When I moved here, I chose a township school with good special education specifically because our child needed it. And IPS's record was dismal–way back then. It hasn't gotten better.

There are a couple of lawyers at Bose McKinney who make a living defending school districts against special ed parents' claims and lawsuits. Both are particularly boorish, and if this ruling puts them out of business, that's fantastic.

Yet all Gene White does is rail about the teachers' union. Pitiful.

TA already expressed an opinion that covers mine as well. So, I'll just echo his sentiments.

Private schools and Charter schools already counsel parents of disabled kids that their children would probably receive better services in a public school as the privates and charters lack the staff and training for most disabled students. In addition, many disabled kids cost hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to educate and the schools only receive the same money from the state as a non disabled student. In addition, those students are expected to pass all ISTEP testing………so unless a student's disability is very minor, he/she is not going to get accepted into a private or charter school. In addition, the public schools are required to provide some services like speech therapy to students at private or charter schools at no cost to the school. The public school eats that cost also. This may be a hollow victory.

The adult day care scam or bureaucracy, failing 70% of the children or students in IPS, is a human rights abuse & citizens need to review their legal options as well.

Any way that this money entitled to the child can be applied to the non-disabled? Then we've got more legal mojo for having the money follow the child instead of the school. Otherwise, seems somewhat reverse discriminatory.
.
Private schools traditionally don't want these kids. However, with money now attached, I bet Catholic schools might be more adaptable to this change. They've definitely proven more adaptable, nurturesome, and safe than the public school experience for our slow learner.

Taxpayer, I don't understand the first part of your post. Are you saying that you want the SpecEd pro-rate tuition, applied to non-SpecEd students? I'll refrain from pouncing til you reply. Thanks.

Wayne is right, In WashTwp, one of the nation's better SpecEd programs for decades, they've been providing some SpecEd services, and most all SpecEd testing, to private schools for more than 20 years. Without being forced to do it–IF the student lives inside their district boundaries.

Why?

It's the spirit of the law, if not the letter of the law.

There are widely varied levels of SpecEd. A child with a mild hearing loss, for instance, can get classified for SpecEd, soas to have a Individual Educ. Plan (IEP) drawn up. That helps teachers and aides to know about little Sally's hearing loss, so they can adjust their teaching style.

And then there's the severely mentally challenged, some of whom require a personal aide all day. And there is a very wide range of different kinds of handicapping conditions between those two categories.

Education Schools have traditionally not spent much time on SpecEd, because they've made the choice to allow SpecEd-specific teachers to handle that load. The problem is, current vogue (for at least 15 years) is “Least Restrictive Environment,” which mandates SpecEd students, as much as possible, to be in “regular” classrooms.

Teachers are often not equipped for the resulting workload and the need to alter teaching style.

Nobody wins in such a case, and it costs far more than the state/federal government provides in aid per child. And almost no private schools want any students except those at the far-lesser side of the scale, in their classrooms.

I can name two well-respected supposedly-Christian schools, both northside, who wouldn't let a mildly-mentally-handicapped student attend, even though an older sibling was already enrolled. The parents explored all kinds of options, including paying the actual dollar cost for all services, to keep their children together. These private Christian schools refused. There is even ample evidence that the two schools cooperated in a black-balling, to help their sister school avoid a costly or difficult student. I doubt this incident is isolated.

There are varying degrees of that same sad story at many upper-crust private northside schools. They don't want most of these kids. Because they're too difficult, and under current state (stupid) law, most of the SpecEd students are expected to pass most statewide tests with few or no adaptations. No, I'm not kidding.

So next time Supt. Bennett is on your show, Abdul, ask him about THAT. He was a local district Super for a long time, and his district had a miserable record in this department. Actually, miserable wold be a kind description.

Not all SpecEd students are total burdens on the school corporations. But many require extra care, support and love. It's something we ought to do whether or not the federal law required it–complete with hundreds of supporting case law findings.

Something Biblical about it, almost: whoever cares for the least among us, or something like that. Sorry to ramble. This is a sore subject, and I've seen first-hand how private schools almost uniformly screen students who might be too tough to teach.

Which is, I suppose, their right. But not one dime of my tax dollar had better go to those schools who discriminate so easily.

The problem with laws mandating an “adequate education” is who defines what is adequate? I am not against providing a solid education for a child with disabilities – every child deserves that. What I am afraid of is that “adequate” gets turned into “the best money can buy” – a cost that we tax payers cannot afford. Whether we like it or not there is a limited amount of money to be spent on education, and every dollar that gets sent to private schools so it can care of a disabled child, is one less dollar that goes into the general education budget to teach all the children. This is true even thought he federal government provides funds to provide services for children with disabilities – as usual the federal government is not fully funding its mandates.

Glad you are all chiming in on this issue. I can tell you that Federal IDEA funds must be shared on a percentage basis with local private schools. They are not required to share state funds but they do have to share federal funds. Schools absolutely get additional funds for students in Special Education so don't buy the line that they have to carry the burden. A great example of this is the IDEA stimulus funds that schools have been able to use a rule to shift 50% of the money has been moved over to other uses other then special education services. That Federal Money has been sitting at the state since April and in Hamilton County they just now turned in their application for funds. Wonder what the interest on the money is going to be used for? I can assure you as someone that is very emersed in the system at a great school it is a constant battle to get things done.
In regards to schools and thier budgets I had to chuckle at the budget meeting for our school last year when two slides were dedicated to the cost of special education but when asked no one knew what it cost to operate the pool and gym and the football stadium was self supporting……lol

Peace

I don't have time to gnaw on all of this, but will later and also appreciate the input. Lots of experience in the same realm as TA, with mixed success on Northside special ed and school in general. My point was not to take funding away from special ed kids for non-special ed, but to weigh the merits of “have the money follow the kid” (all kids), than straight funding to the school. Maybe a hybrid? I'm listening.

Jeff: in some school districts, per-student expenditures for SpecEd far exceeds federal funding. The funds-swap you describe isn't done everywhere, nor should it be. And you're all wet about state/federal funds and some private schools. Ask around. Most federal SpecEd funds flow through the state DOE, via grants, and are loosely based on last year's enrollment and needs. It makes very little sense and certainly isn't “money following the child” in any way.

Thanks for the answer Taxpayer. I understand now. I'll mull it over.

Isn't the key the words “if” and “adequate”??

I don't see anyway this provides school choice to IPS kids in general and/or IPS special ed kids. It seems to suggest only in the case of no adequate special ed available in the public schools.

In most special ed cases I don't think private schools will take the kids, and presumably to get into a charter (though they do have to take special ed) kids go on wait lists and into lotteries just like regular kids.

I wouldn't see this having a huge impact.

The Feds passed the law and promised to fund it. They never did. So, they are liars and thieves for sure as the result has been 1) many more kids are labelled than are actually disabled (in the spirit of the law) and 2) the funds basically wasted on “special ed” come from those to whom “education” has promise of a return. Before folks get all hot and bothered please quote the follow on studies that demonstrate return on invested capital from the outstanding achievements of special education kids. Not asking about the “feelings” of anyone-just the outrage at the wasted money in this area. Of course, this is not to mask the outrage that should be directed towards IPS for wasting the money on regular kids and wasting their lives with third world instruction levels and attainments far below what is needed to compete in what is still an industrial world. Government “schools” really aren't schools. The adjective gives away the plot line.

Think – really…..mr obvious……since IDEA was passed in 1975 the Feds have promised to fund up to 70% of the additional costs yet have funded no more then 17%. Please point to where I said the feds fund everything???? If you are gonna debate me on this issue use facts. The fund swaps with private schools in the area are part of IDEAI 2004 go read the bill. As far a being all wet…..would you like to make a small wager on who is correct on this these issues…say $10K and Abdul can judge?

A week or so ago everyone was all puffed up about Huffington's post about a guy who fathered 30 plus kids with 10 plus women. “Special Ed” now accounts for 6,000,000 plus in the USA and they are so special that they eat 20% PLUS of the budget (much more if you count all of the costs). Like, due to the fads in the field normal kids are cheated of teacher time and so AYP becomes difficult when those who are special are hogging the limited instruction time.
Listening to Abdul this morning needed to set lawyer boy correct on his logic chopping. When ISTEP was piloted for high schools for some reason the Republicans thought 12th graders could do 12th grade level work. Wiser heads prevailed and the pilot at the school I know had a 90% failure rate. The high school exit exam was then dumbed down by both R's and D's to an essentially 8th grade level. That is what our 150 member school board insists upon AND THEY CHEAT to even get that. NCLB is a bad joke as are all available standardized tests in wide usage (see Woebegon Effect for documentation). Even ISTEP is a 10 inch ruler purporting to be a 12 inch. But, in a school with a 90% failure rate 10% passed. So, a school labelled as “failing” does not mean that no child in it is getting an adequate education. Great numbers of them could be.
Special education is not worth the $5 Billion out of pocket costs and maybe another $5 Billion in indirect costs. There is no reason why government schools should have ever been selected to deliver these goods when they cannot even teach normal kids how to read.

Jeff: I'll stick with my post. With confidence.

Dobie: I appreciate your agreement that the feds don't fully fund SpecEd programs. It's true. And the real difficult part has always been providing SpecEd programs based on the IEP, without full funding.

School corporations are on both sides of that question. Some are sinister about it and ought to be ashamed for their dismal funding levels. They almost dare parents to fight them. (The number of districts in this category is growing, sadly) Some want to do more, and try. Others bust a hump to provide the best they can and exceed their raw budgets.

But even from the host hard-hearted Superintendent (and there are scores of them), or the most vile school corporation lawyer who fights SpecEd parentgs (with our tax dollars), I've never in 30 years heard the program's conundrum described as:

“…What I am afraid of is that “adequate” gets turned into “the best money can buy” – a cost that we tax payers cannot afford.”

It hurt to read it. Each of the five times I read it. I'm certain you didn't mean it to sound so crass. And yeah, my feelings are probably on my sleeve.

I can rattle off 40 school corporations in central Indiana who overspend by much more on the “Gifted and Talented” programs, and nobody raises an eyebrow. Or on athletic coaches who are placed into low-impact/harm teaching positions so they can coach championship teams.

But one commonality exists between your observation and mine: the vast majority of kids, in the middle, get screwed by the attitude and expenditures we've all described.

Exhibit A: IPS.

TA, did you just call History “low impact/harm”, or am I just “projecting here??? ;)

Unelected judges making government school policy is not what anyone should want even if,in Abdul's case, the activist judges rule in favor of his current prejudice. Government schools are hampered by tons of federal stupidities. There is a special place in hell for judges who screwed up on education matters and one in Indianapolis would not have to look far to find one of the biggest and costliest of federal fools. Looking into one of the major causes of IPS decades of failures ISTA would not be the first choice. Folks happy that IPS blows 20% plus of its available dollars on droolers must also be happy with the rest of the mammy state.

I am sorry it hurt to read “”…What I am afraid of is that “adequate” gets turned into “the best money can buy” – a cost that we tax payers cannot afford” but I meant exactly what I said. I don't believe I am being crass, but I do believe I am being realistic. The fact that money gets spent unwisely on other items has nothing to do with the issue. Personally, I don't think we should be funding athletics at all under the heading of “education”.

I'm with Dobie on this one.

“Unelected judges making government school policy is not what anyone should want…” Roger that, Pascal.

This is what I'd like to know…what kind of special wisdom befalls a lawyer that becomes a judge?

I mean, today a lawyer could be a run-of-the-mill ambulance chaser, and tomorrow he could be a judge. What happened overnight?

Does the Wisdom Fairy pay a visit?

It's the rare person that rates to be called “Your Honor”…simply donning a black robe shouldn't be a precursor to demanding 'respect' from us (aka The Great Unwashed).

Okay, I've read through the decision. They talk about government mandated FREE Appropriate Public Education (FAPE).

How does that square with our Indiana Constitution and the 'case law' concerning Article 8? Our Indiana Supremes have ruled in Lillie Chandler v South Bend, 312 N.E.2d 915; 160 Ind. App. 592 (1974) that Article 8 education is not “free”. The progeny of Chandler has held the same.

Back 'in the day', there was a school for disabled kids on the near East side by PS 101 (Harshman) and Tech HS. As I recall, all of the disabled kids went to this school.

Why did this practice stop? Seems that by concentrating all of the special needs kids together with appropriately trained staff would yield better EDUCATIONAL results than the practice of placing these kids in the same classroom with mainstream kids.

And, what is a “quality” education? Who defines that? Where is the mandate in our Constitution? For example, in the lengthy Chandler holding, the word/term “quality” occurs only once, and that is in connection to textbooks.

Does 2+2=4 mean the same if taught in a one-room schoolhouse, or in a ritzy Carmelite palace? Does “quality” equate to how much the building cost?

“Knowledge and learning, generally diffused throughout a community, being essential to the preservation of a free government; it shall be the duty of the General Assembly to encourage, by all suitable means, moral, intellectual, scientific, and agricultural improvement; and to provide, by law, for a general and uniform system of Common Schools, wherein tuition shall be without charge, and equally open to all.” — Article 8 Section 1

Varan–LOL, you are projecting. I'm aware of multiple coaches in my area assigned to teach non-solid subjects. Or, worse yet, assigned attendance duty or something else. All in the name of athletic glory. It's ore-widespread than you might think.

Aries: the segregated SpecEd school practice stopped because it was barbaric. Quality does not necessarily equate to building cost. But that's a broad brush. Separating SpecEd students from the “normal” student population, deprives both groups of valuable learning opportunities.

But to support those opportunities, we need to make sure the feds fully fund them. Anything less creates resentment among many folks. Otherwise, you get people who feel like Dobie. Which I completely understand, but could never, ever support.

Aries, on a different subject, regarding courts: have you spent any time in Marion Superior Courts recently? Both parties have abdicated solid judicial performance as a criteria; it's now “all about politics,” and our bench is awash in, to put it kindly, mediocrity.

A good friend who practice regularly in those courts, tells me there are four to five good judges, another half dozen who could be good but have started to coast…and the rest are law school shark chum. At $127,000 a year, no less.

“In addition, many disabled kids cost hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to educate…”

HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF BUCKS A YEAR ?!?!?!?!?

Wayne, can you PLEASE provide evidence of this.

TA, no…I have not had the 'opportunity' to visit the hallowed halls of our judicial system.

But, I'm sure that a visit to a sausage factory would be a close proximation of our legal system at work.

“Aries: the segregated SpecEd school practice stopped because it was barbaric. Quality does not necessarily equate to building cost. But that's a broad brush. Separating SpecEd students from the “normal” student population, deprives both groups of valuable learning opportunities.

But to support those opportunities, we need to make sure the feds fully fund them. Anything less creates resentment among many folks. Otherwise, you get people who feel like Dobie. Which I completely understand, but could never, ever support.

“

Whether the money is coming from the feds or the state, it is ultimately coming from the taxpayers and people need to realize that there is only a finite amount of money that can be spent on anything – no matter how worthwhile you may think that something is. Public education for anyone – disabled or non-disabled – was never meant to be the best money could buy. Tax payers cannot afford to pay that for everyone – so it does not pay for that for anyone.

I also have to question your assertion that segregating disabled students is barbaric. Right now in Indiana we have a School for the Deaf and a School for the Blind – I think they would object to being considered barbaric. From what I have heard, both provide a quality education for their students.

In the public schools, I think that separate classes can be completely appropriate in certain circumstances. I think we need to be more specific when talking about this than just “disabled children”. There is a huge difference in what that could mean. Is there any reason why a child whose only disability is that he or she needs to use a wheelchair or crutches should be in separate classes from his/her non-disabled peers? Of course not. But the child who has disabilities that mean that he cannot behave in an appropriate manner in classes? I do believe that those students should be segregated so that they do not disrupt an entire class.

And yes, cost should be factor. That is just reality. Does it make more financial sense to have a small class of disabled children taught by professionals trained especially to deal with them, as opposed to trying to provide support to these same children in separate classes – and having to use more staff as a consequence? To me it makes more sense to centralize resources. It is cheaper and usually means that the children receive better support as well.

“In addition, many disabled kids cost hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to educate…”

HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF BUCKS A YEAR ?!?!?!?!?

Wayne, can you PLEASE provide evidence of this.

TA, no…I have not had the 'opportunity' to visit the hallowed halls of our judicial system.

But, I'm sure that a visit to a sausage factory would be a close proximation of our legal system at work.

“Aries: the segregated SpecEd school practice stopped because it was barbaric. Quality does not necessarily equate to building cost. But that's a broad brush. Separating SpecEd students from the “normal” student population, deprives both groups of valuable learning opportunities.

But to support those opportunities, we need to make sure the feds fully fund them. Anything less creates resentment among many folks. Otherwise, you get people who feel like Dobie. Which I completely understand, but could never, ever support.

“

Whether the money is coming from the feds or the state, it is ultimately coming from the taxpayers and people need to realize that there is only a finite amount of money that can be spent on anything – no matter how worthwhile you may think that something is. Public education for anyone – disabled or non-disabled – was never meant to be the best money could buy. Tax payers cannot afford to pay that for everyone – so it does not pay for that for anyone.

I also have to question your assertion that segregating disabled students is barbaric. Right now in Indiana we have a School for the Deaf and a School for the Blind – I think they would object to being considered barbaric. From what I have heard, both provide a quality education for their students.

In the public schools, I think that separate classes can be completely appropriate in certain circumstances. I think we need to be more specific when talking about this than just “disabled children”. There is a huge difference in what that could mean. Is there any reason why a child whose only disability is that he or she needs to use a wheelchair or crutches should be in separate classes from his/her non-disabled peers? Of course not. But the child who has disabilities that mean that he cannot behave in an appropriate manner in classes? I do believe that those students should be segregated so that they do not disrupt an entire class.

And yes, cost should be factor. That is just reality. Does it make more financial sense to have a small class of disabled children taught by professionals trained especially to deal with them, as opposed to trying to provide support to these same children in separate classes – and having to use more staff as a consequence? To me it makes more sense to centralize resources. It is cheaper and usually means that the children receive better support as well.