Public education

[torridjoe 0]

vouchers suck. Everyone pays taxes to provide education for all kids. If parents want to send their kids elsewhere, let them pay for it, not the taxpayers.

 

cmh, is that you?

[Korben Dallas 0]

Are you a teacher, ex teacher, or married to a teacher? I'll bet yes!

 

Schools use our tax dollars to pay teachers. Because of the union, bad teachers can NOT be fired unless the flat out commit a crime and even then sometimes it's tough! Bad schools are usually filled with BAD teachers who need to find something else to do. Vouchers would close down the bad schools because NO ONE would choose to go there. Those 1000s of bad teachers across the nation then would be out of jobs and the union would lose MILLONS in dues! You are right about one thing, it is simple math!

 

First, a majority of the public education teachers don't belong to a union, the belong to the National Education Association. They do not have the right to strike or even miss a day without reprocussions.

 

Second, teachers can be fired with tenure. Your very confused about what tenure does, all it does is force districts to use due process before termination. IF the teacher is a member of the AFT Union or the NEA Association, they receive a right to representation at the hearing. That's it. I am a former teacher and was the NEA secondary schools rep. and let me assure you that plenty of teachers lost their job and on multiple occasions I agreed (and so did the local NEA board) that they should and was only their to follow the process. Tenure is a key component in today's climate because of all the parental idiots on the planet that demand a teachers head because their child got a B. I sat in a few of those hearings as well. It is easier just to fire a teacher than to fight-admin's would definitely just do that. (Not all of them)

 

Third, its assumptive to think that their aren't good teachers in bad schools. Our lowest performing school has an excellent staff. But gangs circling the schools all day, horrible home lives, a shoddy social service system and about 8 million other factors have an equal impact. Not to mention that standardizing achievement ignores some of the individual gains that really matter. If I have a kid that can barely read and throughout the year we move from the 4th to the 9th grade level-that would be a huge success. But not in NCLB-its still a fail.

 

Fourth, I don't think you get what a voucher is. No one would choose to go there? That is not how it works. All a voucher does is transfer the set monies allocated per pupil to another school, IF THEY GET IN. There is no requirement for other schools to take them in. What you would actually have is a school of 2000 students become a school of 1950 students, but a major cash crunch because they are now being funded at 1000 students. Because in addition to the 50 lucky students to get out, all the kids already in private schools can opt for that money as well. To add to the burden, It is well proven that most of the students leaving are high achieving and are actually costing less money. The "BAD" school then is left with the same needs, but nearly half the funding.

 

Fifth, you may be right that the school would close down. And then you have 1950 kids with no "school" to go to. End of public education, end of story.

 

Sixth, I'm really curious what the criteria is for a bad teacher? It is my opinion that the threshold for good teaching is pretty high. I always ask people, how many GOOD teachers did you have and they name one or two? Which is of course wrong. I'm not saying their aren't bad teachers, but a majority are competent.

But everyone thinks that every teacher should be a genius, analytical, stand up comedian, doctorate in pysch, attractive, liberal/conservative (to match your persuasion) but we willing to accept minimum wage for their services.

[Korben Dallas 0]

Good point above Pats, but Special Education laws and funding is the #1 reason why schools are failing. SPED accounts for over 30% of most district budgets, more in the poor areas, compared to 4% 20 years ago, but overall school budgets have been stagnent in the same 20 years. THAT is where the money is going.

[Strike 3,959]

First, a majority of the public education teachers don't belong to a union, the belong to the National Education Association. They do not have the right to strike or even miss a day without reprocussions.

 

I can't speak for where you live but the majority of teachers in LA certainly DO belong to a union. I suspect nationwide that the majority do belong to unions. I'd love to know what you base that statement on.

[Korben Dallas 0]

I can't speak for where you live but the majority of teachers in LA certainly DO belong to a union. I suspect nationwide that the majority do belong to unions. I'd love to know what you base that statement on.

 

 

The AFT represents a majority of California. Nationwide it has around 695,000 actve teaching members, the NEA has around 2.1 million members. If it makes you feel any better, my mother hated the AFT when we lived out there.

 

Also, only about 54% of the teaching workforce belongs to either.

[Strike 3,959]

The AFT represents a majority of California. Nationwide it has around 695,000 actve teaching members, the NEA has around 2.1 million members. If it makes you feel any better, my mother hated the AFT when we lived out there.

 

Also, only about 54% of the teaching workforce belongs to either.

 

LOL. So the majority of teachers don't belong to unions? Both of the organizations that you mention, which by your own account make up 54% of the profession, are unions. Are you an educator? If so, I hope you don't teach mathematics.....

[Strike 3,959]

First, a majority of the public education teachers don't belong to a union, the belong to the National Education Association. They do not have the right to strike or even miss a day without reprocussions.

 

Second, teachers can be fired with tenure. Your very confused about what tenure does, all it does is force districts to use due process before termination. IF the teacher is a member of the AFT Union or the NEA Association, they receive a right to representation at the hearing. That's it. I am a former teacher and was the NEA secondary schools rep. and let me assure you that plenty of teachers lost their job and on multiple occasions I agreed (and so did the local NEA board) that they should and was only their to follow the process. Tenure is a key component in today's climate because of all the parental idiots on the planet that demand a teachers head because their child got a B. I sat in a few of those hearings as well. It is easier just to fire a teacher than to fight-admin's would definitely just do that. (Not all of them)

 

Third, its assumptive to think that their aren't good teachers in bad schools. Our lowest performing school has an excellent staff. But gangs circling the schools all day, horrible home lives, a shoddy social service system and about 8 million other factors have an equal impact. Not to mention that standardizing achievement ignores some of the individual gains that really matter. If I have a kid that can barely read and throughout the year we move from the 4th to the 9th grade level-that would be a huge success. But not in NCLB-its still a fail.

 

Fourth, I don't think you get what a voucher is. No one would choose to go there? That is not how it works. All a voucher does is transfer the set monies allocated per pupil to another school, IF THEY GET IN. There is no requirement for other schools to take them in. What you would actually have is a school of 2000 students become a school of 1950 students, but a major cash crunch because they are now being funded at 1000 students. Because in addition to the 50 lucky students to get out, all the kids already in private schools can opt for that money as well. To add to the burden, It is well proven that most of the students leaving are high achieving and are actually costing less money. The "BAD" school then is left with the same needs, but nearly half the funding.

 

Fifth, you may be right that the school would close down. And then you have 1950 kids with no "school" to go to. End of public education, end of story.

 

Sixth, I'm really curious what the criteria is for a bad teacher? It is my opinion that the threshold for good teaching is pretty high. I always ask people, how many GOOD teachers did you have and they name one or two? Which is of course wrong. I'm not saying their aren't bad teachers, but a majority are competent.

But everyone thinks that every teacher should be a genius, analytical, stand up comedian, doctorate in pysch, attractive, liberal/conservative (to match your persuasion) but we willing to accept minimum wage for their services.

 

You're using a lot of rhetoric here. Let me just address one of your points, that if 50 kids leave a school that the school is then losing the money for 1000 kids. You state that the schools are funded by a set amount per student who attends the school. Then, when 50 kids get out you say that the school will lose the money for 1000 kids because the kids who never went there in the first place somehow affect that school's funding. This doesn't make sense for a few reasons:

 

First, you assume that 1 out of 3 kids eligible to attend that school aren't attending it, pre voucher. As with the union statement I'd love to know how you come up with that number. I know in the neighborhood that I grew up a minimum of 90% of the eligible kids attended the local public high school.

 

Second, if the school is funded by the money it gets from kids who attend there would be a quite linear drop off in funding - 50 kids leave, funding for 50 kids leaves. The other 950 kids would be irrelevant to the funding for that particular school. And if the school has 50 less kids to worry about it shouldn't need as much funding.

 

And third, somehow in your math world 2000-50 = 1000 (funding for 2000 students minus funding for 50 students = budget for 1000 students). I'd love to know how that works.....

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Good point above Pats, but Special Education laws and funding is the #1 reason why schools are failing. SPED accounts for over 30% of most district budgets, more in the poor areas, compared to 4% 20 years ago, but overall school budgets have been stagnent in the same 20 years. THAT is where the money is going.

Take a look at funding in constant dollars from the Federal and State governments. Both are going down and have been for a while.

 

Also, take a look at the percentages for long-term, outsourced care. That is where a majority of the dollars go. There are a small percentage of SPED students that are taking up the most dollars.

 

While funding may be going down on a per student basis, the removal of SPED is not the answer. As mentioned, SPED should not be a free ride for SPED parents. There should be a fee-based system that helps address some of the inequities, but it should not be completely fee based.

 

To say that SPED is the reason that public education is failing is oversimplifying the problem. Like many issues today, we have a problem with the funding, the overhead, and delivery.

[Guest tiki_gods]

As far as special attention given to the students, it is not the responsibility of the teacher to teach everything on the IEP. There are other teachers who take those students with specific needs out of the classroom to work with them for a period of time on their areas of expertise. Most teachers are not equipped or trained to deal with special education so they use people who are.

 

If a teacher fails to follow any part of the IEP, they can face legal action. It happened in our school district when TITLE I came in, removed a classroom teacher and filed a lawsuit against the district. Its in a federal court.

[Korben Dallas 0]

LOL. So the majority of teachers don't belong to unions? Both of the organizations that you mention, which by your own account make up 54% of the profession, are unions. Are you an educator? If so, I hope you don't teach mathematics.....

 

The National Education Association is not classified as a union. Thus that name association. It's a technicality, but a valid one.

[Korben Dallas 0]

You're using a lot of rhetoric here. Let me just address one of your points, that if 50 kids leave a school that the school is then losing the money for 1000 kids. You state that the schools are funded by a set amount per student who attends the school. Then, when 50 kids get out you say that the school will lose the money for 1000 kids because the kids who never went there in the first place somehow affect that school's funding. This doesn't make sense for a few reasons:

 

First, you assume that 1 out of 3 kids eligible to attend that school aren't attending it, pre voucher. As with the union statement I'd love to know how you come up with that number. I know in the neighborhood that I grew up a minimum of 90% of the eligible kids attended the local public high school.

 

Second, if the school is funded by the money it gets from kids who attend there would be a quite linear drop off in funding - 50 kids leave, funding for 50 kids leaves. The other 950 kids would be irrelevant to the funding for that particular school. And if the school has 50 less kids to worry about it shouldn't need as much funding.

 

And third, somehow in your math world 2000-50 = 1000 (funding for 2000 students minus funding for 50 students = budget for 1000 students). I'd love to know how that works.....

 

 

I see where you made the mistake. Schools are NOT funded by the set amount who attend, but by the number of eligible students within their boundary. That really takes out the rest of your arguments.

 

For example, Let say you live in a metro district/school boundary that has one catholic high school with 1000 kids and one Assembly of God private institution school with 500 kids and a public high school with 2000. For arguments sake, we'll say that only 750 of the catholic kids would have attended the public school if they were forced to, and 200 of the AOG kids, the rest are from other districts. So the public school is actually receiving 2950 worth of student based dollars. And thank god, because the education cuts have been severe and with NCLB's unfunded $6 Billion dollar mandate, they need all the money they can find.

 

And lets argue that each of those schools in the new voucher world decide to add 50 students from the public school. That might be high by 49 students each, but for arguments sake.

 

In the voucher system, if implemented fully. The Catholic school is entitled to the per capita student income of ALL students that opt out, that's 800 students of money. And the same goes for the AOG kids, all 250 worth is removed. The argument is that kids and parents that have already sacrificed shouldn't be punished.

 

So, the failing public school still has 1900 students, but just lost over a 3rd of their funding. Which means, plain and simple, firing teachers and cutting programs. There is no where else to cut. So now the classrooms are more overcrowded, there is less for the kids to do, and less classes for them to get out of that rut.

 

 

The only, and I mean only purpose of the voucher system is to eliminate guarenteed public education.

 

There is certainly some huge problems with education, but taking even more money away from schools and programs isn't going to solve them.

 

Take a look at funding in constant dollars from the Federal and State governments. Both are going down and have been for a while.

 

Also, take a look at the percentages for long-term, outsourced care. That is where a majority of the dollars go. There are a small percentage of SPED students that are taking up the most dollars.

 

While funding may be going down on a per student basis, the removal of SPED is not the answer. As mentioned, SPED should not be a free ride for SPED parents. There should be a fee-based system that helps address some of the inequities, but it should not be completely fee based.

 

To say that SPED is the reason that public education is failing is oversimplifying the problem. Like many issues today, we have a problem with the funding, the overhead, and delivery.

 

 

From by personal experience, lawsuits were the highest dollar expenditure, outsourced care was also huge, consulting fees and indirect contractors - people that come and pick them up, followed by capital asset purchasing-wheel chairs, special reading desks, special beds for at home...I could go on.

 

I am CERTAINLY not advocating removing SPED. Far from it, I'm sorry that I gave that impression. What I do want is to allocate the money for SPED differently and exclusively from public schools. Similar to an LLC.

I think the transparency of the costs would be good for everyone. And I believe once people see that the funding for actual public education has been on a downward trend since the early 80's, maybe they'll decide that all they might need to do is actually fund it and it might work.

[Ilov80s 0]

If a teacher fails to follow any part of the IEP, they can face legal action. It happened in our school district when TITLE I came in, removed a classroom teacher and filed a lawsuit against the district. Its in a federal court.

 

Yes, the IEP legally must be followed. What Pats was saying was that it doesn't fall soley on the a general education teacher to carry out the the accomodations. There are trained special education teachers that are part of the process. Sometimes students are put in self-contained classrooms, sometimes gen ed. teachers get an assistant, and sometimes students use a resource room for part of the day. Theres many ways to accomodate students with special needs beyond dumping more work on to one gen ed. teacher

[Strike 3,959]

The National Education Association is not classified as a union. Thus that name association. It's a technicality, but a valid one.

 

Sure, whatever. I can find you several references on their own website that indicates that they're a union. I don't know what it takes to be technically classified as a union but if you want to get into technicalities go talk to Torridjoe. They consider themselves a union and have even formed a partnership with the AFT and that's good enough for me.

 

I see where you made the mistake. Schools are NOT funded by the set amount who attend, but by the number of eligible students within their boundary. That really takes out the rest of your arguments.

 

For example, Let say you live in a metro district/school boundary that has one catholic high school with 1000 kids and one Assembly of God private institution school with 500 kids and a public high school with 2000. For arguments sake, we'll say that only 750 of the catholic kids would have attended the public school if they were forced to, and 200 of the AOG kids, the rest are from other districts. So the public school is actually receiving 2950 worth of student based dollars. And thank god, because the education cuts have been severe and with NCLB's unfunded $6 Billion dollar mandate, they need all the money they can find.

 

And lets argue that each of those schools in the new voucher world decide to add 50 students from the public school. That might be high by 49 students each, but for arguments sake.

 

In the voucher system, if implemented fully. The Catholic school is entitled to the per capita student income of ALL students that opt out, that's 800 students of money. And the same goes for the AOG kids, all 250 worth is removed. The argument is that kids and parents that have already sacrificed shouldn't be punished.

 

So, the failing public school still has 1900 students, but just lost over a 3rd of their funding. Which means, plain and simple, firing teachers and cutting programs. There is no where else to cut. So now the classrooms are more overcrowded, there is less for the kids to do, and less classes for them to get out of that rut.

The only, and I mean only purpose of the voucher system is to eliminate guarenteed public education.

 

I disagree with you on this. At my school I know they were funded based upon the number of kids actually in attendance, not the number eligible for that area. And how this would invalidate my argument that you're overestimating the number of eligible students who don't attend their public high school I don't know. Where are you coming up with a number as high as 33% of eligible students not attending their public high school? I could see that number happening in some districts if vouchers were implemented but don't see it in areas without vouchers.

[Korben Dallas 0]

Sure, whatever. I can find you several references on their own website that indicates that they're a union. I don't know what it takes to be technically classified as a union but if you want to get into technicalities go talk to Torridjoe. They consider themselves a union and have even formed a partnership with the AFT and that's good enough for me.

I disagree with you on this. At my school I know they were funded based upon the number of kids actually in attendance, not the number eligible for that area. And how this would invalidate my argument that you're overestimating the number of eligible students who don't attend their public high school I don't know. Where are you coming up with a number as high as 33% of eligible students not attending their public high school? I could see that number happening in some districts if vouchers were implemented but don't see it in areas without vouchers.

 

I left teaching 4 or 5 years ago, so I'll defer if you say they've changed their rhetoric to classifying themselves as a union. When I was the district rep, we avoided "union" like the plague.

 

I just read that they did tenatively join with the AFT. It was rejected the last year I was in.

 

Taxation for educaton is based on the physical district you are located in. And school funding is determined by the number of school age children residing within your district and school lines. I not aware of any systems that turn away funding of private school opt-outs, but I suppose they could exist.

 

Nationally, there are around 57.7 million children attending school. 47.9 of them attend public schools, 9.8 million attend private, catholic, charter or home schooled. About an 83%-17% difference.

On the east coast, the numbers are closer to 75-25.

 

So maybe my 33% was a little high. But the scenario itself was accurate. Every private school child can apply for the voucher and there is no requirement to let anyone from the public schools in.

[Strike 3,959]

Nationally, there are around 57.7 million children attending school. 47.9 of them attend public schools, 9.8 million attend private, catholic, charter or home schooled. About an 83%-17% difference.

On the east coast, the numbers are closer to 75-25.

 

So maybe my 33% was a little high. But the scenario itself was accurate. Every private school child can apply for the voucher and there is no requirement to let anyone from the public schools in.

 

I would call a 2-1 differential a "little" high. And again, I don't see the problem with vouchers. Even assuming you're correct (and I still dispute this) that schools currently get funding for kids going to private schools, maybe they shouldn't. I've said this before and I'll say it again. There's no reason people who choose to send their children to private school should have to pay twice, once to subsidize to incompetent public school in their area and once for the private school. They should be entitled to the set amount of funds the state has set aside to educate their child. And if the private school costs more than that they pay the difference. Maybe then the public schools will get off their arses and become competent.

[Korben Dallas 0]

I would call a 2-1 differential a "little" high. And again, I don't see the problem with vouchers. Even assuming you're correct (and I still dispute this) that schools currently get funding for kids going to private schools, maybe they shouldn't. I've said this before and I'll say it again. There's no reason people who choose to send their children to private school should have to pay twice, once to subsidize to incompetent public school in their area and once for the private school. They should be entitled to the set amount of funds the state has set aside to educate their child. And if the private school costs more than that they pay the difference. Maybe then the public schools will get off their arses and become competent.

 

Lets call it even, I went 3-1, you went 10-1 and it was 4-1.

 

And I see tons of problems with vouchers:

 

- they destroy our free public education system, which works more than it doesn't.

- they don't solve the problem for the kids that cannot leave, only make it worse

- there are major constituional issues

- they don't actually provide choice, except to middle and upper class parents that can afford the difference or top end kids that privates offer scholarships to.

- there is no conclusive proof that private schools are any better, many are just as terrible

 

The only reason for vouchers is your last argument. That people that place their kids in a private school don't want to pay their share of taxes for education. Follow that line of thought, I have a child that isn't school aged yet, I shouldn't have to pay either. Once kids graduate, they shouldn't either. Old people, no. Single people, no.

 

You've finally rounded yourself into the real argument for vouchers. That we shouldn't have a free education system in this country. That only those rich enough should be afforded education.

 

That has been ruled unconstitutional and is a terrible position of a progressive society.

 

As Grover Norquist says, "Any discussion of school choice is a victory, whether is passes or not, because it means that we are not talking about actually funding schools".

-

[Strike 3,959]

Lets call it even, I went 3-1, you went 10-1 and it was 4-1.

 

And I see tons of problems with vouchers:

 

- they destroy our free public education system, which works more than it doesn't.

- they don't solve the problem for the kids that cannot leave, only make it worse

- there are major constituional issues

- they don't actually provide choice, except to middle and upper class parents that can afford the difference or top end kids that privates offer scholarships to.

- there is no conclusive proof that private schools are any better, many are just as terrible

 

The only reason for vouchers is your last argument. That people that place their kids in a private school don't want to pay their share of taxes for education. Follow that line of thought, I have a child that isn't school aged yet, I shouldn't have to pay either. Once kids graduate, they shouldn't either. Old people, no. Single people, no.

 

You've finally rounded yourself into the real argument for vouchers. That we shouldn't have a free education system in this country. That only those rich enough should be afforded education.

 

That has been ruled unconstitutional and is a terrible position of a progressive society.

 

As Grover Norquist says, "Any discussion of school choice is a victory, whether is passes or not, because it means that we are not talking about actually funding schools".

-

 

How are people who pay twice for education now not willing to pay their "share" for education. They just want to have the choice to use their portion to send their kids to the the school of their choice to afford them the best opportunity.

 

As far as getting rid of the free education system I've never said that and it won't happen. There's no reason public schools shouldn't be able to exist on the money given to them based upon the number of students that attend the school.

 

I enjoy discussing this with you but you keep putting words in my mouth, not to mention making erroneus statements that I have to waste time refuting. So I'm going to bow out now and we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Korben Dallas 0]

How are people who pay twice for education now not willing to pay their "share" for education. They just want to have the choice to use their portion to send their kids to the the school of their choice to afford them the best opportunity.

 

As far as getting rid of the free education system I've never said that and it won't happen. There's no reason public schools shouldn't be able to exist on the money given to them based upon the number of students that attend the school.

 

I enjoy discussing this with you but you keep putting words in my mouth, not to mention making erroneus statements that I have to waste time refuting. So I'm going to bow out now and we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

They are NOT paying twice. They pay taxes to fund a free public education system in their state, whether they have children in it or not. They are welcome to enroll if they have children.

 

If they choose to spend monies to do something different, that's fine, but it doesn't release them of their obligation as a citizen.

 

I know you didn't say you wanted to get rid of free education, but that is the purpose of vouchers. You need to go read the literature of the organizations that spend over $65 million a year pushing it. That is their goal, to make education a privledge and not an entitlement.

 

There are tons of reasons that public schools can't exist in a vouchered world. They get to keep all the under achieving and high cost students, all the SPED expenses, the government mandates, NCLB, etc. You own argument is that they are on the brink of failure now. Some time you'll have to explain to me how removing funding and the top kids will make it any better.

 

Sorry you had to waste two sentences to add an ad hom on numbers of students that was wildly off in order to get me to dig in and find the accurate numbers that were much closer to mine. I'll give you the NEA being a union, but that didn't really answer anything.

 

It was nice discussing Strike, I always like bantering with you.

[Guest tiki_gods]

Yes, the IEP legally must be followed. What Pats was saying was that it doesn't fall soley on the a general education teacher to carry out the the accomodations. There are trained special education teachers that are part of the process. Sometimes students are put in self-contained classrooms, sometimes gen ed. teachers get an assistant, and sometimes students use a resource room for part of the day. Theres many ways to accomodate students with special needs beyond dumping more work on to one gen ed. teacher

 

Right. What Pats said is that some teachers just don't follow everything in the IEP and I told him by LAW they MUST. IEPs are not optional, if a student has one it must be followed.

 

The real answer to cleaning up education is good administration to weed out the garbage in the classroom and hold people accountable for students receiving a good education. In NH, there is no such thing as "tenure". Teachers here receive a "continued contract" after a three year probationary period. I say if you're a good administrator, you can make teachers teach the curriculum, holding their students accountable and if not remove them using the processes in place (evaluations-improvement plans-dismissal) in that order.

[Bill E. 666]

I am against them for one reason. When the government gets involved in anything the price goes up. Govt. involvement in Private schools = higher prices. I see two consequences of the Government funding private schools.

 

1. If a school district loses 1 Million to private schools, what will they do? Cut back? Not our Government They will find a way to raise taxes to cover the shortfall. I do not want to pay higher taxes to let my neighbor send their kids to a private school.

 

2. Say a private school can charge 5K per year, and people will pay to send their kids there. So the Government kicks in 2k per child. The incentive is there to raise tuition to 7K since people have shown they are willing to kick in 5K.

 

People will say the market will discourage this since other people will open private schools, but people will hesitate to send their kids to a different school system if they have been going to one for a number of years. This is especially true where there is a large Catholic School presence.

[Bill E. 666]

1. How are people who pay twice for education now not willing to pay their "share" for education.

 

2. They just want to have the choice to use their portion to send their kids to the the school of their choice to afford them the best opportunity.

 

 

 

1. People send their kids to private schools are not paying twice. I have no kids by choice but I pay taxes just like a parent does. I hae no problem with this by the way.

 

2. Many people would get more back in a voucher system than they put in. Say you and I make the same money and live in similar houses. We each pay 3k in taxes/year. Say I had 3 kids and send 2 to private schools and you have no kids. We get a voucher system where 2K/child goes back to the parent. You end up paying 3K to fund schools where you have no kids (this part is fine if everyone pays into the system). I use the public school system with one kid but pay nothing to fund it. Plus I drain 1k that you paid out of the system that I use.

[Guest tiki_gods]

End all public education and pay people to homeschool their kids. This will eliminate everyone who blames everything on public education.

 

Kids with a life of......

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

If a teacher fails to follow any part of the IEP, they can face legal action. It happened in our school district when TITLE I came in, removed a classroom teacher and filed a lawsuit against the district. Its in a federal court.

You misunderstood my point. My point is that there is not one teacher that is responsible for teaching everything on the IEP. There are paraprofessionals, special ED teachers and assistants, that help the teacher with addressing the goals on the IEP. I did not want to imply that they can (or should) deviate from an IEP. I was saying that a teacher is not on an island in dealing with an IEP and they are not that daunting.

[Guest tiki_gods]

You misunderstood my point. My point is that there is not one teacher that is responsible for teaching everything on the IEP. There are paraprofessionals, special ED teachers and assistants, that help the teacher with addressing the goals on the IEP. I did not want to imply that they can (or should) deviate from an IEP. I was saying that a teacher is not on an island in dealing with an IEP and they are not that daunting.

 

Misunderstood. I see your point now. However, I still dislike the current state of special ed.