Special Education

[Fishy]

I will cede that those challenged to the discussed degree don't necessarily need schooling, where it would be beneficial or not, but that the importance lies in them having the opportunity for a happy life, whatever the method may be.

 

[Chou Toshio]

My main concern would be-- what does the public system do when the parents aren't able to fully meet the special needs of their child alone?

Someone mentioned school-as-daycare, but for many parents of normal children as well-- that's exactly what school is! Children being at school lets parents have the independence to work. Especially in the US where many (the majority?) of women continue to work after marriage, and stay-home-parents are a greater rarity, school is a fundamental part of the household clockwork. It's not so simple as, "The kid won't benefit from the education so he shouldn't go to school."

 

[Firestorm]

happiness is subjective. but being confined to a wheelchair, often not being able to move a good portion of your body is not being happy. plus you can be happy without going to school.

Being confined to a wheelchair is clearly inferior to not being confined, but it does not force someone to be consistently unhappy. You can be happy without going to school, but that's no reason to deny someone the ability to go to school.

The public school system is set up for everybody. Everyone pays taxes to fund it and everybody gets to take advantage of it. These children should not be forced into the school system, but they shouldn't be denied it either. They have as much right to it as you do.

The notion that "nobody would do this unless they were paid" is ridiculous as the job is pretty poor paying most of the time and has terrible job security as special needs teachers are always the first to go. The only people who do it are doing it because they love to. Everybody obviously needs to get paid to make a living. Nobody would do most 40 hour a week jobs unless they were getting paid.

 

[alamaster]

But each case needs to be examined individually, I don't think there's a precise definition as to when someone will be productive or not productive, but it's better to air on the optimistic side. But for some extremely retarded people, it may not be worth it to send them through 12+ years of school.

Exactly. How many children in each school can be considered "severely mentally disabled"; so much so that they cannot fend for themselves? In my experiences at school there were maybe 2 or 3 of such kids so it wouldn't take a lot of effort to go through these cases to see who was really benefiting from an education.

 

[MK Ultra]

I'd like to turn this argument around. However unlikely this is, the OP could have a stroke/other brain related injury and be turned into, for all intents and purposes, a vegetable. How would you like it if all opporunities for you to be given a happy/meaningful shot at further life were just cut off, and you were thrown to the side as worthless. This is effectively what you're doing, as school, while it doesn't function in the same way for handicapped persons as it does for me or you, is the only practical way of making these people's lives worth living.

Or even put yourself in the position of a parent with a handicapped child. However different they may be, they are still your offspring, and you are truly heartless if you wouldn't care for them.

If there's no point in them living (which is basically what you're arguing) why don't we just kill them all? They're a burden on society and the vast majority will never benefit from them in any way. Oh, but hasn't someone thought of that before...

 

[FlareBlitz]

First, the philosophical point: the purpose of public schooling is to make education available to all children who seek it. This is the most fundamental tenet behind its existence. Even if, objectively, retarded children do not benefit at all from public education, they still need to be offered the opportunity. Hell, there are plenty of kids who skip class and never do homework, and plenty of kids who, while not retarded, are still too stupid to pass or learn anything. We still have (dumbed down) courses for them. If we let them continue schooling but bar children with a medically-recognized disability from schooling at all, we are being inconsistent. After all, if we're willing to accept some "secondary" schooling programs (like ESL or remedial math or something), then why specifically target the curriculum for retarded children and seek to eliminate it? You could say "at least the people in ESL/remedial math can learn something", but is that necessarily the case? Many will not learn a damn thing...should we eliminate those programs? Let kids who flunk just completely drop out of public school? But then, what would even be the point? Questions like this bear consideration.

Now, there's also the point that public school is a good place to socialize for these children, and even the most retarded of them require social interaction and some mental stimulation. While they will very likely not become contributing members of society, teaching them basic skills (which is what the classes are typically about) in a comfortable social setting is as much about compassion as it is about learning. And ultimately, all public goods are predicated at least partially on compassion. This isn't any different.

All that said, I do agree with a general reduction in emphasis on all secondary schooling programs. Why? Because the "normal" kids are doing atrociously on every relevant metric, and those should be our first priority. But I just wanted to present the case for why the more niche school programs should exist.

 

[lati0s]

I'd like to turn this argument around. However unlikely this is, the OP could have a stroke/other brain related injury and be turned into, for all intents and purposes, a vegetable. How would you like it if all opporunities for you to be given a happy/meaningful shot at further life were just cut off, and you were thrown to the side as worthless. This is effectively what you're doing, as school, while it doesn't function in the same way for handicapped persons as it does for me or you, is the only practical way of making these people's lives worth living.

I would rather die than live with severely reduced cognitive ability.

[21:54] <jumpluff> the mentality is "Well they are still people too",

Are they? Do you consider being of the species Homo Sapien to be the only thing necessary to be a person?
To me people are intelligent thinking beings species is just a superficial qualifier the only valid reason that I can think of for why I should value a person with the cognitive ability of a monkey more than a monkey or a person with the mental capacity of a squirrel more than a squirrel is that other people might see them differently.

 

[Chou Toshio]

I can't believe lati0s actually went ahead and opened that can of worms. Chaos ensues.

It's a discussion I can appreciate, but am not really willing to touch with a ten yard pole. Rather not "go there" but . . . I guess you guys can if you want . . .

 

[billymills]

I don't think it even warrants arguing. Regardless of if they are or aren't people, (whatever that means) we still have to decide whether or not to teach them.

 

[WaterBomb]

What makes you think that the one thing that makes these people happy isn't that people are giving them a chance and taking the time to teach them? You're assuming that these people don't experience happiness. Just because they are unable to form it into words or communicate it in any way does not mean they don't experience that emotion. Since we really lack the tools in science to determine if a person is "happy" without asking them, what makes you think you can? For all you know, the one thing that keeps their heart beating and makes them happy is being taught by someone who cares?

All I really gather from your original post is that you are selfish. You made a vague statement regarding people with severe mental handicaps and turned it around to a "how can this be changed to benefit me?". You might be too blind to see it, but these same "severely handicapped" people you refer to provide an excellent service to our society. Want to know what that service is? Faith and hope. These people are a symbol for all of us "normal" people. They make us realize how lucky we are to have the many blessings we enjoy, and they give us immense knowledge on genetics, medical science, etc. Aside from all that, they are living proof of the true strength of human will, and the ability to accomplish even the most improbable feats with enough determination and time.

Why shouldn't we teach them? Their lives are no less valuable than our own (to say otherwise would be heartless), so we must show compassion and patience and allow them the same rights we have.

 

[Reverb]

ADD/ADHD and Dislexia are the flag-boys of this, especially border-line cases where students are otherwise completely normal energetic children outside the fact that the structured classroom itself is a nightmare for them. Obviously depending on severity, a specialized school with greater patience and flexibility in the classroom would be ideal-- but many parents cannot afford the prices to send their kids to such schools.

I just wanted to address this post. ADD is not a learning disability. I have it and I get straight A's. I don't struggle to pick up material whatsoever. It is a trying disability to be honest, since it tends to make you procrastinate and now have the will to pay attention. A learning disability is something that intellectual impairs you, ADD does nothing of the sort.

 

[Metallic]

All I really gather from your original post is that you are selfish. You made a vague statement regarding people with severe mental handicaps and turned it around to a "how can this be changed to benefit me?". You might be too blind to see it, but these same "severely handicapped" people you refer to provide an excellent service to our society. Want to know what that service is? Faith and hope. These people are a symbol for all of us "normal" people. They make us realize how lucky we are to have the many blessings we enjoy, and they give us immense knowledge on genetics, medical science, etc. Aside from all that, they are living proof of the true strength of human will, and the ability to accomplish even the most improbable feats with enough determination and time.

Why shouldn't we teach them? Their lives are no less valuable than our own (to say otherwise would be heartless), so we must show compassion and patience and allow them the same rights we have.

Everything you said (except the word 'human') can be applied to animals (e.g. monkeys), and I've never heard of anyone requesting that monkeys should be taught in schools. School would almost certainly benefit the monkey more, anyway.

 

[cantab]

I would rather die than live with severely reduced cognitive ability.

That's your decision to make for yourself. But not to impose on others.

 

[Chou Toshio]

I just wanted to address this post. ADD is not a learning disability. I have it and I get straight A's. I don't struggle to pick up material whatsoever. It is a trying disability to be honest, since it tends to make you procrastinate and now have the will to pay attention. A learning disability is something that intellectual impairs you, ADD does nothing of the sort.

Not that you are disagreeing with me, but I will point out that I said that people with ADD are often brilliant-- and become wildly successful should they be able to overcome their "disability."

 

[lati0s]

Not that you are disagreeing with me, but I will point out that I said that people with ADD are often brilliant-- and become wildly successful should they be able to overcome their "disability."

I don't think that they are overall any more likely to be brilliant or wildly successful than the average person.

 

[CaptKirby]

Their lives are no less valuable than our own (to say otherwise would be heartless), so we must show compassion and patience and allow them the same rights we have.

Their lives are worth less. There are plenty of ways to sensibly define worth that show this is true. The only way it is untrue would be if you define it solely as "being alive". If it is money made and spent, if it is people impacted, if it is being able to fend for themselves and not be reliant on others, if it is influencing/forming/helping other people's opinions and reasoning skills, et cetera, severely incapacitated people are going to come out behind.

Of course some people may be worthless enough to be an exception to being superior, but those people also had the capability to be superior and wasted it.

 

[WaterBomb]

Keep in mind that we've seen many examples of people who were considered to be beyond teaching that ended up benefitting from learning and led better lives for it. The Helen Keller example is a good one, as well as countless other stories we've heard of people who did the impossible. The simple fact is we have constantly been shown that our preconceived notions can be disproven, so we cannot say beyond a shadow of a doubt that any one person is completely "worthless" and incapable of learning or functioning in any way. Generally, if a severely handicapped person is well enough to be able to travel to school (albeit with help) and be there for an extended period of time, then they are in some way capable of learning material. If a person is a complete vegetable and cannot possibly function, then chances are they wouldn't be able to even make the trip to school in the first place.

Now, I'm not a scientist, so I won't act like I know for sure. But it seems to me that, because we've seen so many of these "against all odds" success stories, we don't really have a 100% accurate method of determining a person's receptivity (is that a word?) to knowledge and learning. Therefore, if we still cannot scientifically PROVE that a person, beyond any shred of doubt, is fully incapable of learning a single thing, how can we go as far as to stop educating them?

 

[Bad Ass]

Keep in mind that we've seen many examples of people who were considered to be beyond teaching that ended up benefitting from learning and led better lives for it. The Helen Keller example is a good one, as well as countless other stories we've heard of people who did the impossible.

link or something to these countless other stories

The simple fact is we have constantly been shown that our preconceived notions can be disproven, so we cannot say beyond a shadow of a doubt that any one person is completely "worthless" and incapable of learning or functioning in any way.

yes, we can. if they cannot function in society and just be there to be there, then what exactly are they doing? hope? hope can be derived from a number of sources. i wouldn't say that handicapped children = hope.

Generally, if a severely handicapped person is well enough to be able to travel to school (albeit with help) and be there for an extended period of time, then they are in some way capable of learning material. If a person is a complete vegetable and cannot possibly function, then chances are they wouldn't be able to even make the trip to school in the first place.

people who live in wheelchairs, are wheeled onto special buses, stayed with on the bus, taken off the bus, and wheeled to class, wheeled onto the bus at the end of the day, wheeled home, and continue to be taken care of at home can make the trip, but how is the knowledge helping them?

Now, I'm not a scientist, so I won't act like I know for sure. But it seems to me that, because we've seen so many of these "against all odds" success stories, we don't really have a 100% accurate method of determining a person's receptivity (is that a word?) to knowledge and learning. Therefore, if we still cannot scientifically PROVE that a person, beyond any shred of doubt, is fully incapable of learning a single thing, how can we go as far as to stop educating them?

because if you are only capable of learning simple things that will not be used in your life, why are we using our resources to teach you?

 

[lati0s]

Now, I'm not a scientist, so I won't act like I know for sure. But it seems to me that, because we've seen so many of these "against all odds" success stories, we don't really have a 100% accurate method of determining a person's receptivity (is that a word?) to knowledge and learning. Therefore, if we still cannot scientifically PROVE that a person, beyond any shred of doubt, is fully incapable of learning a single thing, how can we go as far as to stop educating them?

It is pretty clear that the severely mentally disabled are not capable of learning very much. If our policy was to try to educate everything that cannot be undeniably proven to be unteachable we would be letting animals go to school.

Can you link to any "against all odds" stories that involve mental retardation. Stories like Helen Keller are a different issue as the people in those stories still had normal intelligence.

 

[WaterBomb]

I'm too lazy to hunt up stories just to engage in a futile argument with a couple of people who are unwilling to listen anyway, and really are only posting in this topic to illicit negative reactions. I don't have to link you to a specific story for you to know that we've made significant advancements in the study and education of the mentally handicapped.

It took me til now to realize that the OP (and those agreeing with him) are simply playing Devil's Advocate for sport, and enjoy pretending to be heartless douches to see the responses and attention they get. Guarantee none of you would have the balls to express this opinion to people in real life.

 

[Firestorm]

It is pretty clear that the severely mentally disabled are not capable of learning very much. If our policy was to try to educate everything that cannot be undeniably proven to be unteachable we would be letting animals go to school.

Can you link to any "against all odds" stories that involve mental retardation. Stories like Helen Keller are a different issue as the people in those stories still had normal intelligence.

Your policy isn't to educate everything that cannot be undeniably proven to be unteachable. Your policy is to teach American children. Their parents paid the taxes just as yours did. You have absolutely no right to filter them out of public schools.

 

[cantab]

Hitler went after the disabled first. Think about that when you say that someone with a disability will be a drain on society.

 

[lati0s]

Your policy isn't to educate everything that cannot be undeniably proven to be unteachable. Your policy is to teach American children. Their parents paid the taxes just as yours did. You have absolutely no right to filter them out of public schools.

I understand that, I was replying to waterbomb's point that we cannot 100% prove that retarded humans can't learn. I know that our current policy is to try to educate all children, but I do not think that it is a good policy. Why should we spend resources to try to educate someone who is not going to be very receptive to learning.
If the fact that a child's parent pas taxes automatically qualifies them for school despite the fact that they will not be receptive to learning then what about the guy who pays his taxes and has a pet monkey, should we let his monkey go to school, it will probably be more receptive to learning than some retarded kids. Why should having homo sapien DNA give you more right to education.

I'm too lazy to hunt up stories just to engage in a futile argument with a couple of people who are unwilling to listen anyway, and really are only posting in this topic to illicit negative reactions. I don't have to link you to a specific story for you to know that we've made significant advancements in the study and education of the mentally handicapped.

It took me til now to realize that the OP (and those agreeing with him) are simply playing Devil's Advocate for sport, and enjoy pretending to be heartless douches to see the responses and attention they get. Guarantee none of you would have the balls to express this opinion to people in real life.

First off, I'm not playing devil's advocate, these are legitimately my views. We have certainly improved the treatment of mentally handicapped and have successfully trained some mildly affected individuals to have simple jobs and take care of themselves at least in part but I honestly have never heard of a severely mentally retarded individual ever making use their education.

Hitler went after the disabled first. Think about that when you say that someone with a disability will be a drain on society.

Hitler also breathed air for the entirety of his life.

 

[Chou Toshio]

I have to agree with lati0s, it's pretty hilarious everytime someone tries to reference Hitler as a source to "prove something is wrong". Hitler did it! You're just like Hitler!

Well, Hitler also did lots of artwork! Better lock up everyone in the forum who has a little diamond under his name or draws in Smeargle Studio!

It is better to use real points than try to use cheap "emotion" arguments.

 

[cantab]

You're just like Hitler!...It is better to use real points than try to use cheap "emotion" arguments.

It's not an emotion argument. It's an observation of what actions have been taken in the past by a government, justified by the idea that certain people have a negative impact on society. (I would have been more correct to say "Nazi Germany" than "Hitler").

And nowhere did I liken anyone to Hitler.