Parents want hearing school to get state funding

Most schools have advanced classes, At least my public school did. I never heard of private tutoring. My elementary classmates I grew up ( some were my friends and currently my facebook friends) were gifted, advanced students. They had to take advanced classes and even [edited] magnet governor's school for the gifted for a half a day when they went into middle and high school.
 
Last edited:
Daredevel7 said:
...Here is an analogy: There is a genius child. This child is bored in a public school in his grade because he is way above his peers. That school has offered him special sessions for more advanced education (private tutoring) for free. But there is a school nearby that is private and is geared for gifted children. The parents would rather have that because he can socially develop with children his age who are just like him. Even though the education is generally the same.

Now, should the government pay for him to go to that private school?
Click to expand...
No.

Either the parents pay and/or they try to get a scholarship from the private school.
 
A said:
Most schools have advanced classes, At least my public school did. I never heard of private tutoring. My elementary classmates I grew up ( some were my friends and currently my facebook friends) were gifted, advanced students. They had to take advanced classes and even magnet gov't school for the gifted for a half a day when they went into middle and high school.
Click to expand...

Just a made up scenario. It doesn't have to be private tutoring. It can be placed in classes in higher grades, meaning he would be in classes with older kids. My point is, the public school DOES give him somewhat of a service for his needs, but not EXACTLY the way the parents want it, which is for him to develop at his speed alongside people who are just like him.
 
Daredevel7 said:
Just a made up scenario. It doesn't have to be private tutoring. It can be placed in classes in higher grades, meaning he would be in classes with older kids. My point is, the public school DOES give him somewhat of a service for his needs, but not EXACTLY the way the parents want it, which is for him to develop at his speed alongside people who are just like him.
Click to expand...

Right, and if the parents have a desire for more, they have to pony up the dough or seek for a scholarship.
 
I think the key word here is...

REASONABLE.

Reasonable service for a reasonable price.
 
Daredevel7 said:
Okay let me rephrase. Your assumption is that the services for an oral deaf child is an oral only education which would be mainstreamed anyway. And FJ assumes that oral deaf services are different from mainstreamed schools.

I don't want to get caught up on the topic of "what services are right for the child?" because that's been discussed a million times. However, the original topic seems to be new and I'm more interested in that one.

Here is an analogy: There is a genius child. This child is bored in a public school in his grade because he is way above his peers. That school has offered him special sessions for more advanced education (private tutoring) for free. But there is a school nearby that is private and is geared for gifted children. The parents would rather have that because he can socially develop with children his age who are just like him. Even though the education is generally the same.

Now, should the government pay for him to go to that private school?
Click to expand...

See, I think the better analogy would be that the school is willing to do nothing for him vs a private school.

I believe here is also law that requires the schools to identify and give resources to gifted children as well.
 
Daredevel7 said:
I think the key word here is...

REASONABLE.

Reasonable service for a reasonable price.
Click to expand...

Nope, in special education the key words are INDIVIUALIZED and APPROPRIATE. It has nothing to do with reasonable. If the child needs it, it doesn't matter if it cost a million dollars, the child is by law entitled to it. In fact it is patently illegal for the school to deny a placement or service or accomidation because of the price.
 
If the school board compare their own school system for the oral deaf (even qualified teachers of the deaf who were trained on auditory teaching and other qualified teams for CI deaf students) with private school and found very little difference between the two, it is unreasonable for the district to pay that private school. Sorry, that's just how I feel . People can be really snobby toward public schools-- or is it the students in that school? why would a district pay money to encourage people to be so divisional (sp?)
 
A said:
If the school board compare their own school system for the oral deaf (even qualified teachers of the deaf who were trained on auditory teaching and other qualified teams for CI deaf students) with private school and found very little difference between the two, it is unreasonable for the district to pay that private school. Sorry, that's just how I feel . People can be really snobby toward public schools-- or is it the students in that school? why would a district pay money to encourage people to be so divisional (sp?)
Click to expand...

I agree. If a school has an oral deaf program with TOD's and qualified professionals, then of course the parents have no right to ask for a private school placement! They only have the right to ask for it if there is no appropriate services and placement available for the child.
 
faire_jour said:
Nope, in special education the key words are INDIVIUALIZED and APPROPRIATE. It has nothing to do with reasonable. If the child needs it, it doesn't matter if it cost a million dollars, the child is by law entitled to it. In fact it is patently illegal for the school to deny a placement or service or accomidation because of the price.
Click to expand...

Really FJ? Really?

A million dollars?

For a child's PERCEIVED needs?

A child only NEEDS 3 things: Food/Water, Shelter, and Love.

Why is the government not paying for those?

You know VERY well that they are not needs, but rather "give them the best the parents can".

I'm sorry but this child being ENTITLED to an infinite amount of money for its perceived needs sounds kind of ridiculous.

I think the law you're talking about talks about accommodation. Does accommodation = best option possible?
 
faire_jour said:
Nope, in special education the key words are INDIVIUALIZED and APPROPRIATE. It has nothing to do with reasonable. If the child needs it, it doesn't matter if it cost a million dollars, the child is by law entitled to it. In fact it is patently illegal for the school to deny a placement or service or accomidation because of the price.
Click to expand...
That's hyperbole, not realism.

Every school district has budget constraints on what it can do for all the students.

It would hardly be "appropriate" to spend the entire year's school budget on one student and leaving the rest hung out to dry.
 
faire_jour said:
I agree. If a school has an oral deaf program with TOD's and qualified professionals, then of course the parents have no right to ask for a private school placement! They only have the right to ask for it if there is no appropriate services and placement available for the child.
Click to expand...

Even if they don't desegregate ASL students from Oral-only students? Most public school deaf class teachers use the full toolbox, meaning the class is capable of teaching ASL, SEE, CUED, ORAL/auditory-based teaching<---yes, they are trained to do that instead of visual training, etc. that suit the child's needs
 
Daredevel7 said:
Really FJ? Really?

A million dollars?

For a child's PERCEIVED needs?

A child only NEEDS 3 things: Food/Water, Shelter, and Love.

Why is the government not paying for those?

You know VERY well that they are not needs, but rather "give them the best the parents can".

I'm sorry but this child being ENTITLED to an infinite amount of money for its perceived needs sounds kind of ridiculous.

I think the law you're talking about talks about accommodation. Does accommodation = best option possible?
Click to expand...

It doesn't talk about accomidations, it talks about the child's need. The law is required to give each child a free and appropriate education.

So, say it would cost a school $50,000 to add ramps and an elevator to the school building. Should they not do it because it is just one child and the cost is too high? Of course not, the law dictates that the must.
 
Reba said:
That's hyperbole, not realism.

Every school district has budget constraints on what it can do for all the students.

It would hardly be "appropriate" to spend the entire year's school budget on one student and leaving the rest hung out to dry.
Click to expand...

I agree. I doubt there is an actual need that would require that kind of money to provide an appropriate education. I was just trying to make a point.
 
Daredevel7 said:
Really FJ? Really?

A million dollars?

For a child's PERCEIVED needs?

A child only NEEDS 3 things: Food/Water, Shelter, and Love.

Why is the government not paying for those?

You know VERY well that they are not needs, but rather "give them the best the parents can".

I'm sorry but this child being ENTITLED to an infinite amount of money for its perceived needs sounds kind of ridiculous.

I think the law you're talking about talks about accommodation. Does accommodation = best option possible?
Click to expand...

And no, the child doesn't have the right to "the best" but they do have the right to an individualized free and appropriate education in their least restrictive enviroment.
 
faire_jour said:
It doesn't talk about accomidations, it talks about the child's need. The law is required to give each child a free and appropriate education.

So, say it would cost a school $50,000 to add ramps and an elevator to the school building. Should they not do it because it is just one child and the cost is too high? Of course not, the law dictates that the must.
Click to expand...
That doesn't apply to a private school.

I know of a student who attended a private school that had two stories. The boy had mobility problems and needed an elevator for the second floor. The school wasn't required to provide one, and the school really couldn't afford to have one installed. So, the boy's parents formed a booster club to raise money for an elevator installation. That's how they did it.

No taxpayer money involved.
 
A said:
Even if they don't desegregate ASL students from Oral-only students? Most public school deaf class teachers use the full toolbox, meaning the class is capable of teaching ASL, SEE, CUED, ORAL/auditory-based teaching<---yes, they are trained to do that instead of visual training, etc. that suit the child's needs
Click to expand...

The child would have the right to a class in the child's language and mode of communication. In the case of an oral child that would be spoken language and not visual language.
 
Back
Top