For some reason this article annoyed me - I felt like they were talking about our kids as though they were burdens - they are not IMO - what did you think
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1277643 4
They should of has more examples for sure..I felt it was pretty truthful of what the public schools are facing now compared to 10 years ago..our teacher last year had no clue about autism when she got Sarah..
I think all public school teachers should have some basic training in it especially for meltdowns..Sarah was an angel but if she wasnt the teacher wouldnt know what to do. I had to give her so much information on how to teach Sarah which is crazy for parents to have to do this..
I also think that all teachers need to know that kids with autism are all different and to treat each as so..Sarah's teacher had huge fears for having her in her class and it was totally from ignorance..Sarah was the best kid she ever had in her 7 years of teaching!
Sadly I think it will be up to us parents to make sure they dont stereotype our angels the way the public does.
I didn't find it offensive. Our children certainly aren't a burden on us, they are a blessing just like all children. However, our children, and all special needs children in general, ARE a financial burden for the school systems.
The cost of special education is astronomical, and there does need to be increased awareness of this fact especially as dx becomes more prevalent. As much as we all get on the schools for not doing enough, they are in a tough spot. If administrators go over budget they are quickly replaced, and they have families to support too. I live in a wealthy area and property taxes are already sky high and people have just reached their limit of what they want to pay, and we get the lowest level of state aid available. It took us two tries to get a referendum passed in the last 2 years, or we would have had to cut staff and services. More money needs to come into the schools so that they have the means to offer appropriate services for our kids. It can only come from two places, the community or the government.
With increased prevalence of autism, it's the schools right now that are taking the financial hit, but in my mind the sh*t is really going to hit the fan in about 10 years. What happens when all of the kids with autism who are in kindergarten now graduate form high school? Are there going to be appropriate services in place for them, or assisted living places, etc. when they transition to adulthood?
This is a sore point for me. Yes, our kids ARE a burden on "the system" but that does not mean that our children are any less wonderful or any less valuable in our society. It just shows that "the system" as it exists today is breaking and needs to be changed. I think that article like this one are trying to raise awareness to this fact. Many people prefer to put their heads in the sand on issues that don't directly impact them, but rising costs of caring for and educating our children are going to hit everyone where it hurts - in the wallet - if something isn't radically changed now.
OK, I'll get off my soapbox. Hope I didn't offend anyone...
The article does focus a little too much on expense. What I liked the best, however, was hearing about Alex, the soon-to-be middle school kid who was reading for the pre-schoolers.
"His former teacher, Robin Fabiano, says that when Alex first came to her in second grade, he couldn't speak. But after years in a regular classroom, he has overcome his social problems, and speaks well. He still needs extra help. But when he recently graduated from elementary school, Alex was able to make a speech, and get through the ceremony on his own."
Thanks for sharing the link.
[/QUOTE]And at least here in Texas, can we add curtailing the budget allocated to football, and possibly the other sports? Although I certainly agree physical education is important, the amount spent on football, and the accompaniment of marching band, cheerleading, etc. is outrageous. One school district here recently CUT their special education budget massively, and then turned around and upped the budget spent on their athletic program. [/QUOTE]
That is really sad.
Where I live, we have to pay a "registration fee" each year for our kids to go to school. (Don't get me started on the FREE part of Free and Appropriate Education.) My "fees" for 1st grade were /child. My SIL has 3 kids in high school, 2 of whom are on the golf team, and she just laid out a total of 0 for fees for the three of them. When kids are on a sports team, the fees the parents pay increase dramatically. Apparently this is very common in our area. Football is definitely not free here (but special education is thankfully!)
[QUOTE=Evie]The fact of the matter is, special education is expensive, and schools are struggling to pay for stuff as it is. (Though I think cutting some layers of bureacracy (sp?) would help!) ... There is a lot of money coming into schools, but it's not being appropriated very well, imo, and we could still use more.It's a tricky thing. But educating children, special needs or otherwise, isn't something that should be done on the cheap, either. I think cutting some politican salaries and pet pork projects would go a long way to finding additional funds for schools, too![/QUOTE]
All of the PP make very good points, but I think the above sums it up quite succinctly. Appropriate allocation of the funds available, which include close examination of how that money is being spent (including administrator perks and the funds allotted for legal fees to fight AGAINST providing IDEA-required education for children with special needs), would make a huge difference.
And at least here in Texas, can we add curtailing the budget allocated to football, and possibly the other sports? Although I certainly agree physical education is important, the amount spent on football, and the accompaniment of marching band, cheerleading, etc. is outrageous. One school district here recently CUT their special education budget massively, and then turned around and upped the budget spent on their athletic program. Unfortunately, it's simply a microcosym of the priority issues in our society overall when even our educational system's priorities do not place the education for all students at the top of the list...
There's a reason I have opted to homeschool my older children, and will continue to evaluate the possibility of ultimately doing the same with Mr. B. and his sister who is currently in public school.
Maybe it will help to gwet more funding for research if the schools are having to carry more of a financial burden. The article made me wonder, again, WHY are thier SO many more kids with autism?well, when you talk about 1:150 and the 75K tutions at the May institute, you are talking about different things. A kid who is severe enough to require a placement at a private autism school is not the typical PDD kid that comprise the majority of the 1:150 kids on the spectrum.[QUOTE=fred]well, when you talk about 1:150 and the 75K tutions at the May institute, you are talking about different things. A kid who is severe enough to require a placement at a private autism school is not the typical PDD kid that comprise the majority of the 1:150 kids on the spectrum.[/QUOTE]
Absolutely not the same thing. But apparently there IS a reported increase in kids at the severe end of the spectrum, too.
No, I just pointing out that the lay-public might come away from such a discussion with the take away message that 'our kids' cost 75K a year to educate, when it's really a minority of 'our kids' that require that sort of special education.
I have not heard that there are more dxs at the severe end of the spectrum, though I haven't read every epidemiological study, either! That said, I would guess that if there is a real increase in diagnosis of 'severe' autism, then there is probably a corresponding decrease in good old fashioned 'MR' - again, better recognition of the kids. Just a hunch, but lacking a study in front of me, that's what I'd guess :)
D'OH! I get it, Fred.
I'm a bit discombobulated today.
well ... I heard it about more severe cases ... on NPR yesterday ... or this week at least.
Good point Fred - you all made usch great points actually
You all made very interesting poins and gave me some things to think about I was not offended, but the article missed a lot. Is it more expensive to
T
I also think that all teachers need to know that kids with autism are all different and to treat each as so..Sarah's teacher had huge fears for having her in her class and it was totally from ignorance..Sarah was the best kid she ever had in her 7 years of teaching!
Well said, kristys. I wasn't offended, either. The fact of the matter is, special education is expensive, and schools are struggling to pay for stuff as it is. (Though I think cutting some layers of bureacracy (sp?) would help!)
When I was a kid, we never had to bring in extra school supplies for our classrooms, and now it's practically de riguer. Teachers also pay for a good amount of these things out of their own pockets as well. There is a lot of money coming into schools, but it's not being appropriated very well, imo, and we could still use more. Special referendums and bond sales are probably the best way to go in many high property tax areas, and in general, perhaps.
It's a tricky thing. But educating children, special needs or otherwise, isn't something that should be done on the cheap, either. I think cutting some politican salaries and pet pork projects would go a long way to finding additional funds for schools, too!
Well ... if the school is getting THAT much per student, I think it is huge! This articel is a part of a weeklong series on autism, BTW. There is generally an agenda which becomes apparent in these ...[QUOTE=micki]I was not offended, but the article missed a lot. Is it more expensive to
provide decent education through the schoolyears and have an adult who
is able to hold down employment or is it more expensive to warehouse
instead of educate and have an adult who will need not be able to work
and live independently? Also - I know that my ds might cost the school a
tad more (Really he does not get much extra) and I was already told by
the school that a 1:1 aide was out of question whether he needs one or
not. However is it my son who drains the schools or could it be that our
district had three superintendents in the last 5 years, all of whom were
pretty bad and all of whom left with a big juicy payout. But go and
blame the finacial crisis on a 7 year old who gets 2.5 hours special ed a
week !!!
Also 1 in 150 is not my experience. In my son's class of 26 are three kids
with asd. In my girls preschool of 40 are also 3 kids with asd. In the
circle of friends that I had before kids were born we have 4 kids with asd.
The majority of those kids is pretty high functioning and would not have
gotten a diagnosis even 10 years ago, but still.[/QUOTE]
The broadcast actually covered more, and it seemed, more succinctly, BTW.