Conference moira::parenting_v3

    
    You have already entered a base note on the topic of Education
    Rights (note 497).   How about consolidating your inputs in
    that one place?   
    
    I'm sure to be flamed ... but I find it very, very sad that we 
    are sacrificing the educational needs of the many for the 
    educational needs of the few.   This is not to say that the 
    educationally-handicapped do not deserve an decent education;
    just that the distribution of services and money should be
    more equitable.
    
    Carol

    
    And what about gifted children?  Do they have the right to be educated
    to the MAXIMUM possible?  Does these laws cover this population of
    children.  The school system as it stands caters to the average child,
    without more funding I don't see how it can support either properly.
    
    Sue
    

>>    I'm sure to be flamed ... but I find it very, very sad that we 
>>    are sacrificing the educational needs of the many for the 
>>    educational needs of the few.   This is not to say that the 
>>    educationally-handicapped do not deserve an decent education;
>>    just that the distribution of services and money should be
>>    more equitable.

I couldn't agree with you more.  As an example of this problem of the needs of
the few, causing sacrifices for the many:

In our small town, population of about 2000 counting men, women, children and 
perhaps a few dogs and horses (:^), the education of the ~8 special needs 
children is driving the property taxes higher and higher.  We have no control 
over the cost of this education, and most of the children must be educated at
other locations - in one instance this is in Connecticut.  To help keep the 
property taxes down, cuts are made in the education of the other children - no 
raises for teachers, no new books, combining classrooms so the class sizes are
larger, and eliminating some of the teachers.  Many people would say we should
be willing to pay more for education, but when people are already paying over 
$5000 in property taxes for a home worth in today's market about $150,000, 
there has to be a limit.  Many people in town already pay ~15% of their income
in property taxes.

I do not intend on this to become a debate over NH's tax structure.  I just
wanted to point out that when a small town has a large number of these 
children per the total population, the cost of the educational requirements
forced upon it, can be devastating.  Perhaps more federal or state funding is
the answer?????  I just wanted to add support to Carol's comment on this sad
situation.

    In the past the educationally handicapped were either kept out of
    the schools (for the "good of the majority") or simply warehoused
    like human baggage in some tiny room in the school (again, for the
    "good of the majority").  Because of the appalling treatment of these
    children our nation created Public Law 94-142, which is intended
    to insure that educationally handicapped children get a "free,
    appropriate, publicly funded education."
    
    It's absolutely true that this minority of educationally handicapped
    children, like other minority groups, have actually wound up with
    more legal rights than non minority groups.  But, as with other
    groups who have experienced discrimination in the past, there was
    a real need for these kids and their parents to get extra legal
    protection.  In addition, the overall cost of having an educationally
    handicapped child become a productive citizen has been shown to
    be well less than the long term costs of having the child grow up
    and become a ward of the state.
    
    When these kids were left to the mercies of their local school boards
    and resident taxpayers they were treated very poorly.
    
    The truth is that it takes more time and money to teach a blind
    child to read and get along in a mainstream classroom.
    
    It takes more time and money to have a school facility
    available to a crippled child.  It takes more time and money to
    teach a dyslexic child to write.  It takes more time and money to
    teach a child with attention defecits almost anything.
    
    The complaints of town officials and schools about what special
    education costs are smokescreens, often used to justify higher school
    budgets, and to create a battle between the parents of special needs
    kids and the parents of kids without special needs.  
    
    It's a shame that these educationally handicapped children
    who were, in the past, treated like human garbage by uncaring school
    officials and unfeeling taxpayers are, still, subjected to scorn and 
    ridicule.  At least, today, these kids and their parents have legal 
    protections.
    
    It's sad that, even today, we still have parents of "normal" kids who
    expect their children to get a free, appropriate, publicly funded
    education but are quite willing to deny the same to educationally
    handicapped youngsters. It's exactly this type of biased attitude
    that made PL 94-142 a neccessity.
    

    
    I don't think that anyone was trying to suggest that educationally
    handicapped children should be "warehoused" or forgotten.  I think that
    people are simply questioning why it is that *some* educationally
    handicapped children receive better educations than mainstream kids (in
    terms of books, supplies, classroom size, teachers, attention, etc.)
    
    As someone who got totally shafted by the school system--I was dyslexic
    and it was never diagnosed--to this day I don't know the extent of my
    "learning disabilities" or dyslexia (I have real problems with spatial
    relationships--reading maps or doing any kind of geometry problem is
    like asking me to speak in tongues!)--so I'm *very* sensitive to
    educationally handicapped kids in public schools.  Also--as a former
    teacher of economically handicapped kids--I'm also very sensitive to
    that issue as well.
    
    However--given all that--the fact is that the "normal" or "average"
    kids can fall thru the cracks--especially in this time of budget
    constraints.  And, what about the "educationally advantaged,"--meaning,
    kids with special talents.
    
    What programs are available and what are the rights of kids who are
    diagnosed as being "geniuses?"
    
    Again, I'm not trying to say that one child deserves more, equal, or
    less attention than another.  Just that there are lots of issues here
    that we should all be aware of.  
    
    Bonnie
    
    

    I don't disagree that there are lots of kids who fall through the
    cracks.  Educationally handicapped kids do, today, have legal rights
    that allow their parents or other interested adults to make sure
    these youngsters do NOT fall through the crack any longer.
    
    Some of the "good" kids who sit in classrooms without bothering
    the teachers and getting social promotions often reach the point
    where they eventually fail, drop out of school or fail to achieve
    their full potential.  Many of these youngsters have educational
    handicaps that were never recognized by the school or parents.
    
    One of the things parents and teachers can do with "good" but low
    achieving youngsters is to have them fully evaluated.  If the low
    achievement is caused by a learning disability, and it's caught soon
    enough, the child's educational future can be saved.
    
    It's sad, but the kids who are having trouble in school and acting
    out their frustrations are more likely to get needed attention than
    are the quiet, obedient children who are having similar educational
    problems, but not acting up.
    
    With regards to youngsters on the other end of the spectrum - the
    very bright who are apt to be bored by school and whose educational
    needs are not being met - there have been some attempts to get these
    kids covered by the laws governing educationally handicapped children.
    The logic is simple - the schools are not paying attention to their
    needs today any more than they paid attention to the needs of the
    educationally handicapped, yesterday.  These bright children can
    be discriminated against today just as the educationally handicapped
    were discriminated against yesterday.
    
    One way to get this problem corrected would be to work with local
    legislators and groups working with the parents of educationally
    handicapped children to get the laws changed to add - as a covered
    condition - IQ's above some level.  My suspicion is that parents
    of advocates of educationally handicapped children, who have seen
    the problems inappropriate educational institutions can cause, would
    be willing allies to get these laws changed.
    

And there are also children who are talented in an area such as music 
or art that doesn't normally show up in IQ tests or in terms of good 
grades.  Not only don't many schools have the facilities and programs to
offer these children education of their talents, they often discourage
creativity and expressiveness. 

Steven's showing signs of perhaps an above-average artistic ability, but
the only artistic opportunity available right now is that once a week
the art specialist comes into his class and they do a project.  Sometimes
he gets to color or do another special project.  I can afford to buy him
glue and paper and coloring books and all that stuff, but if we couldn't,
he wouldn't be getting the opportunity to explore.  And I remember when
I was little I never got a chance to take music lessons -- even though
the school's lessons were free, I couldn't afford the instrument rental.

I took lessons later, after I was grown, and discovered that I have
wooden fingers and a tin ear, so this was not a tremendous waste of talent.
But it wouldn't have made any difference -- the opportunity to find out
simply wasn't there.

Having the government mandate piano lessons while millions of children 
aren't getting a basic education isn't the answer.  But it is an issue
to think about.

--bonnie

    There's only finite resources.  Suppose there were a handicapped
    child that required 1000 times the cost to the school to educate
    "appropriately" as the average child?  Is it reasonable for society,
    given the fact that resources are finite, to devote that high a
    proportion to one child, when by necessity the educational
    quality of all the other children will have to suffer?  The
    schools don't have enough money to do the absolute best for anyone.
    They have to make do with what they have.  Given that they're already
    making compromises because of lack of funds for the "standard" children,
    it seems unrealistic to pass a law saying that no matter what, the
    school department isn't allowed to consider finances when designing
    an education plan for the special case children.
    
    It's so hard when one looks at it emotionally.  If you focus on just
    one child, then it's clear that everything possible should be done.
    But you can't do that for every child, because you'll run out of
    money after figuring out an educational plan to maximize things
    per child after you've dealt with about 4% of the children.
    Perhaps there should be some cap per child, where the school district
    is legally required to do everything possible, but not be required
    to spend any more than, say, twice the average per pupil expenditure
    on any single child.
    
    There really ought to be no financial considerations at all when
    considering a proper education for every single child.  But
    that just isn't realistic.

The problem that existed with many, many educationally handicapped
    children, prior to the creation of laws protecting them was that
    they were clearly discriminated against.
    
    Many were not allowed into schools.
    
    Many more were allowed into the schools and warehoused in rooms
    with all the other educationally handicapped children.
    
    These appalling conditions were caused by school officials and
    taxpayers insisting that they had to use their money for the good
    of the majority.
    
    The argument was silly and illogical for most of these kids. (Not
    the hypothetical one who costs 1,000 times more to educate than
    the norm - In fact, in my knowledge of very difficult cases the
    extreme, for a totally non verbal child with cerebral palsy and
    almost no bodily control, costs about 3 times more to be educated
    than the average for children in my town.
    
    Most of these kids, particularly those with learning disabilities,
    simply need more intense, direct teaching, than do others.  And,
    the more intense direct teaching is only needed a few hours a day.
    Thus, the notion that these kids cost huge amounts to educate is
    simply without any basis in fact.
    
    In addition, when these kids become adults they will either be
    productive adults with jobs who pay taxes, or they will be non
    productive adults who spend a lifetime being supported by the
    taxpayers.  One study showed that every dollar spent for educating
    the educationally handicapped ultimately returns to taxpayers manyfold.
    
    It's a shame that the laws protecting the educationally handicapped
    were ever needed, just as it's a shame we've needed laws to protect
    racial minorities, or to protect women.  In a perfect society the
    right choices would always be made between costs and benefits.
    
    Unfortunately, when there were no laws protecting educationally
    handicapped children, the decisions that were made varied from school
    district to school district, and so many of these kids were denied
    entry to school, or provided with "services" in warehouse type
    atmospheres, that legislators throughout the country introduced
    laws to protect these kids.
    
    One thing the American experience has shown is that society benefits
    the more we are able to provide quality, free education to all.
    

         Thank you for starting this note, Dick.
                  
         Some of you seem to have the impression that school systems 
         are off creating two sets of education plans: an ideal, 
         well-rounded one available without limit to any child with 
         any educational disability, and one mediocre one for everyone 
         else.
         
         This is a gross misconception.  The objective of the law is to 
         mainstream these children into the NORMAL education process 
         as much as possible, which is to everyone's --including the 
         taxpayers'--advantage.  The phrase "to the maximum possible" 
         protects the child who for whatever reason cannot benefit 
         fully from the education available.  At least, by law we must 
         educate him/her to the MAXIMUM POSSIBLE.
            
         In practical terms, what it means is that a handicapped child 
         (with well-informed, involved parents) FINALLY has a shot at 
         receiving the same education as everyone else.
         
         I have two daughters, one of whom is hearing-impaired.  Some 
         of the things our school system has provided, is providing or 
         will provide (directly or by paying an outside facility) are 
         speech and language therapy, aural therapy, an auditory 
         trainer and teacher training.  What this means for Caileigh 
         (who is now 4) is that she will have a shot at getting the 
         SAME education that her sister will receive without the extra 
         help.  Do I think that's fair?  You bet!  And it would still 
         be fair if what she required was full-time attendance at a 
         school for the deaf.  
         
         About education for the gifted: I agree that it's a shame 
         that gifted children--who in some cases may be the very same 
         children, BTW--are not given the opportunities and resources 
         to stretch their minds and cultivate their gifts to the 
         maximum.  In fact, I think few children in this country have 
         that opportunity and I think that's disgraceful.  But I think 
         the right to a decent, _basic_ education for everyone is even 
         more fundamental and has to come first.
         
         
         -Tracy
    

    
    Tracy,
    
    I think that your impression of my (at least) impression is not 
    quite accurate.   In fact, I think that you should share my
    concern, based on your desire to have Caileigh mainstreamed into
    the normal education process as much as possible.
    
    The problem, as I see it, is that the overall school budget has
    dwindled such that the amount being spent on the regular school program
    is quite low.   The quality of the so-called "average" education
    is really suffering.   I was not saying that the educationally
    disabled do not deserve a quality education...just that it seems
    more equitable for the quality of their education to be consistent
    with the quality of the mainstream education.  (Note that the *real*
    problem, in my opinion, is to get more $$ into the education 
    system or to find ways to make the systems more efficient with
    what they have).   
    
    Is that a better explanation?  
    Carol
    
    

         Carol (and others)--
         
         I'm trying to understand WHAT you think educationally 
         handicapped children are receiving that is NOT equitable.  
         Do you think they are getting all kinds of services that 
         are nice to have, but not necessary for giving them the 
         same education as other children?
         
         If so, I strongly disagree and think you would be hard 
         pressed to find such a case.
         
         Or do you believe that it's just not worth the price of 
         educating these children?
         
         If so, I again strongly disagree.
         
         I do agree that the quality of public education in general, 
         and the attention it receives from our legislators, is 
         inexcusably poor.  But the answer is not to simply sacrifice 
         some of the children to ensure a decent education for others.
         There will never be enough money to do everything we want for 
         our children's education.  But all kids have an equal right 
         to whatever education we CAN afford.
         
         I agree that I should be concerned about the quality of 
         "regular" education provided by the public schools.  And I 
         am, for both Caileigh and Paige (my other daughter).  But if 
         Caileigh and children like her do not receive the special 
         education they need, they are _shut out_ of the education 
         system and the quality of that process is a moot point.
          
         It still seems to me that you're looking at this as if there 
         are two pools: one that "normal" kids are entitled to, and 
         one that goes to special needs kids and steals from the 
         normal kids.  But ALL children are entitled to (and 
         constitutionally guaranteed) a public education. 
         
         I would really like to understand WHAT you propose be done 
         differently?  Should we just NOT provide special ed?  Or not 
         educate kids whose cost would exceed a certain limit?  
         
         -Tracy
         
    

    
    I guess to over-simplify what I'm trying to say, would be that if the
    "ordinary" education budget is cut 10%, then so should be the special
    education budget.   It seems that if the education budget is cut 10%, 
    but it is "illegal" to modify the quality of special education (and 
    hence, no cost can be cut there), that the education of the other
    children slips by much more than 10%.  I'm sure I don't understand
    the big picture so maybe I'm way out in left-field.  
    
    Carol

<    I guess to over-simplify what I'm trying to say, would be that if the
<    "ordinary" education budget is cut 10%, then so should be the special
<    education budget.   

I don't know that this is practical.  What the money is spent on is so 
different.

The way that I look at it is: we have X amount of dollars to spend on kids'
education.  We are trying to use that money to bring all kids up to Y level
of learning (for instance, "they should all be able to read Shakespeare upon
graduation").  Now we have less money to spend on our kids' education, so
instead of having the kids "read Shakespeare", we will have to settle with
trying to get all kids to the level that they can "read Heinlein."

This would be the goal for *all* the children, special ed or not.

Tracy, am I on track?  Close?

     Carol

    
    Tracey,
    While I believe that EVERY child has the right to an education--I would
    agree with the previous note (does this mean you won't mail me articles
    about left-handers anymore?).  
    
    That is, if the regular school budget is
    cut by a certain percent, so should the special ed. budget be cut as
    well.  Again, I have good reason to believe that my child(ren) may have
    some form of dyslexia (seeing that I'm dyslexic, my Dad was dyslexic,
    and it's inherited).  (I'm talking intellectually now--my
    emotions may differ once my kids are in school).  I just don't feel
    that learning disabled kids should have an open-ended budget (whatever
    it takes to bring them up to the "norm"--which I assume is
    defined)--when the rest of the school children (ie: the normal kids) 
    are having to do with much less than what was previously considered
    acceptable.  In the case of "normal" kids--there is no clear-cut
    definition of what is acceptable.  It seems to me, that many school
    districts in this state are educating kids to what is "minimally
    acceptable" (ie: those towns that have very low test scores).  Is this
    right?
    
    I don't have the answer.  And Caleigh absolutely HAS THE RIGHT to a
    free, public education.  But so does every child.  And I'm wondering if
    our "mainstream" kids aren't getting short-changed because it costs so
    much to educate special needs kids.  Frankly, if my school district cut
    their education budget by 10%--I'd expect it to be accross the
    board--not just for the "mainstream" kids.  Fair is fair.  Mainstream
    kids should not have to settle for less--nor should special ed. kids.
    
    Again, there's no easy answer.  But I do think that budget cuts should
    be across the board.  And I also think that those school districts that
    show poor test results (ie: lower than the state average) should be
    held accountable for those results.
    
    It saddens me that in many towns, education is being sacrificed for the
    sake of lower taxes.  It costs money to educate kids (look how much it
    costs to send a kid to college!) and unfortunately, many people are not
    willing to make the sacrifice.  If I lived in a town where the school
    system was low priority--I'd get real active in community politics--and
    fast...
    
    Bonnie
    
     
    
    
    It's no secret that the quality of education is declining in this
    country.  

    Please remember that not everyone agrees that children have the right
    to a "free" education, handicapped or not.  I do NOT wish to argue the
    point here (and will not reply to any such attempts!), but even though
    I am a parent, I do not believe publically-funded education is a good
    idea.
    
    "The right to X" means "other people have an obligation to do Y".
    Given that education, like medicine, is potentially an infinite
    money-sink, a right to education has no natural upper limit on cost.
    It seems to me that the contention at issue in the recent replies is
    the result of the way that public education is defined in terms of
    results rather than costs and benefits.
    
    		-John Bishop

    My arguments ARE based on an assumption that the right to a free, public
    education should continue to exist.
    
    I suggest that that debate--whether we should have publicly funded
    education--deserves its own note and should be pursued there.
    
    Tracy
    

    While every child should be entitled to a free, appropriate, public
    education (with "appropriate" being a word that can be interpreted
    a thousand ways) it's clear that educationally handicapped students
    in this country have often not been provide with a FAPE equivalent
    to that provided non-educationally handicapped children.
    
    For years the excuse was - "it will cost too much to educate Jenny
    with the normal kids" and Jenny was either warehoused in some special
    education room or, in many cases, actually denied a schooling.
    
    This discriminatory policy existed across the USA.  It was solved
    the way many such problems have been solved, with laws that prohibit
    discrimination.  In the case of the educationally handicapped there
    are now laws that require these students to be provided with a free,
    appropriate, public education (FAPE).
    
    The discrimination against these kids has not ended.  The desire
    to avoid the law, in the name of saving money for the 'normal' kids,
    still exists.  But, at least today, parents who know what their
    educational rights are, can get them for their educationally
    handicapped children.                   
    
    Today many people see a decline in the education offerred to all
    children.  Local politicians would like to blame some of the poor
    education on costs, including the costs to educate the educationally
    handicapped.  ("If only we had more money - if only we had the money
    being wasted on these handicapped kids - our schools could do a
    better job for the majority.")
    
    But, this argument has no financial merit.  It's the quality
    of the education that matters, not the amount of money spent.
    Rather than returning to the good old days and denying 
    handicapped kids a FAPE, it may be time to take a look at the
    good that has come from special education laws.  These laws
    have allowed parents to become deeply involved with their handicapped
    children's education.  Perhaps it's time to create laws that ensure
    ALL children get a FAPE, whether educationally handicapped or not.
    I believe most public school systems would improve dramatically
    if ALL parents were given the rights that now only exist for parents
    of educationally handicapped youngsters. (Of course, entrenched
    school bureaucracies might not agree.  They often need to be dragged,
    kicking and screaming, into providing FAPEs for educationally
    handicapped children.  They often exhibit the arrogance of the
    enlightened with parents ("Hmmm, Mr. Smith, I know you think Jenny
    should be able to read by now, but do you have a degree in education?")
    But, the better schools now actually encourage parental participation
    in the development of individual education plans, realizing that
    cooperation with parents is necessary to stay out of a time-consuming
    legal process).
    
    "A FAPE for all!"  That's a much better battle cry than "Let's go
    back to the good old days when we could legally ignore the needs
    of the educationally handicappped."
    

    
    I absolutely agree that "a FAPE for all" is the best philosophy. 
    However, given that a large number of towns did not override 2 1/2,
    means that a large number of children are going to receive less
    of an education than they have in the past.
    
    In the town I live in, prop. 2 1/2 was passed, but the schools still
    have to cut their budget from what it was in previous years--given
    inflation, etc.  
    
    There is a very angry father in our town who is accusing our school
    system of denying each of his 3 ADD/Dyslexic children a proper
    education.  The father has had the 3 kids independently tested, and the
    recommendation is for the kids to go to the Carroll School in Weston (I
    think that's where it is).
    
    Frankly, I think the kids deserve the best education available--and I
    certainly think if Carroll can provide it--that's where the kids should
    go.  BUT--not on the backs of the rest of the kids in the school
    system.  If I personally could vote to raise taxes so that EVERY child
    got a fair and equal education--I would.  It's in my best interest to
    do so.
    
    BUT, there is a large population of people who's kids have already gone
    through the school system--and their attitude is--I got mine--who cares
    about yours?  And therein is where the problem lies.
    
    To put 3 kids into the Carroll School is going to severely cut into our
    current school budget.  They are already talking about having to cut
    certain arts programs in order to pay the private-school tuition for these
    kids.  In my mind, that's like cutting off the lifeblood of kids who
    are talented in the arts.  Don't artistic children--or athletic
    children--or gifted children also have rights?
    
    I think the school system is trying to work with the family--trying to
    keep the kids in the public school system.  It hasn't been in the paper
    for awhile--so maybe they're working something out.
    
    Again--I don't want kids "warehoused," and I certainly want every kid
    educated to the best of their ability--but I can't overlook the needs
    of my child in favor of the needs of yours.  And in these days of
    budget crunching--that's what we're being asked to do--unfair as it is.
    
    Bonnie
    
     

    
    One more thought....
    
    Instead of Gov. Weld cutting certain programs for the educationally
    handicapped--what about the parents of these kids contributing cold
    cash for their education?
    
    If a child needs to go to a private school--why not have the parents
    complete a "financial analysis" and see whether the family can afford
    to help foot the bill, using certain financial criteria--such as what
    is used to assess affordability for college?
    
    If the parents cannot contribute, then the town has to deal with the
    cost.  But if the family can contribute--whatever amount--will
    certainly help the town (and townspeople) foot the bill.
    
    If it turns out that my child needs a special education program, I
    would certainly be willing to contribute financially to her
    education.  The concept of free, quality, public education is running
    out of steam--as evidenced by our declining test scores in this
    country.  I don't see anything wrong with asking parents to help
    support "extra" programs for their children.
    
    When I couldn't learn to do math, my parents had to hire a tutor (out
    of pocket) to see me through.  Many parents are now paying for art and
    sports programs out of pocket.  How about asking parents to pay for
    special ed. programs out of pocket as well?
    
    Bonnie
    
    

    A "FAPE for all" ends the problems of taxpayers who want to preserve
    taxes at the expense of children not getting a free, appropriate
    public education.  A "FAPE for all" would assure that
    every parent who wanted to become involved in the education of their
    child would have a legal right to do so, and towns would be required
    to either pay for the free, appropriate, public education - or the
    more substantial costs involved with litigating the issues.
    
    The idea of making public education a needs based system would
    certainly cut down on taxes.  There is undoubtedly a huge percentage
    of the population who have adequate finances and salaries to afford
    the 3 to $6,000 a year needed to educate most students.  Unfortunately,
    there are lots of unfeeling, greedy people among our tax paying
    population.  I'm sure many of them, despite their salaries and
    finances, would demand a "free" education for their child (even
    if it only cost $3-6,000), while insisting that parents of
    educationally handicapped children not get a free education
    (despite the fact that it costs more to educate such children).  
    This type of unfeeling greed is what led to the creation of laws 
    protecting the educationally handicapped in the first place. 
                                             

    Not all who disagree with you are unfeeling and greedy.
    
    		-John Bishop

	I have to agree with John here.  Please be careful with the use of 
loaded words.  

	Remember, in general, the people who read this file are not only 
concerned parents but *in their own way* concerned about the world in general
and other kid's health and well-being.  Just because they do not agree with 
your means to the end, does not mean that they are bad people.  (I know no 
one has gone so far as to say that anyone here is "bad", but the subject is 
heating up a bit and I suggest that restraint is in order.)

Thanks!

Tracey
Parenting co-mod 

I'd like to make several points.

First, the VAST MAJORITY of children with IEPs are part of a regular school 
system and are, therefore, affected by cuts to the "regular" education EXACTLY 
the same way as all the other children.  So any belief that ONLY non-special ed 
kids are hurt by cuts to the regular education budget is wrong.  

Second, there is nothing in the law that says special ed budgets can't be cut.
They can and they are.  It SAYS that kids with educational handicaps have as 
much right as everyone else to an education, and we have to make it accessible 
to them.

    What this means is that educationally handicapped children are usually
    hurt by budget 
cuts TWICE.

    The reality of this situation is that, in the best cases, children are 
    barely getting what they need to remove barriers to a "regular" education.
      The reality 
is that in many cases, the cost is small or negligible.  The reality is that 
"preventive medicine" saves money, if only eliminating the need for children to 
"stay back."  And the reality is that, in RARE cases, children have to go to 
private schools at a higher cost because their needs are so great.  

The principle is a free and public education for all.  For ALL.  Either that 
child has the same right to an FAPE as yours or she doesn't.  And if she 
doesn't, where do we draw the line?  We can always guarantee a better education 
for some by discarding others.  Is that what we want?
                        
-Tracy