be it. Just don't post again and stay on peoples good side.

Any way...

It is my view that those who are so mentally challenged to be brain-dead should indeed be left to die, if only for there sake. Let them go be with the Lord as soon as possible. Also, if a person if so economically draining that funds must be allocated from someone else's education, it should be the parent/guardians responsibilty to pay for them.

The name is so fucking specific I don't understand how you couldn't comprehend it's message, perhaps you're illiterate to some extent?
People in glass houses...

Oh? If your not inclined to read our "Shit", then so be it. Just don't post again and stay on peoples good side.
Who said anything about shit?

You must be projecting, there stranger.

People in glass houses...

Whats your problem? You should have just left while you were "ahead".
If you have a actual post then post it.

My problem is this: the question, "Your views on the education of mental retardation?" makes no grammatical or logical sense, apart from not being a proper question, either.

What's your problem, pally?

My problem is this: the question, "Your views on the education of mental retardation?" makes no grammatical or logical sense, apart from not being a proper question, either.

What's your problem, pally?

Oh yes, I forgot how if something isn't politically correct it's impossible to understand.

I'm glad you weren't my parent. So, polluting the gene pool am I? You, sir, are an ass. Who are you to play God? By what right do you decide who should "die off"? No, you know what? I'm not stooping to your level. I wish you a happy, healthy life and may you never, through injury or illness, find yourself with a disability or brain damage. Because I doubt you could handle it. You wouldn't last a month. You're not nearly strong enough.

oh im sure that if one of these boys was in a bad car accident and ended up a paraplegic he would be the first one to ask to receive no social services. and i bet that if his grandmother had a stroke, he'd be the first one to pull the plug--even as she was pleading for her life out of one side of her mouth.

we cant be having anything less than perfect people. we just dont have the resources to help out those who cant do everything on their own.

its no wonder that we had to pass laws mandating the education of all children.

Oh yes, I forgot how if something isn't politically correct it's impossible to understand.
No, if something isn't grammatically correct, it's difficult to understand. Not impossible. Not politically correct.

You seem to think that because you have different morals, you're a stronger personal mentally. Which of course is complete crap.


You didn't understand my post at all, did you? OK, let's take it real slow, so you can understand...


1) I wasn't talking to you.

2) I made no mention of morals directly or indirectly.

3) If you must know, what I was referring to was that I was questioning his ability to deal with life as a disabled person. I assure you it isn't easy. I know this because I am disabled, which I would have assumed you could have figured out from my previous posts. And yes, the idea of the physically and/or mentally disabled being left to rot or euthanized offends me.

-- as does a child in high school presuming to lecture me about relative morality.

No, if something isn't grammatically correct, it's difficult to understand. Not impossible. Not politically correct.

You'd rather it be called;
Post your views regarding today's current standards on the education funds recieved by mentally handicapped individuals

You'd rather it be called;
Post your views regarding today's current standards on the education funds recieved by mentally handicapped individuals
I really don't care what you choose to call it, I'd just prefer it if you'd choose to be clear.

Any way...

It is my view that those who are so mentally challenged to be brain-dead should indeed be left to die, if only for there sake. Let them go be with the Lord as soon as possible. Also, if a person if so economically draining that funds must be allocated from someone else's education, it should be the parent/guardians responsibilty to pay for them.

1. The brain-dead are dead. Nice red herring.

2. Education need not be a zero-sum game. We are nation of vast resources. Why do some not deserve to receive education?

3. What if the parents/guardian cannot afford it? And why should they be punished?

4. Equity, my friend, is a value you should become acquainted with. Equal rights and equal protection under the law are key values for which America strives. Once you go down the slippery slope of deciding some are less valuable than others, when do you stop?

oh im sure that if one of these boys was in a bad car accident and ended up a paraplegic he would be the first one to ask to receive no social services. and i bet that if his grandmother had a stroke, he'd be the first one to pull the plug--even as she was pleading for her life out of one side of her mouth.

we cant be having anything less than perfect people. we just dont have the resources to help out those who cant do everything on their own.

its no wonder that we had to pass laws mandating the education of all children.

Many have been arguing specil needed children should be given more help. If I was in a car accident using national healthcare I would want exacly the same help everyone else is entitled to just as I would expect for my grandmother.

I wouldn't expect special priviliges unless I went private and neither should anyone else regardless of race, backround or mental intelligence.

I haven't read through the topic. What's NS' definition of mentally retarded?


*shakes head*

*shakes head*

In context, I actually thought that was a good question.

The anti-disabled in this thread like to assume that any mental challenge is the practical equivalent of brain death.

To recognize varying degrees of mental challenge -- not to mention huge gray areas -- would undermine much of their theories about how we can easily just leave some to die because they obviously are worthy beings.

you know what? I encourage every single person who thinks the handicapped shouldn't be educated, and moreover, aren't worthy of some kind of education, to find a handicapped childs parents, and say it to their face.

Once you get out of the hospital, then we can talk.

In Australian high schools streaming is forbidden. Stop being so US-centric. There's a whole world out there.

There are learning disabled children in US general ed high school classrooms here too. How do I know? I TEACH THEM.

Really, don't judge all of us on the say-so of ignorant and infantile posts.

Thanks for the helpful post.
Now, get the fuck out.
The name is so fucking specific I don't understand how you couldn't comprehend it's message, perhaps you're illiterate to some extent?

Warned for flaming.

Many have been arguing specil needed children should be given more help. If I was in a car accident using national healthcare I would want exacly the same help everyone else is entitled to just as I would expect for my grandmother.

I wouldn't expect special priviliges unless I went private and neither should anyone else regardless of race, backround or mental intelligence.
healthcare =/= education. And it actually works against your point. If someone has a broken bone, they get a cast. If someone has a shattered bone, they get surgery, and potentially prosthetics. People needing more help get it in healthcare.

My problem is this: the question, "Your views on the education of mental retardation?" makes no grammatical or logical sense, apart from not being a proper question, either.

What's your problem, pally?

To emphasize what Dobbsworld is pointing out:

Mental retardation refers to a condition, not a person.

You cannot educate mental retardation.

You can educate others ABOUT mental retardation.

You can educate the mentally retarded.

You cannot educate mental retardation.

healthcare =/= education. And it actually works against your point. If someone has a broken bone, they get a cast. If someone has a shattered bone, they get surgery, and potentially prosthetics. People needing more help get it in healthcare.

The point over education is that that private PC that goes to a special need kid or the extra teachers/classrooms is money that if equally spent would go to help others progress. As you say healthcare is different, someone having a broken leg and being fixed isn't preventing me being given equal care should I get a broken leg or if I have no problem at all.

But even so if a certain condition or disease becomes so costly on the NHS that it prevents me getting treatment to fix a broken leg should I need it, then less funds should be spent in that area to ensure everyone can get care.

To emphasize what Dobbsworld is pointing out:

Mental retardation refers to a condition, not a person.

You cannot educate mental retardation.

You can educate others ABOUT mental retardation.

You can educate the mentally retarded.

You cannot educate mental retardation.
Justement, mon brave. Exactly.

Many have been arguing specil needed children should be given more help. If I was in a car accident using national healthcare I would want exacly the same help everyone else is entitled to just as I would expect for my grandmother.

I wouldn't expect special priviliges unless I went private and neither should anyone else regardless of race, backround or mental intelligence.


So if you lost a leg, you'd be happy if they just put in stitches and did not fit you for a prosthesis and give you physical therapy in learning how to use it to walk again, right? Because obviously, not everyone needs an expensive prothetic and training.

The point over education is that that private PC that goes to a special need kid or the extra teachers/classrooms is money that if equally spent would go to help others progress. As you say healthcare is different, someone having a broken leg and being fixed isn't preventing me being given equal care should I get a broken leg or if I have no problem at all.

But even so if a certain condition or disease becomes so costly on the NHS that it prevents me getting treatment to fix a broken leg should I need it, then less funds should be spent in that area to ensure everyone can get care.as Kat pointed out, the funding for special education is seperate from the funding for general education. Their education does not hurt yours. The money could be spent to help them progress, or help someone else progress. There is no way to judge who deserves to progress more.

Many have been arguing specil needed children should be given more help. If I was in a car accident using national healthcare I would want exacly the same help everyone else is entitled to just as I would expect for my grandmother.

I wouldn't expect special priviliges unless I went private and neither should anyone else regardless of race, backround or mental intelligence.

well gee, if the shoe doesnt fit, dont wear it.

if you arent one of these boys who suggest that certain people dont deserve an education, i wasnt talking to you.

The point over education is that that private PC that goes to a special need kid or the extra teachers/classrooms is money that if equally spent would go to help others progress. As you say healthcare is different, someone having a broken leg and being fixed isn't preventing me being given equal care should I get a broken leg or if I have no problem at all.

But even so if a certain condition or disease becomes so costly on the NHS that it prevents me getting treatment to fix a broken leg should I need it, then less funds should be spent in that area to ensure everyone can get care.

Your premise that education of the challenged automatically penalizes the non-challenged is false.

Why must their be a rationing of education?

And, why, pray tell, are the challenged not entitled to at least equal treatment? How is equal treatment somehow automatically special treatment at the expense of others?

So if you lost a leg, you'd be happy if they just put in stitches and did not fit you for a prosthesis and give you physical therapy in learning how to use it to walk again, right? Because obviously, not everyone needs an expensive prothetic and training.

Well it depends. I'm not going to make a plan for every possible surgery or accident and a detailed list of what treatment each case should have, but if its part of the recovery they need to make to go back to work or survive they should get it. As long as its not a rediclious figure that would eat into funding so much that others would suffer from a lack of funding.

as Kat pointed out, the funding for special education is seperate from the funding for general education. Their education does not hurt yours. The money could be spent to help them progress, or help someone else progress. There is no way to judge who deserves to progress more.

Thats one thing I'd have an issue with. Just because it exists doesn't mean its right, I'd argue to remove the segregation of funding and then making it equal would help the other students. I'm not arguing we should choose someone to help progress more, we should give it to everyone equally (no choice involved there at all). Perhaps with the exception for the especially gifted who might progress things drematically, but that would be small if anything the type I speak of should be snaped up with scholarships anyway.

Your premise that education of the challenged automatically penalizes the non-challenged is false.

Why must their be a rationing of education?

And, why, pray tell, are the challenged not entitled to at least equal treatment? How is equal treatment somehow automatically special treatment at the expense of others?

:rolleyes:

You agree funding is limited only a certain amount of tax can be collected and put to education. Therefore spending is limited and must be rationed.

If you noticed my arguement I was saying the challenged are entitled to equal treatment unlike the extra treatment many others were arguing for.

Equal treatment does not harm others, giving special needs extra treatment and finance does come at the expense of others (even if the budget is seperated) which is what CURRENTLY exists, and what many were arguing to make even more sharper.

Well it depends. I'm not going to make a plan for every possible surgery or accident and a detailed list of what treatment each case should have, but if its part of the recovery they need to make to go back to work or survive they should get it. As long as its not a rediclious figure that would eat into funding so much that others would suffer from a lack of funding.

Ah, but it takes only a few dollars to put in some stitches. PT would be tens, maybe hundreds of thousands, and even a modestly priced prosthetic would $10,000 - $18,000. Therefore, nothing but some stitches and a pair of $50 crutches for you. Does that destroy your quality of life? Tough. Does the difference between having your prosthetic and having some cheap crutches mean the difference between having a job and standing on a corner begging? It was too expensive, so why should we pay for it?



Thats one thing I'd have an issue with. Just because it exists doesn't mean its right, I'd argue to remove the segregation of funding and then making it equal would help the other students. I'm not arguing we should choose someone to help progress more, we should give it to everyone equally (no choice involved there at all). Perhaps with the exception for the especially gifted who might progress things drematically, but that would be small if anything the type I speak of should be snaped up with scholarships anyway.

You're missing the point. By taking their funding, you are stealing from them as this is money earmarked for this use and no other, and you are preventing them from being able to function in society at all. If you refuse to provide education enough for them to get a job, no matter how low-paying, then you are in fact saying you want to support them wholly. This is not cost effective.

:rolleyes:

You agree funding is limited only a certain amount of tax can be collected and put to education. Therefore spending is limited and must be rationed.

If you noticed my arguement I was saying the challenged are entitled to equal treatment unlike the extra treatment many others were arguing for.

Equal treatment does not harm others, giving special needs extra treatment and finance does come at the expense of others (even if the budget is seperated) which is what CURRENTLY exists, and what many were arguing to make even more sharper.

What you are calling equal treatment is the exact same amount of resources spent on each student. The standard instead should be equal opportunity.

Going back to your healthcare analogy, is it unfair if a cancer patient recieves more treatment than someone with a nosebleed?

Moreoever, as Kat as emphasized, what is the alternative to giving people equal education opportunities? Would you rather a segment of the population remain wholly uneducated with the opportunity for other than government support? Or are you simply regulating some people to starve to death.

Ah, but it takes only a few dollars to put in some stitches. PT would be thousands, and even a modestly priced prosthetic would $10,000 - $18,000. Therefore, nothing but some stitches and a pair of $50 crutches for you.
.

To make a valid arguement on this topic I think requires some deal of specialised education. I don't know the ammount of funding each hospital gets nor how they allocate them into each department or incident. I really couldn't say if a broken leg should recieve stiches and crutches or should get an $18,000 leg. At an instant reaction I might say spending $18,000 on every amputee is gonna be a quick drain on funding and might lead to shortages in other areas if so more of a pragmatic aproach should be taken for amputee's. Its not an issue where an idealistic responce can be issued.




You're missing the point. By taking their funding, you are stealing from them as this is money earmarked for this use and no other, and you are preventing them from being able to function in society at all. If you refuse to provide education enough for them to get a job, no matter how low-paying, then you are in fact saying you want to support them wholly. This is not cost effect.

I would argue that by getting more funding than someone else they are already stealing from that individual. If money was earmarked for Bush's poker club would it be stealing to aruge they should have their budget lowered? If someone isn't able to function in society without an getting an unfair proportion of public money than things shouldn't be moved.

You seem to be attacking me on the wrong side. If we want to judge individuals by how cost effective investment is on them than really we should be giving more money to the smarter ones that are gonna run companys and the country as they have the most economic power.

What you are calling equal treatment is the exact same amount of resources spent on each student. The standard instead should be equal opportunity.

Going back to your healthcare analogy, is it unfair if a cancer patient recieves more treatment than someone with a nosebleed?

Moreoever, as Kat as emphasized, what is the alternative to giving people equal education opportunities? Would you rather a segment of the population remain wholly uneducated with the opportunity for other than government support? Or are you simply regulating some people to starve to death.

As we've agreed healthcare is different. If giving a cancer patient free treatment won't stop me from getting the treatment I need to help with a nosebleed (if I were to go to hospital for that :rolleyes: ) than I welcome a cancer patient getting that. But with education there is no limit to how much funding someone can get, giving a student more resources better teaching ect.. the options are endless.

With a nosebleed I need a doctor for 5 min and possibly a tissue at most, no ammount of X ray machines or special resources will make me better quicker.

I won't let people starve, but surely if we give everyone equal funding and thus everyone opportuinites if you come out uneducated the blame will rest somewhat on yourself not utilising those opportunities.

Welfare to stop people starving to death is a whole new issue but few would argue we let the unemployed starve to death should they be unable to work.

As we've agreed healthcare is different. If giving a cancer patient free treatment won't stop me from getting the treatment I need to help with a nosebleed (if I were to go to hospital for that :rolleyes: ) than I welcome a cancer patient getting that. But with education there is no limit to how much funding someone can get, giving a student more resources better teaching ect.. the options are endless.

With a nosebleed I need a doctor for 5 min and possibly a tissue at most, no ammount of X ray machines or special resources will make me better quicker.

I won't let people starve, but surely if we give everyone equal funding and thus everyone opportuinites if you come out uneducated the blame will rest somewhat on yourself not utilising those opportunities.

Welfare to stop people starving to death is a whole new issue but few would argue we let the unemployed starve to death should they be unable to work.

So now the challenged are to blame for being challenged? How cute.

If you would spend money to support someone who cannot work, why wouldn't you spend money trying to make them more able to support themselves.

Spending money to educate the challenged is both more fair and more efficient than simply turning them over to state support.

So now the challenged are to blame for being challenged? How cute.

If you would spend money to support someone who cannot work, why wouldn't you spend money trying to make them more able to support themselves.

Spending money to educate the challenged is both more fair and more efficient than simply turning them over to state support.

Surely the challanged can utilise education, if everyone was given the same funding going to secoundary school up atleast till before uni should be achievable for all. If someone is unable to get enough out of the education I'm arguing for to even hold an ordinary job of any kind than I would doubt that giving them more money to help them (to even get the most basic of job) is really a wise investment. Especially considering the poor don't happen to pay much in taxes anyway, so I'm dubious of your claim it would be economically superior.

And following the logic should we then give superior education to the poor and generally less intelligent as that will prevent many of them being unemployed?

As for welfare (again off topic but relivent for this reply). If we adopt some style of workfare similar to what New Labour's doing in the UK this would mean the ecomomic burdon of unemployed is not as bad. Offer free training to those asking for unemployment benefits and provide them with jobs (even if they're cleaning jobs ect..) should they refuse too often or not accept training that will help them get better jobs they get less benefits.

Surely the challanged can utilise education, if everyone was given the same funding going to secoundary school up atleast till before uni should be achievable for all. If someone is unable to get enough out of the education I'm arguing for to even hold an ordinary job of any kind than I would doubt that giving them more money to help them (to even get the most basic of job) is really a wise investment. Especially considering the poor don't happen to pay much in taxes anyway, so I'm dubious of your claim it would be economically superior.
and you would be wrong. with extra help many special education kids can be brought to a level where they can either get a job (and thus not spend a lifetime on the dole) or live at least a semi-independant existance (and thus costing less to spend a lifetime on the dole)

would you rather spend money now to save money later? i would.


And following the logic should we then give superior education to the poor and generally less intelligent as that will prevent many of them being unemployed?

what logic? i didnt follow your reasoning at all. being poor has nothing to do with what the quality of your education should be.


As for welfare (again off topic but relivent for this reply). If we adopt some style of workfare similar to what New Labour's doing in the UK this would mean the ecomomic burdon of unemployed is not as bad. Offer free training to those asking for unemployment benefits and provide them with jobs (even if they're cleaning jobs ect..) should they refuse too often or not accept training that will help them get better jobs they get less benefits.
that is very beneficial for those who are on the dole but can still work. who have trouble getting and keeping a job. but it does nothing for those who cant work.

and you would be wrong. with extra help many special education kids can be brought to a level where they can either get a job (and thus not spend a lifetime on the dole) or live at least a semi-independant existance (and thus costing less to spend a lifetime on the dole)

would you rather spend money now to save money later? i would.
.

Not every job in the world requires high level education. And I'm not arguing to prevent these kids from achieving high level education, but lots of failing kids could be given extra money and help, and they would likely do better. But we can't start giving everyone who struggles extra funding to make sure they get good jobs. Do you really need all this extra help in education to get a cleaning job, or as a regular office worker, not always. Thus to say giving special needs kids equal funding will leave them in welfare unable to get any form of job doesn't strike me as accurate.

Not all of them will go on the dole, and if they do they're either gonna be unmotivated to succeed or seriously disabled to an extent that they would need so much help it would be uncostworthy. Also if a welfare system allows someone to spend their whole life on dole who could potentially work something is very wrong with their welfare system. If the disabled person is really unable to work, than no ammount of education is going to be worthwhile (but I'd still offer it anyway, just so they can try and prove themselves).


what logic? i didnt follow your reasoning at all. being poor has nothing to do with what the quality of your education should be.
.

Well people from poor families often do worse in exams and many on the dole started off from poor families as well. The logic I was trying to point out was, just because a group might dominate in unemployment that does not mean we should use positive discrimination to give them more help. As to if more Blacks or first generation immigrats were unemployed (not saying thats the case).


that is very beneficial for those who are on the dole but can still work. who have trouble getting and keeping a job. but it does nothing for those who cant work.

If someone is uncapable of doing any kind of work then I think they might be beyond any educational help. If you can't dig a whole, clean a floor or do any countless number of jobs recuring no education, than giving them lots of resources from our education budget is gonna be a poor investment not a good one. But welfare should certainly make a clear distinction between those physicall/mentally unable to work, and those capable but unwilling.

<SNIP>
you should look into the issues surrounding special education. it IS the case that without special efforts these children will never be able to hold a job or live on their own. thats why these kinds of classes exist. its not just a scam for parents to get their kids more attention than they would otherwise get.

you should look into the issues surrounding special education. it IS the case that without special efforts these children will never be able to hold a job or live on their own. thats why these kinds of classes exist. its not just a scam for parents to get their kids more attention than they would otherwise get.

Yeah of course. Its not the school that teaches you how to live on your own, thats your parents teaching you at home to put away cloths and how to cook ect..

And as is the case with almost anyone. If given no education you won't be able to do most jobs, yet with the same education as everyone there will be some jobs they can still do, they might be limited by what they're born with but so is everyone in a way (ugly people can't be models, someone afraid of heights isn't gonna be a builder) atleast this way they arn't stopping extra progress that everyone else in education is entitled to.

If you can't dig a whole, clean a floor or do any countless number of jobs recuring no education, than giving them lots of resources from our education budget is gonna be a poor investment not a good one.

Educating Stephen Hawking was clearly a waste of time and money.

Educating Stephen Hawking was clearly a waste of time and money.

Not at all I think Stephen Hawking's done very well for himself despite extreme disability. And with the same opportunity as everyone else he still would have shown his genious and excelled in the system to the highest level (Oxford was it?). Its great when special needs kids are successful but I would still aruge that the extra funding they get should thing be balenced out, a normal equivilent of Stephen Hawking could be making more progress than he is now but is underfunded.

Not at all I think Stephen Hawking's done very well for himself despite extreme disability. And with the same opportunity as everyone else he still would have shown his genious and excelled in the system to the highest level (Oxford was it?). Its great when special needs kids are successful but I would still aruge that the extra funding they get should thing be balenced out, a normal equivilent of Stephen Hawking could be making more progress than he is now but is underfunded.

Stephen Hawking has a physical disability, not a mental one. To succeed as he has done he will still have needed extra funding at school, his chair and voice box for example. It is extremely unlikely that he would have got to where he has without that extra help. If he did not have the capacity to communicate through his voice box he would not be able to share his knowledge orally and without the technology to transfer his thoughts to computer he would never have been published.

I'd like to know where those against educating the mentally handicapped stand on educating the physically handicapped. Should disabled kids be allowed wheelchairs and laptops (if they are unable to write with a pen)? This is extra funding that ordinary kids don't get. So I must assume that you are against it.

How about the physically impared and physical education? Is that a waste? Did you know that there's a guy at college in the USA who has NO ARMS OR LEGS who is a champion wrestler against full-bodied athletes? He has no limbs and wins against those with limbs. So, you cannot argue that people with these kinds of disability will never achieve anything physically.

You are arguing that those with severe mental disabilities (I appreciate we are not just talking about kids with ADD or lower IQs) shouldn't be educated as it is a waste, but you never know what a person may achieve given ample opportunity.

From some earlier posts I think there are some people here who seem to think that if someone pays more tax they are entitled to more from the system, if so those people clearly need to go back to school to learn what taxes are for. Those who can afford to contribute more so that those less fortunate may still benefit from education, healthcare etc. That is exactly what taxes are for. To argue that those less fortunate (mentally) should not receive this support is to argue that we shouldn't pay taxes. If that is indeed what you beleive then fine, but come out and say it, don't hide behind moronic arguments. (btw, my opinion of right-wingers is pretty low, so you won't actually win me over by admitting to it, but it's better to be honest)

Stephen Hawking has a physical disability, not a mental one. To succeed as he has done he will still have needed extra funding at school, his chair and voice box for example. It is extremely unlikely that he would have got to where he has without that extra help. If he did not have the capacity to communicate through his voice box he would not be able to share his knowledge orally and without the technology to transfer his thoughts to computer he would never have been published.

I'd like to know where those against educating the mentally handicapped stand on educating the physically handicapped. Should disabled kids be allowed wheelchairs and laptops (if they are unable to write with a pen)? This is extra funding that ordinary kids don't get. So I must assume that you are against it.

How about the physically impared and physical education? Is that a waste? Did you know that there's a guy at college in the USA who has NO ARMS OR LEGS who is a champion wrestler against full-bodied athletes? He has no limbs and wins against those with limbs. So, you cannot argue that people with these kinds of disability will never achieve anything physically.

You are arguing that those with severe mental disabilities (I appreciate we are not just talking about kids with ADD or lower IQs) shouldn't be educated as it is a waste, but you never know what a person may achieve given ample opportunity.

From some earlier posts I think there are some people here who seem to think that if someone pays more tax they are entitled to more from the system, if so those people clearly need to go back to school to learn what taxes are for. Those who can afford to contribute more so that those less fortunate may still benefit from education, healthcare etc. That is exactly what taxes are for. To argue that those less fortunate (mentally) should not receive this support is to argue that we shouldn't pay taxes. If that is indeed what you beleive then fine, but come out and say it, don't hide behind moronic arguments. (btw, my opinion of right-wingers is pretty low, so you won't actually win me over by admitting to it, but it's better to be honest)


Oh, we're a waste of space too, you know. Yep, just ask anyone. :rolleyes: People don't seem to understand (or refuse to acknowledge) the difference between "treating everyone equally" and levelling the playing field.

In context, I actually thought that was a good question.

The anti-disabled in this thread like to assume that any mental challenge is the practical equivalent of brain death.

To recognize varying degrees of mental challenge -- not to mention huge gray areas -- would undermine much of their theories about how we can easily just leave some to die because they obviously are worthy beings.

Am I considered retarded? I have Asperger's >_>

What are your views on the treatment of mentally retarded people.
Not about your thoughts on the actual person but on the treatment they recieve from the educational facilities and the government. Do you think not enough is being done for them? Too much money is being spent on a lost cause? What are your views on their treatment in particular.

I personally do not approve of all the funding they recieve.
I know they need lots of help and attention but I attent a very budget-scraping high school.
It's not welfare status but it's very low on the chain of education although it offers some nice programs.
In short, there simply isn't that much money however a great deal of cash is spent on the LLS program (Learning Life Skills), quite a portion of which could be better used to educate the rest of the school.

I know they have problems.
But honestly, their education will never get them as far as our education will get us, it sounds cruel but it is the hard truth.
I respect helping them and teaching them as far as it can go.
I just feel too much money is spent on these types of 'specialized' programs.

Thoughts?

My wife teaches special needs kids. They should be schooled like every one else. Though in some cases, they are not going to ever learn above a certain level, commensurate with their intellectual capacity, what they can all be taught is to become more self-reliant. The more severely retarded ones are admittedly pretty much just being babysitted by the public school system for the convenience of the parents. But even in these extreme cases, they are still learning how to interact with other kids of their age. Where if they stayed home, odds are good that they will not even learn THAT small amount. Just being in school helps them to more fully realize their potential, when they might not have had that advantage had they stayed at home. But on the other hand, there are autistic kids who get placed in these classes because the system has no idea what to do for them, even though they are in some cases quite intelligent, just as smart if not more so than regular ed. kids but are just simply unable to express adequately what they have learned. Which can be overcomed, given time. It's just like every thing else. No one solution fits all. So you cannot say that special education is a waste of time for all in nearly all cases, I don't think. And in some cases, it could be a life-making difference. Easily worth it, in my book.