Category: News and Views
A former education minister here in the UK has sent her child who has learning difficulties to a specialist school. That's about as much as is known at the moment, but a lot of people are saying she's a hypocrite, because the government has closed over a hundred schools for people with special needs since it came to power in 1997. People believe that Ruth Kelly have limited the choice for special education for people who can't afford to have their kids educated privately, tand think she's a hypocrite. I want to add a different angle to this discussion though, one which I think is yet to be explored.
Should the state pay for special schools for people with disabilities? I say no. If a child's disabilities are so severe that they'll never have the ability to use the education they receive to get a job, they don't need to be educated. The point of education, is that a person acquires skills and qualifications that they'll then use to pursue a career. If a person has a disability so severe that they'll never be able to work, there isn't any point in educating them. If their disability isn't that severe, then there is absolutely no reason as to why they cannot function in mainstream schools as long as they have propper support with issues relating to their disability.
Actually Senior I think that's a very narrow minded view you take there and certainly not one that I'd subscribe too.
In fact I'd say it is incredibly callus to refuse anybody the right to education on the grounds that they'll never be a useful member of society which is in effect what you are saying.
I think in your comments above you are completely over looking the fact that education can take many different forms and doesn't simply have to include the basics such as reading, writing, arithmetic etc. Just learning fundamental living skills for example is not only just as important, but is in fact far more important than prepping somebody for a job.
I mean for example, teaching a severely mentally impaired child how to feed themselves say might not seem very important to you, it certainly won't get that kid a job in the long term, but is any of that actually a good reason not to teach the kid that skill? I'd say not.
Now I do accept that a lot of special needs schools are unnecessarily expensive to the tax payer and I even subscribe to the view, at least to a certain point, that such schools may actually be detrimental to disabled students with regard to learning how to fit into society. However I don't think either of the above reasons are good enough ones to just shut down every special needs school because some people simply need more help than they could ever get from a main stream establishment.
Dan.
I agree with Dan on this one I mean shit if i was in her kids shoes I would want to learn something.
You know, for someone who actually has a disability, you have an awfully narrow-minded view of how the disabled should be treated. I’m guessing from this that you attended mainstream school then, as schools for the visually impaired are, in fact, special schools. Maybe you are able to “contribute to society” but reality is that the state will have funded your specialist education. In reality, you too, have special needs. Maybe not special needs in terms of a learning disability, but you see the term special needs is so all-encompacing that it is impossible to put everyone labelled as having special needs under the same banner. Just because someone attends a special school does not make them incapable of contributing to society. There are many establishments that employ people with quite severe learning difficulties for instance, no they don’t have careers, they don’t have digrees but the jobs that they do are still important to them, and by doing those jobs they are, in fact, making an active contribution to society. And many of those people will have attended the kinds of special schools you would want to have shut down.
But education is not all about preparing someone for a career, education can be about helping someone to communicate, teaching life skills, the kinds of things you or I take for granted but which mean everything to a special needs child, or in fact, the parent of a special needs child. Try talking to my friend whose 7 year old son has severe autism. He does not speak, he has severe melt downs if his routine is upset, for no other reason than that his brain simply cannot process any changes to routine, and at 5 he was shoved into a mainstream school with a 1-to-1 support assistant. For that time he spent most being walked around the school playground because he simply couldn’t cope with the amount of children in the class etc. Six months on he was moved to a special school where the class sizes are significantly reduced, and from there he is a different child. They understand his needs, and he is learning to communicate with pecs (picture cards), maybe he won’t be a fully functional member of society as his autism is very severe, but the “education” he is receiving has made a world of difference to his life and that of his parents. Now you be the one to tell his parents that he is not worthwhile and that he shouldn’t be entitled to an education.
Yes some special needs schools are expensive to run, but it’s actually more expensive to educate special needs children in mainstream schools as each child, dependent on their needs, has to have some 1-to-1 assistance, and in some instances this means a full time assistant for each child. In special needs schools the ratios are far smaller and there are usually only 2-3 assistants per class of maybe 12 pupils. Many children do well in mainstream with the right support, but for many, mainstream simply isn’t the answer, and they should be entitled to the specialist education they deserve. Who are we to say that the most vulnerable in our society should not be entitled to that?
As a final point, Ruth Kelly actually sent her child to private school, so while I do think she is somewhat of a hipocrit as she has had a part in the closure of some special needs schools, her child’s education is actually being paid for by herself and not out of the state.
Senior your callousness amazes me. Don't know your history, and I don't care.
I totally agree with the previous posters and hope some day you will wake up to your own needs, and, when you do, there is someone to help you out, be it the state, a private institution or general therapist.
Bob
well, there is a school in missouri it is the missouri school for the blind, and they educate multiply handicaped kids and you would be amazed with work and support how far some of those kids can go
yeah, they learn to sit and scream in the dorms but when there with there teachers they do so much
In response to Sugarbaby's point about the specialist education in mainstream schools being funded by the state, of course it is, and that is a good thing as far as I'm concerned. Thanks to that kind of funding, it is possible for disabled people who will be employable in the future, to achieve the additional help in education that they require to obtain the necessary skills and qualifications that other people need to have, plus the extra skills they'll need as a result of their disability. If the government wasn't funding any special schools at all, more money could be put towards improving mainstream schools which aren't quite up to standard, but which take on disabled people.
As for the points people have made about education not just been about qualifications etc, the type of education they are talking about should not be paid for by the state, and most of it can be done by parents. For example, most people learn at home how to dress/feed themselves. People who are so disabled that they can't even talk, are never going to be able to live totally independent lives. If on top of being dum they were blind too, they would not be able to walk around a supermarket, and tell a shop assistant what they wanted to buy. They wouldn't be able to tell anybody what to buy. As a result of them being dum and blind, they also wouldn't be able to understand currency, so they wouldn't be able to purchase anything independently anyway. These people don't need to be in school at all! If their parents believe they can care for them all day every day, they should remain with those parents. If not, they should be sent to some care home, where they can be looked after and cared for. If the home wants to include education, then that's fine. However, the state should pay for absolutely none of the costs of such homes, as the state won't get anything in terms of taxes from any of the people being looked after by the homes.
The situation is completely different with regards disabled people who will be able to work, because the state will gain money from those people in terms of taxes when they're working. The state will have spent more money on them in education, however, to not make disabled people who could work able to work, would cost the state more money in benefits over the decades that person could live without ever working. The chances are, that that person may also not pay much back to the government in all of those decades if the person wasn't working. It is in society's best interests, that disabled people who will be able to work, are given all the help they require in order to become capable of getting a job once they've left education.
I have a lot of shit to say about this, but can't put it in to words. Harp, and others who are against Senior's opinion about this subject, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Bob, I don't know this person's history, and I don't really care either.