Is the problem rampant special education?

I did a Kids Night Out Saturday. Normally this is for K-5th graders, but I allowed a few 4 year olds so Mom and Dad could be free for the evening. One 4 year old really wasn't mature enough to be there, wouldn't listen, picked on sis, whined to get his way. A couple of my helpers said "he's ADD or something. I said no, he's 4.

ADD and ADHD are way over diagnosed in my opinion. It can be an excuse for poor behavior, lack of discipline at home and laziness.

It drives me crazy to watch The Nanny and see how some people parent. A diagnosis of ADD / ADHD when not warranted is such a diservice to the kids, and the teachers to whom they are assigned.

You are so right, squinney. This particular kid uses it as an excuse to do what she wants. She's a real control freak and it is part of her plan to get out of learning anything.

When my sons were in elementary school, the doctors were ready to suggest that they had ADD. A doctor said to my older son that he would prescribe Ritalin and, if my son found he could pay more attention, then he obviously had ADD.

Fortunately, my son hated taking the pills. They had to be administered by the nurse and there was no convenient way to time the medication to eliminate coming to her office during a lesson. My son convinced the doctor that he could feel a tingle at the back of his brain when he took the medicine and that he could imitate that tingle by meditating. I thought my son was pulling a fast one but I preferred meditation to medication.

I know several parents who, when confronted with a diagnosis of a ADD/ADHD decided to use other methods of controlling the heebie-jeebies.
Some parents involved their kids in martial arts while others simply increased their activity levels with family walks. Others resorted to meditation, but not the kind my son did! And a few tried diet, never eliminating complex carbs because the body needs those to make vital brain chemicals.

If we put kids with normal IQs into special ed, aren't we telling them that they're losers?

Absolutely not!!! Special education is for students of all cognitive abilities. It's not only for cognitively impaired but for learning and language disabled children, children on the autism spectrum as well as visually, hearing and other health impaired children. Special education is a way to provide specialized instruction and modifications for those students whose learning differences make it difficult or impossible to learn in the mainstream and general curriculum without these supports. It is NOT based on "normal' or "not normal" IQ.

It really ticks me off when people like you equate special education with children who are dumb or lazy, and think it is just a dumping ground for these children. It is up to the adults in these kids' lives to educate them about and in spite of their disabilities and to allow them the opportunity to learn to their potential. Of course they are going to feel like losers in or out of special education classes if that is the message they are getting loud and clear from people like you.

There are two sides to this coin. My mom's favorite story was always: In 4rth grade; my teacher wanted to put me in special education, mostly because I refused to participate in class or do any homework whatsoever. Result? They tested me and learned I was brilliant. That doesn't, however, mean Ms. Baker was wrong. I was every bit the distraction she said I was, and overall my presence could only be considered detrimental to my fellow students... the ones who actually wanted to learn. Chalk one up for Special Education.

But wait... in 6th grade, the principal of the tiny school doubled as the 6th grade teacher. This man was truly brilliant. On day one he described our curriculum as drawing pictures, having spitball fights, or going out and playing in the snow, for all he cared. He was only interested in teaching those who wanted to learn, and had no intention of wasting the class's time on those who did not.

But there was a catch. In order to be among the kids doing whatever they chose, one had to be 2 weeks ahead of the average kid in class in a work-at-your-own-pace type of setting. Kid's studied themselves, and the line formed at his desk to get one-on-one help if you got stuck and couldn't figure something out. Result? The majority of the kids in the class breezed through 2 and 3 years worth of standard curriculum at a ludicrous pace (while the teacher mostly focused on the slower kids); in order to BE the kids who were screwing around. Most of us finished 6th grade at high school levels in Math and Science. We goofed off plenty, and true to his word he never gave a rat's A$$.

Moral of the story: This better educator, Mr. Giselle, eliminated the need for "Special Education" and single handedly pushed many candidates for same to excel at double and triple the National averages. The man's experiment was a stunning success.

Unfortunately; by the time my sister (10years my junior) went through grade school the tiny school had been closed and Mr. Giselle had been made principal at the larger consolidated school. As I understand it; standardization prevents future geniuses like Mr. Giselle from implementing similar brilliant strategies... to the detriment of us all.

I commend teachers who take the time to focus on the slower to get it kids. A lot of times the children who need a little extra time and attention, motivation and some positive strokes will get it and excel. This does not mean that special education can be eliminated. My point in my previous post is that special needs students need specialized instruction, not necessarily more of what already isn't working. Special needs students cannot be rewarded, bribed, bullied or shamed out of having a disability.

You wouldn't tell an autistic child to try harder and not be autistic or a visually impaired child to try harder and get more teacher support so he can see the board. The same goes for learning disabled or dyslexic children. They can't just try harder at reading, writing, spelling and math and they will just get it. A child with a disability is not dumb, unmotivated or lazy...they are disabled.

After many years of teaching special needs students I get a bit defensive of them. I get tired of people thinking if they just tried harder they could do everything that other children can do. Of course there are some that are more or less motivated than others, but given the chance I believe most of them would rather work hard and "get it" like their peers.

A few years ago I had a student who had an IQ of 121( third grade). He should have been at the top of his class right? He was above his class in math computation and reasoning, could explain just about anything you asked about in science, talked like a little professor, but couldn't make enough sense out of written language to save his life. He had a specific learning disability and would have done anything to know how to read and write. He needed special education and fortunately received the instruction that he needed, not a "dumbed down" curriculum.

Well, well, well! You take me to task and then support my point. Yes, it is up to the adults in their lives -- read: their parents -- to educate them. All too many of these kids have parents who lack sufficient intelligence to raise them with any sort of responsibility or who think it is cute that they're in special ed, because these kids won't surpass them in later life.

And, the Britney Spears types really ought to be told that they are losers so that they can begin rebuilding their lives.

However, what you fail to notice is that their parents already told them that they are losers and so they are very happy to take drugs, to be sluttish and slatternly and lazy.

A little truth telling would help them enormously.

My nephew is dyslexic, was many years behind in reading, while being home schooled and to make matters worse his siblings both younger and older are brilliant and were reading adult material WAY ahead of time. His parents spent hours of overtime, every day, helping him teach his brain the paths around dyslexia. My sister explained to me as he had to learn 150 steps (synapses?) for every character he saw before his brain could process the information correctly. Once everything was mapped out, he developed a thirst for reading that couldn't be quenched. Within a few years, not only did he catch up to normal, but has since excelled well beyond normal. I not sure any school or teacher could have afforded the necessary dedication to make this happen. Today, it's as if he never had a problem, because the brain apparently doesn't care how many steps it has to take; its lighting fast once it knows the path. I highly suspect that in yesteryear, or even with less diligent parents, he would have been written off as an idiot, instead of the highly intelligent boy that he is.

My best friend has a severely autistic child. She's functional in her ability show love and affection, take basic instructions, cry to get her way and able to determine when that's a lost cause. Her vocabulary is essentially that of a parrot, with only a handful of words seeming to actually mean anything to her. She is scheduled for intensive one on one therapy, but it's hard to imagine there will be any real breakthroughs since she's already 7. She's a happy go lucky kid who loves and is loved, but it's highly unlikely she'll ever blend in to a normal school. Obviously, special schools are required for such cases.

Both of these kids require(d) a good deal of special attention. Keeping either one of them in a normal school and demanding that a teacher teach them at the same level as everyone else (no child left behind), would inevitably lower the overall quality of education to the balance. It is madness to teach children at the pace of the lowest common denominator.

Were I King; kids would be divided by behavior only and would learn at whatever pace they were capable, with performance incentives to keep them focused. Bad kids would essentially be treated the same, but kept separate from the kids who showed interest in learning. In the real world; it is straight madness to punish the many for the good of the few, so special ed courses are even more important.

PLM, it does sound like you're tired of your job and perhaps you should find one that you find more satisfying. A kid who's parents are losers, or tell their child (s)he is a loser, sure as hell doesn't need to hear it from their special ed teacher as well. Think about what you're saying. Negative reinforcement can be every bit as powerful as positive reinforcement.

This happened to me. I **** you not. I could be a case study. I is extremely damaging to the child. The child actually become a subject of abuse by the school system that is grossly incompetent. The Child becomes the victim of their ignorance and lack of concern. It is criminal.

I think it's also criminal to tell the actual kids who do belong in special ed that they're losers--or to treat them as if they are.

Amigo, I hate what happened to you.

<pets Amigo>

The story gets worse. Our public institutions installing low self worth at a young a defenceless age has life long effects that you never fully recover from.

If the teachers in Special Ed treat them like the other kids are treated--and instill them with the information and self-worth they deserve--it is NOT a place for losers. They just need to be taught in an environment that is more suited to their learning strengths than the cookie-cutter scenario we currently use.

Special Ed teachers should be OUR BEST teachers--not our worst or meanest or most defeating.

I can understand that teachers burn out. When they do, they should relocate --for themselves and for the children, who deserve teachers who believe in them.

THIS is what's wrong with education.

The special ed curriculum prevents kids from learning. The kids can't win if they have a third grade vocabulary when they're in the ninth grade. Some of that is the fault of their parents. No, make that most of it. When Mom thinks not knowing what swamp or century or recepient means is cute, Mom needs to taken out of the care loop.