At least according to a television station in San Francisco, California. In Special ed students could bankrupt districts Lyanne Melendez lays out a simple thesis:
The budget problems facing schools across California are getting even worse. There has been a dramatic increase in the number of special education students in recent years and the added cost of teaching them could bankrupt some school districts.
Starting with a bad premise, the story is bound to come to a bad conclusion. First, there are no “added costs” to teaching special education students. There are costs to educating students. We as a country decided, rightfully so, that one can not deny a student an education because doing so would cost more than the average.
We often hear how special education budgets “encroach” on the general education budgets. That is a false idea. Special Education students *are* students. General funds money spent on Special Education students *is* appropriate.
The rest of the piece by Lyanne Melendez is a classic example of scapegoating. Sorry to put it so bluntly, but that is my take.
Scapegoat (noun): a person or group made to bear the blame for others or to suffer in their place.
Why do I say this? Let’s look at one of the examples given in the story, Gilroy Unified School District. Google Maps puts Gilroy 80 miles south of San Francisco. Not to pick on Gilroy, but the idea that Special Education is bankrupting them doesn’t hold water.
Gilroy Unified School District is one of those districts that is struggling to cover the costs of educating special needs students.
“In 2002, our unfunded special ed costs were about $170,000, this school year it’s $3,200,000,” district spokesperson Deborah Toups said.
First, this irks me. There is no “unfunded” Special Education costs. The schools may not be reimbursed specifically for all special education costs, but they aren’t supposed to. Yes, there was a commitment by the Federal government to pay 40% of the costs (this is a sore point for me), but that doesn’t mean that local communities shouldn’t be funding whatever the Federal government doesn’t pay. Special education students are a part of the student population. It is the responsibility of the people to educate all students.
Let’s check some simple numbers. In the past 8 years, the budget for Gilroy Unified has been going down and the enrollment has been going up.
The website for the district has a number of documents relating to the budget. Here is the 2010-2011 budget book and here is a table of the budget and projected budgets (click it to enlarge):
The total budget is $82M this year. $3M for special education would be a big chunk of that budget. But, is that the whole story? I couldn’t find the 2002 budget numbers, but in 2005, the budget for Gilroy Unified was $119M .
So, the budget is down $37M in 5 years. Could this, perhaps, be part of the financial problem for Girloy Unified?
How about student population? The number of special ed kids has actually dropped. Gilroy had 882 special ed students in the 2009-10 school year and 923 2002-03 school year.
Note that overall student enrollment went up from 9,630 students in 2002/03 to to 11,116 in 2009/10. So, total student enrollment is going up, revenues are down.
Also, if I did my math correctly, that means that Gilroy Unified saw a *drop* in the percentage of Special Education students from 9.2% to 8.3%.
If you are interested in some more detail: from 2002 to 2009, the number of students in the “autism” special education category went up from 10 to 63. At the same time, students in the “mental retardation” category went down from 60 to 36. These numbers were dwarfed by the big drop in the number of children in the “specific learning disability” category (from 443 to 218).
Back to the budget. Here is a quote from the budget book:
The 2010-11 Revised State Budget defers $12.6 billion in revenue limit funding for K-12 education, including $5 billion in payments which are being postponed from one fiscal year to the next. The District will not receive approximately 25% of the State portion of Prop. 98 Revenue Limit funding for 2010-11 until the following year (July & August 2011). These cash deferrals are expected to be ongoing.
.
Yes, the State Government, in an effort to balance its own budget, isn’t paying school districts on time all the money they are committed to.
.
When I looked for more information on Proposition 98 funding, I found this paragraph:
The Governor has stated that education has been “protected” in his proposed budget. It is important to note that “protected” does not mean that school districts will be spared further reductions. The District’s largest source of revenue, Prop. 98 Revenue Limit, has a funding deficit of 18.355%. In addition the Governor’s Proposed budget “fully funds” the cost of living allowance (COLA) at a negative 0.39% and adds an ongoing “targeted” funding reduction of 3.85% of school districts base revenue limit. The chart below shows the dollar amount per Average Daily Attendance (ADA) the District is entitled to under current funding formulas and the estimated funded amount.
So, the State is assuming that the cost of living is going down? Funding from Prop. 98 sources is down.
Another document that came up on the Gilroy Unified website for the search “budget” was Staff Letter re: 2010/2011 Budget. Here’s the opening paragraph:
The Governor released the proposed 2010-11 State Budget last week. Prior to its release, we were planning for budget reductions in the $3-4 million range. Unfortunately, the Governor’s budget significantly reduced funding for public schools and the amount we now need to cut is in the $6.3 million range – which is 11.4% of our unrestricted general fund budget. This unprecedented level of cuts follows two years of significant reductions in revenue from the State.
So, the State government “defers” paying the district, and “protects” education by reducing the payment they do make. How do we get from that to “special education students are bankrupting the district”?
Yes, California is having hard times. Yes, many special education students cost much more to educate than the average student. But, please, do we have to scapegoat these students with the label that they are “bankrupting” districts?
Left Brain Right Brain 
It’s clearly one of those stories that contribute to the stigma against special needs people. I’m so sick of the typical comments that are either “the overdiagnosing of children needs to stop” or “take them out of our schools”.
Sullivan, special education classes have a higher teacher to student ratio… my daughter’s class has eight students and three teachers. Sounds more expensive to me. Plus, they get speech & Occupational therapy, the classrooms are equipped with expensive AAC devices, etc. the list goes on and on. Special education is very expensive for schools. My daughter’s school has three autism classrooms! And it’s a regular elementary school. I’ve heard it costs about $20,000 more per year to provide a public education to a special ed kid in my area, vs. a mainstream kid.
Your observation that special ed kids have dropped in numbers is curious… because they’re exploding in the chicago area. I’m friends with a bunch of special ed teachers and they all say it. Are your drops in numbers perhaps explained by kids being moved into private schools??
Erik,
believe me, I know that special ed classes cost more. One thing that people often forget is that the transportation costs are also higher. If you look at the Gilroy budget (not my district, but the example given by the journalist), you will see that there is a big cost.
The question isn’t whether special ed kids cost more. The point is that it is the school’s responsibility to pay for the education of children, regardless of the cost. You can’t say, “Jimmy costs more to educate than Jane, so we only will educate Jane”.
I was somewhat surprised by the drop in special education population in that district. As I recall, the percentage of kids in special education has remained fairly flat in California as a whole at about 10%. As to private schools, good question. I used “district of service” for the numbers, not “district of residence”. Also, kids taken out of the system altogether (privately placed by parents) would not show up in either group.
Erik, and then there are kids like mine who are mainstreamed into a regular classroom and only get an hour or two of speech therapy and/or OT/PT. (he had three years of special ed preschool with twelve kids, a teacher and an aide, plus one year of special ed. kindergarten)
In high school he got two out of six classes were special ed, with one teacher and about twelve students.
He is too old to have had the “autism” classification (diagnosed in 1992), so his IEP was based on his needs not a label. The first person to mention he might have autism was the school psychologist when he was a high school senior. That school did (and still has) an Asperger’s program. She said if he was diagnosed with autism and moved to that program he would have lost services.
[LBRB say] At least according to a television station in San Francisco, California…Special ed students could bankrupt districts
The following are stanley seigler comments to KGO [SF TV]…
$3.2M is chump change compared to the $4B annually cheap plates for hummer owners cost the state [the gov reduced license fees in 2003-04]…and gawd knows how much corp tax breaks/loopholes cost the state/country…eg, exxon and believe 4 of 10 large corps paid no (yes NO) tax to IRS…what breaks do they get from CA…
but not worry now that voters kicked the bleeding hearts out…the GOP-tpers lead by the tan man (JA Boehner)will fully fund IDEA/special ed…andand;
ha-zeus will return to take care of the least and all the DD folk…all the special needs little children will come unto him…and he will feed them with 5 loaves and 2 fishes [which is percentage-wise what sp education cost the state]…if not let em eat cake from the GOP-tp table…
[blogger say] Like it or not it parents that should pay for this not the government.
[stanley say] great idea…why not just eliminate public education…let all the parents (rich and poor) send kids to private schools…saves tons.
[blogger say] schools are mess because of government running the show.
[stanley say] agree, get the government out of our schools, our healthcare, our wall street, our airlines, our military. burn social security, medicare cards…invest social security funds in the market, then when it tanks…do what?…of course get the government in to bail us out…
[stanley say] special ed will break the system? NO…corrupt educators, pandering legs will break the system…eg,
“a group of San Francisco Unified School District administrators, including an associate superintendent, engaged in a long-running scheme to funnel district money into their personal bank accounts…” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/us/14bcstudents.html?_r=1&ref=sanfranciscobayarea
stanley seigler
PS. the $3.2M references a comment in KGO-TV presentation: “In 2002, our unfunded special ed costs were about $170,000, this school year it’s $3,200,000,” district spokesperson Deborah Toups said.
stanley seigler
@Erik: Do you have figures for the Chicago area? Or is it a rumor you heard?
In general, you’d expect some districts to have growth and others declines. I know that there’s no trend at the US level or California level.
PPS [sullivan say] Starting with a bad premise, the story is bound to come to a bad conclusion…etc, etc,
great analysis…sad the CA gov/legs probably wont see it…
stanley seigler
[joseph say] I know that there’s no trend at the US level or California level.
you know this how?
stanley seigler
Sullivan,
Thanks for researching this information. I am in Gilroy Unified and my children receive Special Education services. One thing that I have found unusual is that many children are classified under the incorrect check box on their IEPs.
-Karen
I’m familiar with the US-level data. It’s publicly available. When it comes to California IDEA data, see this post by Do’C.
California data can be found at
http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/
I get
10.81% special ed in 2002-03
10.98% special ed in 2009-10
a very slight rise.
2002-03 special ed data:
http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/SpecEd/SpecEd1.asp?cChoice=SpecEd1&cYear=2002-03&cLevel=State&cTopic=SpecEd&myTimeFrame=S&submit1=Submit&ReptCycle=December
Total special ed students (statewide) 675,332
2009-10 data
http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/SpecEd/SpecEd1.asp?cChoice=SpecEd1&cYear=2009-10&cLevel=State&cTopic=SpecEd&myTimeFrame=S&submit1=Submit&ReptCycle=December
Total special ed students (statewide, 2009-10) 680,164
an increase of 5,000.
Total students (general population, 2002-03) 6,244,732
Total students (general population, 2009-10) 6,191,655
Stan, I have also run those numbers, I have vetted Do’Cs work.
Sullivan, thank you for this this. It is rare to see someone actually logically analyzing this kind of situation, while avoiding playing politics. However, I feel there is a lot more here that hasn’t been said. Maybe I will do a post.
Hi Karen,
“One thing that I have found unusual is that many children are classified under the incorrect check box on their IEPs.”
There is a great deal of confusion about this. Remember schools often don’t do diagnosis. They simply do assignment to a service category.
[Interverbal say] Sullivan, thank you for this. It is rare to see someone actually logically analyzing this kind of situation, while avoiding playing politics.
RARE INDEED… California’s Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) should take note…again thanks.
stanley seigler
Hi Interverbal,
Sometimes the child has an Autism diagnosis from a psychiatrist and the OHI checkbox is used on the IEP instead of the AUT box.
The real issue here (that few want to openly state) is that this funding is simply unfair.
Yes, unfair. We are eating up budget that should be used for the general population. Assume the average cost per pupil per year is around $9000. It is not right, fair, or ethical to spend over 5x that to educate special needs children. It’s just wrong.
Parents should either pay these extra costs, or lower cost education should be the norm. While special needs children have a right to an education, they do not have a right to an incredibly expensive one.
The transportation costs alone are unfair.
We have a budget crisis across all social services, and we need to cut a lot of costs. Special needs education is a perfect area to start. We should offer educational services at the same costs…if a parent wants more for their child, it should fall on their own wallet.
Icarus,
Obviously I disagree.
Here is a point to consider. Which school districts (at least in my state) have the highest cost per student? Any ideas?
It isn’t the ones with the highest number of autistic or even special ed students. The ones with the highest costs are rural districts. My guess is this is due to transportation costs and small class sizes.
So, do we tell people in rural districts, “anything over $9,000 you pay yourselves or you keep your kids at home”?
Parents want the best for their children, no doubt. What they can expect from a school district is “appropriate”. If appropriate costs more, that is what we as a society have decided is our obligation.
Not all special needs children cost a lot of money. Some do. They are (for the most part) citizens of the United States. Do we tell them, “sorry, your rights are the same as the rights of your neighbor. You don’t have the right to an appropriate education because that would cost more money”?
Sullivan…
Yes, we do essentially tell them that given our finite budget, they have a right to a relatively proportional share of that budget. I can agree that $9000 is simply an average, and certain areas will cost more (NYC for example). But, $60,000? $80,000? No way. It is a waste of our collective resources.
While charity and empathy are good features, they cannot lead us to fiscal bankruptcy or insolvency.
Also, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. School districts are spending an absurd and disproportional amount of their finite funds on special needs children. It is hurting the education of the general population, and it has to stop.
Obviously, any parent of a special needs child has a case, has an opinion, and will want (theoretically) unlimited funding for their child. It is simply the effect of love, and selfishness.
However, when discussing policy, we have to step beyond the particular needs of the few, and discuss what is best for all. And, what is best for all is slashing special needs funding tremendously. The cost of producing a potentially viable citizen and worker is too high when it comes to special needs children (in general). It is not fair to the rest of us.
Bottom line…just like you have a right to voice an opinion, and press for further funding, the rest of society has a right to stop this bleeding of finite educational dollars.
At the very least, children should be allocated a relatively equal share of the educational budget. If your child gets $80,000/year in services, mind should get that…including piano lessons, karate classes, and a host of other services which would improve their life.
I would hope to see a plan evolve where school districts provide vouchers or services equal to roughly $9000 year in value (amended for local cost variances), and the rest is up to the parents.
There are people out there with multiple special needs children. Crazy. A school has to spend hundreds of thousands a year for 1 family? No way.
Icarus,
education is not “charity” nor is it “empathy”. It is a right of the young citizens of our country. They have the right to an appropriate education. You have the right to voice an opinion, as do I. But, what I am telling you is beyond opinion, it is the law.
Are piano lessons, karate classes and “a host of other services” appropriate for the education of your child? Apparently not, since you characterize them as “services which could improve their life”. Is teaching a child effective communication “appropriate”? Yes.
I think a lot of special needs parents would jump at a voucher, by the way. Not all by a long shot, but a lot.
“There are people out there with multiple special needs children. Crazy.”
So, are you going to decide that once a family has a special needs child they must be sterilized to prevent further incursions into your lifestyle?
You forget something here–it is in all your writing. The rights to an appropriate education are not the rights of the parent. They are the rights of the child. Whether a family has 1, 2, 5 or zero special needs children is not a part of the conversation. Each child is taken individually under the law. Do you want to assert that each family has a budget of, say, $15,000 to spend on all kids? If they have 1 kid, he/she gets more than the average, but if they have 10 kids, they get very little? That’s where your logic is leading. It is false logic.
Sullivan,
Those “rights” you speak of have to be within reason. We can not, and should not spend 5x – 8x the amount we spend on the general population.
Yes, we need to change the reality of how we interpret “appropriate education”. We can not, and should not let the needs of special needs children disrupt the education of the general population.
Beyond this simple issue of budget, we have a larger problem. We simply cannot afford it. We cannot afford $60,000k/year for a kid. It’s ridiculous. I for one dont want to pay, and I know most agree.
Yes, compassion and empathy are the root here, and they have their limits. We have exceeded the boundaries of reasonableness, and the budget issues are stating so. Soon, many more parents of children will collectivize and voice their concerns over these budget issues. It’s already happening.
It’s just a shame that schools have to cut things like art/sports, which providing a speech therapist for a few children. It’s just not fair, and it has to stop.
And about “sterilization”…a more difficult question. But, in general…if you expect the costs of your decisions to be picked up by society at large, that society should have some input in those decisions I know that sounds eugenic…but, we also cant have blank checks issued for people’s procreative decisions.
I can just imagine communities fearful of special needs children moving in, not because of any sense of superiority or fear…but simply because it is budget busting.
We need another formula…perhaps a form of insurance which picks up the costs of special needs, which parents pay. I wonder how much that would alter procreation…if we demanded that parents pay the market costs of their child’s needs. What a possibility.
There’s a case in W.Virginia along these lines…school district their claims that medical insurers should pick up these extra costs for special needs children, because it falls under “medical needs” more than “Educational needs”. An interesting argument.
Listen…bottom line..I want people paying for the costs of their own decisions, including the decision to have children. If that means parents have to pay for their child’s education, great.
[icarus say] Beyond this simple issue of budget, we have a larger problem. We simply cannot afford it. We cannot afford $60,000k/year for a kid. It’s ridiculous. I for one dont want to pay, and I know most agree.
but we can afford cheap plates for hummer owners in CA; tax breaks for rich folks; and tax breaks for corporations (exxon pays NO IRS taxes)…
who are “the most” who agree…the tea party, the greedy, selfish, christians…any religious true believers…what hypocrites.
and the least can eat cake.
stanley seigler
LOL…too funny 🙂
Listen, bottom line – no child _asks_ to be born. Whether that child is born to the poorest of the poor or the richest of the rich, _all_ have the right to an appropriate education. If you don’t like the laws of where you live I’d consider emigration – I hear North Korea and China believe in a similar kind of human rights to your good self 🙂
‘Appropriate’ means within reason. No child should take up 5x the cost of others. It’s just not fair, and unsustainable budget wise.
We already spend enough on education ($9000 per student, per school year). The issue isnt $$…the issue is unreasonable expectations. Schools are not meant to solve societal problems.
And yes, I would cut military spending as well. These illegal wars should receive no funds.
You are mistaken as to how “appropriate” is used in law.
Icarus, I suggest you understand US law before you start pontificating. Study the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Some good resources, both governmental and private:
http://www.wrightslaw.com/
http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/sec504.index.htm
http://idea.ed.gov/
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/hq9805.html
Icarus,
Why stop at education? What about healthcare? These special needs kids consume 5 x healthy kids health care allowance. When they reach their cash limit withdraw the drugs and turn off the machines? And why stop there? Terminally ill patients = what’s the point of palliative care? Old people, why don’t they die? And if they wont die let us help them on their way.
I would suggest that you read Jonathan Swift’s “Modest Proposal,” but you would probably take it seriously.
Ditz/Stanton,
We should re-evaluate the IDEA and the ADA completely. We cannot have a blank check mentality.
Case and point – The state of Florida spent over $15 million on Terry Shiavo. Remember her? This spending is ridiculous, and immoral. It’s not her life I care about…it’s the lives of thousands of others who could be helped with better funding.
That $15 million could have funded a free clinic, providing basic healthcare to so many others.
Yes, I would pull that plug. We need a new approach to death…we cannot stave it off at all costs.
I want a basic (low cost) health care program for all, federally mandated and which covers basic care. Something everyone can afford (like $50/month). If you cant pay for it, we find work-fare to substitute for payment.
But, that’s it. If you need further care, further benefits, then it’s the private market…and you have to pay the market premium.
We waste much too much money in both our Education budgets and our Healthcare budgets on very few students/patients. It has to stop. We need to focus on the larger masses.
Bottom line, these budgets will shrink, and many of these costs have to be cut.
You are either completely clueless or a troll. Prove your commitment to your cause to restrict every and all disability accommodations by standing outside of a public presentation with a sign saying that the sign language interpreters should be physically removed from the venue. Do it.
Go and publicly protest everywhere that employs sign language interpreters. Then we will think you are serious.
Otherwise, you will be considered a loathsome troll.
Note: Yes, I had someone complain to me at at PTA meeting that there was a sign language interpreter for a deaf kid in a classroom that her supposedly advanced placement child was in. She did not like this, even though it was the only school in the district where this was offered (schools cannot provide interpreters for every school), but objected to sending her child to the school ten whole blocks away that had the advanced placement program.
Mate, you’re hilarious 😀 – are you really this stupid?
‘Appropriate’ means – ‘appropriate to the childs needs’.
I’ve told you – go live in North Korea or China if you don’t like how education money is spent in your country – they believe in useless eaters too.
Appropriate should also consider the society’s ability to reasonably pay. LIke it or not, school budgets are being slashed across the country, and our ability to fund expensive education services will be cut.
No one need live in china, north korea, or anywhere else. The US has simply made social service promises it cannot afford, not only in healthcare, but in education as well.
And no one is say restrict “every” disability requirement. The re-interpretation is that we significantly consider what is collectively affordable. In a world of unlimited resources, every child could/should have a personal instructor, like a child-prince of yesteryear. Not reasonable
If we cap spending on ANY child at 2x the national average, we are being both reasonable, and utterly fair. No child is worth that much more than another…no child should get that much more funding than another. If you want your child to have better services, pay out of your own pocket, or find insurance that covers such needs.
We have to curb costs, in both healthcare and education. It starts with our most expensive areas, and in this case, it is special education budgets.
Ironically, it is the entry of the chinese economy (and Indian) into the global marketplace for labor which makes such expensive social services untenable moving forward.
And it is precisely the biased parents/advocates of special needs education whom we cannot rely on for a clear understanding of these issues. You are all prejudiced by the needs of your respective children.
It’s akin to the parent at the hospital asking the physicians to “heal my child regardless of the costs”, despite their inability to pay. Everyone wants their loved ones to receive unlimited funds for their healthcare or educational needs. So what?
The issue is what’s possible, and best in terms of overall public policy. Raising taxes on those of us who do not have special needs children to pay these exorbitant costs is not feasible. There are other, more pressing needs, and many of us have reached the limits to our ability to pay for such services.
As well, there’s another, more difficult question of whether these are good ‘investments’ anyway. Do we need to spend over a million dollars on people who’ll never contribute that much into our economy, or society (most likely). It’s nice, and humanist to say “yes”…some type of “everyone is worth it” or “life is precious and cannot be measured” type mantra. But, we have to measure. We have to budget. And, some costs are too high.
Soon there will be a memorial service for the people killed in Tucson, AZ by a very confused young man. You should go and protest any use of sign language interpreters. Tell them that the deaf don’t need to know what is going on.
I actually had a someone tell me she was mad that there was a sign language interpreter in her son’s classroom because there was one hearing impaired kid. Since her son was “gifted and talented” she wanted services for him. I informed her that the school for that was only a mile away from that school (which was the only one in the district that provided deaf ed services), she protested that she wanted her son at his neighborhood school.
So, Icarus, go take your silly troll arguments elsewhere. Go ahead and make your protest signs against disability services and show up at any spot where sign interpreters exist.
Chris,
I think if you look you will see that Icarus uses many of the same techniques that we see all the time in other discussions. Fear/Uncertainty/Doubt. Fear the special ed kids–they cost too much. No actual evidence is given that there is harm occurring from the costs of special education, but it is scary when he says that they cost 5x or more the cost of a kid in regular education. When this wasn’t scary enough, he ramped up to claiming that Terry Schiavo cost $15M. We should all be afraid of the disabled. Uncertainty and doubt–we don’t know what actual harm there is, but it has to be there. I mean, if we are spending $15M on a single disabled person, that must mean with a lot of disabled people the cost to society is high.
He presents the idea that people should “Pay as you go”. No country uses this method of taxation. I haven’t checked with Kev, but my guess is that Icarus has not offered to “pay as he goes” to support this blog’s upkeep. And, yet, he expects us to host his discussion.
He presents the classic eugenicist rationale. It is the arrogance of the majority, it is ablistic. He says we “waste” too much money on education and health care. It is the arrogance of one who has yet to realize that it is really a gift to have health, lack of disability and to live in a country that presented him/her with a good education. He/she did nothing to accomplish this, but considers him/herself as somehow better than those who did not receive this gift Should he/she live long enough, he/she will be undoubtedly be consuming far more in health services than he/she contributes to society. Live long enough and he/she will be disabled.
But, let’s all be afraid of the minority. Let’s be afraid of the weak. Let’s blame them for our woes. It’s a message as old as humankind.
You’re no fun Icarus – do you think you’re the first Elitist whos turned up here with silly arguments? When are you going to become really fun and start with the Illuminati plot stuff? I love that shit 🙂
“It is the arrogance of the majority, it is ablistic.”
So… basically… Icarus is a twat, right?
The irony of anyone living in the developed world whining about other people getting more than their fair share is pretty hilarious.
Sully, you are right. Of course, many of us have encountered these people in real life (that was only one anecdote, I have a few more). He is just one of the more lame eugenicists that I’ve encountered. I wonder if he would change if he became disabled through an accident.
MartinM, yes, it is hilarious. I recently found out about the presentations on global health and economy by Hans Rosling of http://www.gapminder.org . It is fascinating stuff, I plan to have the “Joy of Stats” video running next to my banking program as I update my finances today.
The inability to actually discuss this real topic is the only thing all of you display. To scream “eugenics” when faced with budget crunches, and to scream “troll” when people do not agree with your “fund my child or you’re evil” arguments.
Luckily, none of this matters…budgets are being slashed, and the services you’re used to will no doubt be cut.
The real question is, how can we help disabled children without the luxury of disproportionate budgets. This is the only question we really need to tackle. The rest of this diatribe simply reflects the inability of most of you to see the inherent problems with high cost special education needs.
And, just do a google search on the cost of special education and its effects on school budgets. Hundreds of posts will come up. Some districts spend $50k or so, some a bit more. The evidence is all out there. Even basic transportation costs more than the cost of an entire year’s education for a ‘regular’ student.
At some point, we have to be fair about budget dollars, and how we allocate them. It should be closer to equal. Your special education child is no more worthy of our finite dollars than any other child. The fact that we allocate more is simply charity, codified by the ADA/IDEA…and those mandates are in trouble as the Great Recession abates our tax funds.
The hypocrisy here amazes me, and is truly sad. For every dollar we spend on your special needs children, a dollar is taken away from the general fund. These are science, art, theater, and physical education classes we wouldnt have to cut (as much), and society would benefit more, as a whole.
Also…just do a google search on Terry Shiavo is you haven’t tracked this. The issue is…when is enough enough? How much can we allocate to just 1 person? There has to be a rational limit.
[stanton say] I would suggest that you read Jonathan
Swift’s “Modest Proposal,” but you would probably take it
seriously. swift didn’t go far enough. to make more cheap food/fuel
available: there should be minimum 120 IQ and perfect health
requirements…no treatment, just eliminate. when a fuel/food
shortage develops…maybe a study to determine whether we should
eliminate either blue or brown eyed people. surely icarus is just
busting my whatever…i’m waiting for the gotcha when the real
icarus stands up. stanley seigler
Stanley seigler,
Notice the fact free arguments made here. Special Ed budgets are spiraling out of control. No numbers offered to support the argument. We should fear the damage the disabled are causing us. No evidence of this damage offered to support the argument.
One can easily extrapolate this conversation out into the future. No facts will be presented. Just unsupported opinion repeatedly offered, supported only by beliefs.
Having been called out on his technique, Icarus lashes out, but still offers no data.
I have written here about how special Ed budgets have been misrepresented in the media in the case of the Gilroy school district. I actually used numbers, data , cited sources. Icarus offers nothing but opinion based on bigotry. That’s not name calling but a considered evaluation of his arguments.
Stanley, dont retreat into satire. There is a real issue regarding funding special education. The costs have spiraled out of control.
Like it or not, we will slash special education budgets, and we will have to find ways to educate disabled students without all the funding we were used to.
It has nothing to do with me, this article, eugenics, Swift, Naziism, or elitism. It is simply rational political economy.
I share Icarus’ concerns about unfairness in society and agree that local authorities are making cuts to their budgets because of fiscal crisis. But Icarus seems to have forgotten what brought on the crisis – the unbridled greed and recklessness of the banks. Money was no object when it came to bailing out the banks.
Now we are all paying for their crisis it is both mean spirited and cowardly to attack the weakest and most vulnerable members of society. It is also bad tactics. Fighting over who should bear the brunt of cuts is no alternative to fighting the cuts themselves. Campaigning on behalf of the weakest members of society can bring people together and persuade governments to find the necessary resources.
Here in the UK we are building a national network to monitor the cuts and organize action, Autism Campaigners Together
[icarus say] It has nothing to do with me, this article, eugenics, Swift, Naziism, or elitism. It is simply rational political economy.
agree it is not about you/us…it’s about the least…and A FAPE…it’s about a sick society’s priorities…as mentioned;
in CA-USA, we can afford cheap plates for hummer owners; tax breaks for rich folks; and tax breaks for corporations (exxon pays NO IRS taxes)…
in CA-USA the gov (the terminator) reduced vehicle license fees (VLF)…cost the state $4-5 billion annually…then cut DD/autism programs to fix budget…like you say, “we cant afford them”…such bs, stupid, irony.
the $4-5 billion would easily cover full funding of special ed in CA.
and in the USA we can afford $trillions to rich folks…which also would have fully funded special ed it all 50 states for decades.
[icarus say] dont retreat into satire.
not retreating just couldn’t believe you were/are serious…seriously thought you were pulling my leg…should have know better but keep thinking/hoping maybe people do care…sad lucy keeps dropping the football.
[JFK SA] “We can say with some assurance that, although children may be the victims of fate, they will not be the victims of our neglect.” (remarks upon signing the Maternal and Child Health and Mental Retardation Planning Bill into law, October 24, 1963)
well guess JFK was wrong. many in our sick society ensure they are still victims of our neglect and greed.
cheap plates, trillions to rich folks, massive tax breaks to corporations…this is rational…say what!
stanley seigler
[sullivan say] I have written here about how special Ed budgets have been misrepresented in the media in the case of the Gilroy school district.
and gilroy was/is a well written factual presentation…to repeat:
“[sullivan say] Starting with a bad premise, the story is bound to come to a bad conclusion…etc, etc,…
[ss comment] great analysis…sad the CA gov/legs probably wont see it” [maybe moonbeam will get it…hope springs]
moving on
[sullivan say] No facts will be presented. Just unsupported opinion repeatedly offered, supported only by beliefs.
i dont do facts (especially promotional scientific ones) as well as you do…mostly deal in a seat of pants from the lip opines…
but believe my opines are backed up with a healthy dose of common sense and compassion…which my daughter taught me over some 40 years…also, from another life experience, look at issues with an engineers practical eye.
without our daughter, as my wife says, we would be silly twits…aka a member of the sick society…akaaka a GOPer.
not sure there is any compassion/common sense in some/many “no fact” opines.
actually it’s worse than no fact/no compassion…in many cases, its 30 second bite lies…eg, BO is a Moslem.
BTW its a myth the economy does better under GOP administrations…latest eg: W v slick willy.
stanley seigler: a bleeding heart, tax and spend, liberal
Stanley seigler,
You’ve been at this longer than I. In your experience (and this is all anecdotal of course) do disabled children get FAPE all the time? It seems to be the assumption of our visitor that disabled children are getting more than their fair share. My personal experience is that FAPE is often hard won and in many instances not won.
I actually agree with Icarus that there are opportunities for some cost sharing by families. Medical insurance is one venue. Speech, OT and ABA can sometimes be covered by insurance. Again this is a hard won battle when successful and a battle that is often lost. The problem used to be that this involved a very real cost to the family in terms of eating into lifetime benefits. The new laws remove that concern for children as I understand it.
My understanding is that appropriate educational services can be even harder to obtain in the UK. Correct menguys if that is incorrect.
But the point is that if we start from the premise that all disabled kids are getting appropriate services, we are starting from a false premise. Disabled children have already had their services encroached upon by tight budgets. We aren’t trying to defend an appropriate level o services, but an already diminished level.
We could look to other providers of services to help fill the gaps. In California that would include the regional centers, charged with helping developmentally disabled children reach their full potential. The previous governor dramatically weakened the laws that were supposed to provide that assistance.
Mr. Seigler:
Ditto here. But the school district could not supply the amount of speech therapy required. The free intensive therapy he got from the Scottish Rite Center for Childhood Language Disorders was invaluable, so they are first on our charity list. Yes, I donate to the Masons because they helped my kid.
Wow, Mr. Seigler, you started to deal with the system before there was the predecessor to IDEA, Education for All Handicapped Children Act, was approved in 1975.
According to my son’s special ed. preschool teacher the standard procedure for children like him less twenty years before he entered that school in 1991 was to send them to an institution. This was where they warehoused them and very little was done. There was a school for the deaf (it still exists), and another for the blind. Unfortunately, while some education did take place, the children were victims of predators (as noted in another recent blog posting here).
All states are having problems with finances, but sometimes saving money by cutting services will cost more in the long run. If you cut bridge maintenance budgets, bridges fail. That is actually quite literal in many places (remember the freeway in Minneapolis?). I did watch some videos from http://www.gapminder.org this evening, and providing public services and education were big topics on how to improve the world. Something Icarus would not understand.
Edit to add: Cost sharing! That I have seen done, and have been a part of. Some of my son’s special classmates shared private (and not covered by insurance) OT and speech therapy sessions to cut on costs.
One parent hired the student teacher who worked in the special ed. preschool to work at her house during a summer. Then she invited several of us to participate, so I paid for my son to go there several mornings for a couple of weeks. It created an extended school year for the children which gave them more therapy, and helped the young woman with a job for the summer.
Yes, Stanley, in a way you are correct.
– We do have crazy incentives so people can purchase egregiously large SUV’s, and consume consume consume. Consumption is the American ethic, is it not? We enjoy our consumption, to a fault. We may even think it stimulates the economy, and helps the US auto industry, hence protecting sacrosanct middle class jobs.
– Tax breaks to the wealthy is another way of saying “reducing taxes”. The wealthy really are the only ones paying significant income tax. The bottom 50% pay 0 federal income tax, and the top 1% pay almost 35% of it. It is skewed such because income is skewed such.
– “Tax Breaks” to corporations are a bit trickier. Global Capital is more mobile than ever, and geographies compete to attract, and retain jobs. They offer tax deferrals, free land, and other sweet deals to keep employment up in their respective geographies. This is the fate of states and municipalities in the context of mobile global capital.
The question of whether this is rational is tricky as well, but certain ‘truths’ seem clear.
1. Your territory better be hospitable to Capital, or it will leave, suck away Jobs, and leave your community with even lower economic output, depressing wages, reducing tax revenue, and drastically altering the ability for a local government to offer social services, and possibly eroding the social contract alltogether.
2. Your Labor Force better be competitive. Long gone are the days where a crappy high school degree warrants the fabled “middle class life”. If you’ve only achieved a 12th grade education, it’ll be harder and harder to earn that $50,000 year most people became used to expecting. Too many such jobs can move to more hospitable nations, with a more competitive workforce (ie, lower cost for the same, or better skills)
3. The Wealthy are more mobile than the Poor. If you simply try and raise taxes on the wealthy, they tend to leave. There are 0 income tax states…
4. Social Services in the US are going to take a drastic cut. The global economy over the next 50 years will continue to move production towards Asia, and the New Deal pact is eroding in front of us. We already spend too much money on Healthcare and Education, and like it or not, it will be reduced, whether voluntarily, or by bandits working in international finance, who can “short” our entire society.
5. Even “Innovation”, the mantra of the liberal (yet capitalist) left, will not really improve the lives of the masses in the US. The revenue which comes from Innovation usually benefit the highly educated, and tends to increase (not reduce) the concentration of wealth.
These are the cards…I know “Rationality” is a strange concept in this overall context of a shifting global reality. Long gone are the days where the US is 50% of the globe’s GDP (which it was c. 1950). The European concept of Social Democracy is fracturing in front of us, as the riots across several countries exemplify.
Of course no one wants Social Services to erode, and some act like Ostriches and pretend none of this is going on, and stay focused on the particular population they are protecting. US mom’s want their autistic kid getting trained special ed teachers, French Unions want 6 weeks of vacation, working only 32 hours a week, the Greek people want retirement by age 50, Spaniards want free tertiary education for its entire able population. I could go on and on. No one, and I repeat no one, from the US Pentagon, to every School District in the US, to every non-profit servicing a soup kitchen want their funding reduced. But, it will happen, across the board.
We all know this is happening, and the question is, how do we move forward and forge a good society, given our fiscal limitations. Saying “I want more money” isn’t an answer; it’s instead a denial of the very dilemma we’re facing. Denial is usually an initial reaction, dont you think?
As our budgets are being reduced drastically, sadly, the perceived need for further funds is increasing. More and more children are being diagnosed with some disease, whether physical or behavioral, and the costs of such treatment usually escalating. It’s a fiscal train wreck.
The near future will further pit parents of special needs children vs parents of “regular” children, over a battle of finite funds. We will have to reinterpret the ADA/IDEA in ways that are commensurate with our ability to finance those decisions. It’s akin to Obamacare. You can pass a law that says everyone gets X, Y, Z. That’s the easy part. How do you fund it?
Stanley…I’ll grant you a few things. Yes, our priorities may seemed very messed up. They are. We care more about TV than books, more about our sports teams than our neighbors. We care about shopping more than learning, getting more than caring. It is an individualist, atomistic, self indulgent and obese society which has to translate every phenomena to “is it entertaining?”.
Are you hardly surprised that I’m not confident that we’ll continue to spend $60,000 so a kid with MS can get to a trailer on the outskirts of the suburban school he’s assigned to? That we’ll have the money to have 3-1 class ratios when certain children need such educational help?
No, my predictions are a bit more dystopic.
Icarus,
Does the US? Some would say it doesn’t spend enough on these things. Also, you say:
One way to make it competitive is through good education. I’d also like to point out that, from what I’ve read, the quality of high school education has declined significantly. I could be wrong, but as I understand it, in the 1950’s that high school degree wasn’t “crappy” at all.
Julian Frost,
Hello, first of all.
Yes, on Healthcare, the statistics are easy. We spend much more than the other Western Industrial Nations, per capita (without better results). And in Education, we spend over $9000/student/year. Those rates have been increasing ahead of inflation for years.
The key with 1950 wasn’t the quality of education – they key was, there was little competition in the global market for labor. Capital wasn’t mobile, and you didnt have the infrastructure for development in most countries. Labor had power.
In many ways, the US has “good education” – it has the best university system in the world, by far. I think 20 of the best 25 universities are in the US.
The problem is none of this helps the masses. The top 4-5% in the US will live great, for several decades. They’re sharp, skilled, and branded well.
The other part of society, is in trouble. Any attempt to educate them all, at a competitive level, if futile, simply because the cost of education is so much cheaper (and hence, more competitive) in other nations. Also, you know the proverb – everyone can’t be a lawyer/doctor/engineer. We only need so many, and the competitive process exists. If you can score in the top 2-3% of all standardized tests like the SAT, you have a shot at a wealthy life. If your’e a median type student, welcome to anxiety.
Let me put it another way – The cost of producing a particular laborer – A factory worker, a janitor, a teacher, a nurse…is simply much less expensive in many many nations, who have millions of candidates. The US cost structure is simply too high….as a nation, we cannot compete effectively for many types of jobs, over time.
For a while, we can compete because the “productivity of our capital” is high. That advantage erodes further and further as capital becomes more mobile.
Icarus I work for my state’s Department of Mental Health. Last year because of those so called budget cuts that you deem nescery, several people with significant disabilities had to loose vital services!! Do they cost more than the average person, yes! But put yourself in thier shoes!!! And think on this! People with disabilities are the largest minority group in the world. Any one from any race,age, or sex can become disabled at anytime.
So say God forbid a family member were born or became disabled, and the parents, who both work full time jobs can’t afford the services needed to help that child to a free and appropriate care and education. Should we simply just say “Nope, sorry! You cost to much so you aren’t our problem! Nothing we can do for you, not our fault if your poor?!!” People are loosing services, VITAL services every single day already. I cringe to think about the budget cuts that are going to slice into us this year!
Yet I look around me and I see the rich getting richer. The ones I hear complaining about the have-nots are always the haves! And it irks me! We are not lazy and just depending on the goverment for everything!! WE PAY THESE PEOPLE!!! And regardless of what you may think, most of us middle-class pay taxes the same as everyone else! Is it unreasonable to expect some help when needed out of alll those stored up funds that WE PAYED THEM?!
I THINK NOT!
Theo:
Or become disabled in an accident.
Ignore the troll.
Theo,
Funny you end with the word “unreasonable”. You know the answer…it depends.
If your child needs millions of dollars per year in services, then yes, we probably have to say “No”. We cannot afford you those services. As that number comes down, the “reasonableness” of the needs get evaluated.
Right now, it’s too expensive to afford. School Budgets tell us that. And, the cost differential tells us. The average cost is $9000/year…for a special needs education, $60,000/year + ?. Too much.
Whether the “haves” have, has little to do with this. If you want to be a “have”, I suggest you get a bad-ass master’s degree, and go through the process like most of us. Unless you’ve been bequeathed a wealthy sum from your previous generation, the path to $$ lies in high value higher education.
And yes, the “middle classes” pay some taxes, depending on where you fall in the income scale…not horribly much, but some. It may feel like a lot, but compared to the top quintile, it’s not. (the top quintile pay roughly 80% of all federal income tax).
You bring up a point which far exceeds the US population. There are many poor in the world who ideally need social services which far exceed the costs that can be provided for them.
In some ways, Americans are going to have to get used to living like most others in the world. The cutting of social services will illustrate even further how there is nothing all that exceptional about US society.
[sullivan say] do disabled children get FAPE all the time? It seems to be the assumption of our visitor that disabled children are getting more than their fair share.
NO. some dont get any programs. parents just give up. (talking about days of yore. havent been that close for some time, daughter now 45) the schools districts (SD) fund lawyers vice programs…icarus has bought the SDs talking points hook, line and whatever.
SD admin types have a fun time at seminars telling them how to avoid a FAPE…sad cottage industries (lawyers, consultants) prosper on backs of special needs folks…ie, “so they can purchase egregiously large SUV’s, and consume consume consume.”…say icarus.
your gilroy post is an excellent presentation on how special ed is a scapegoat for inefficient administrators with misplaced priorities (eg, funding lawyers vice programs)
[sullivan say] I actually agree with Icarus that there are opportunities for some cost sharing by families.
actually i too agree…cost sharing and means testing will improve the revenue side…as will increased taxes.
as you mention in the gilroy discussion special ed is a scapegoat…
actually actually there are many opportunities to make SDs more efficient, cost effective…eg;
“In 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger*s own California Performance Review Commission reported that *California*s state government is antiquated and ineffective*…It is bureaucracy at its worst…costly, inefficient and in many cases unaccountable…The most recent statistics from the California Department of Finance show the following local governmental structures: 58 counties, 479 cities, and 1,053 public school districts consisting of 9,397 public schools”
these real issues will never be addressed if our legs/govs (and the “ethical consumers” they pander to) continue their straw man sp ed scapegoating.
across the board cuts to sp ed and other social programs…ie, myopic, dumb-a, budget quick fixes…will continue to be SOP…
i also agree with icarus FAPE programs will be cut (cheered on by the ethical consumer driving to tetons in his egregiously large SUV)…
it’s not a prediction, its a historical fact…already under funded programs have been and will be cut…it’s so easy to kick sand in the face of the skinny guy…vice correcting real problems.
stanley seigler
Hello friends –
Interesting and troubling discussion.
Though I do not necessarily like it, I find I am largely in agreement with the context of Icarus’s arguments. Educating children with autism is very expensive. In my son’s classroom, there were two and one half full time resources applied to educate five children. In the meantime, the state continually seeks mechanisms to escape the constitutionally mandated classroom size ammendment, which says that all classrooms must have a 20 to 1 (maybe 18 to 1, I can’t remember right now) teacher to studen ratio. The costs to get to 18 to 1 block out the sun; it doesn’t matter how much we want to get there, what matters is, can we get there; and we can’t do that without instituting massive social changes that the electorate has proven again and again they don’t want, regardless of the intellectual validity of the messages used to sway them to that decision.
We’ve had big disagreement with the school system over what ‘appropriate’ means; it isn’t spelled out and there aren’t any good answers. To us, we wanted an hour a day, or more, of speech therapy; and an ABA therpist in the room for chunks of the day. But that is expensive as hell; decent speech therapists start at $100 / hour in my area, and good ones with years of experience start at $150 / hour. If all five children in my son’s classroom got an hour a day, that’s $2500 a week for a classroom with five children in it. That isn’t gonig to happen, but I do think it would be appropriate.
Eventually, we got stuck with the totally awful in house therapist who doesn’t appear to know the first thing about autism, whom my son hates, for an hour a week.
I can do all the screaming about the semantics of the word appropriate I want, but it isn’t going to make dollars appear in the coffers of the school system; and it sure as hell isn’t going to convince people that we should raise taxes to improve education. We have no real ability to lobby effectively against the entrenched interests that collect the kings share of federal and state expenditures.
Again, I’m not happy about this, any of it; and I fully expect that in the long term, this is a loser for society (and people like my son), but it is the reality.
Due to the deficiencies in the public school system, my son is starting a private, ABA based school starting this morning at significant costs to ourselves.
And yes, the “middle classes” pay some taxes, depending on where you fall in the income scale…not horribly much, but some. It may feel like a lot, but compared to the top quintile, it’s not. (the top quintile pay roughly 80% of all federal income tax).
Federal dollars make up a very small portion of education funds, which are mainly funded locally, and often times through property taxes which are much more regressive. The middle class, and poor, pay the overwhelming majority of taxes for social security and FICA, and yet, the knee jerk Republicans who know the income tax gap by heart never mention it. While I do not question many of your conclusions, I do largely question your intentions.
In some ways, Americans are going to have to get used to living like most others in the world. The cutting of social services will illustrate even further how there is nothing all that exceptional about US society.
I agree one hundred and fifty percent. The Chinese are going to be crushing us within two decades, the math just doesn’t work out any other way. For right or wrong, everyone out there with a child who might need long term care should be preparing to handle this on their own; there just isn’t going to be the type of cushions our emotional minds would like us to think there should be, there will only be nature and human nature, and those are cruel mistresses.
– pD
pD,
I heard someone make the following claim recently: the future competitiveness of world economies will depend on how much they are willing to neglect their elderly. In that regard, China will be in the lead.
Missing in that argument is how much societies are willing to neglect their disabled.
As Mike Stanton pointed out, it isn’t special education budgets which are causing the pain, it is the drop in revenues to the schools. In that context, one must look at special education (and all) budgets. But to claim that special ed is the primary causative factor is false logic.