Huh? Is it a given that we should optimize life for school, particularly tutoring which I assume pertains to high school and below? I think in the absence of a disability, money spent on sports or drama club or 4H or whatever extra curriculars is a way better investment than extra math or something. To me it says they have sensible priorities.
This seems like a really arbitrary line of evidence. Absolutely having exposure to peers with disabilities is a good think for young people, but there are also significant costs/complexities that come from trying to do it all. I don’t see any consideration for the other half of the equation in this comment
Perhaps an increased voucher for special needs students is in order.
Society is disadvantaged when intelligent students aren't allowed to achieve their fullest potential. We need programs that allow students to independently work at their own pace. We'd have a ton more 15-16 year old's attending college.
I agree, I just don’t think it matters in the 3rd grade. Find the high performers in middle school and high school. If there are students that really need help earlier than that, or have learning disabilities they can either be pulled out, or given extra attention if possible, maybe a tutor. I’d lean towards a bit of extra attention. And yeah, it’s definitely a chip on my shoulder, it’s a motivator for me. When someone tells you you’re not smart, you can accept it or prove them wrong.
I don't think this is a problem specific to autism. Schools, at best, are focused on preparing people for employment, or, more typically, on preparing students for exams. Neurotypical students are set up poorly to manage their mental and physical health, finances, relationships, etc.
Other forms of preparation for life: social skills; financial skills; political engagement; health, are rarely prioritised.
Giving autistic children help with academic learning and disruptive behaviour is conventional, as it is for all students (albeit with special measures and allowances made). Other life skills are neglected, as they are for all students.
That's an interesting article, though I think I would disagree with assumption 3, at least as they apply towards non-special needs secondary school children.
I think your response reveals how accustomed you have become to the luxury of having plentiful resources. You ask how it is good for anyone to not spend substantially more on students with special needs, but in many of the poorer countries of the world this attitude would be baffling. In many cases these students will never be able to contribute enough to society to recover what was invested in them. Hard choices have to be made that cause sadness, but unfortunately that's the way it is. If your country becomes less anomalously wealthy in the future, you may also have to make such decisions.
That 20% you quote covers a wide range of programs which apply to a substantial percentage of all students not just the disabled.
But why screw with the disabled and learning challenged when there is the other 79.5% of the funding you are ignoring? Or the fact that massive funds are spent on standardized testing which can be so difficult that high-achieving adults have trouble passing them?
The talented and gifted students don't really need much help in school. Often the best thing you can do is get out of their way, perhaps offer them some organizational skills, but those should be offered to all students. I got more from that in school than any other instruction offered.
I see it akin to having everybody run a race and giving them cash according to how they place. Except what about this kid who's in a wheelchair? Or the kid who has cerebral palsy? Or the kid who's staying up all night to help run his parents' restaurant and comes to school exhausted?
There's plenty of people who don't get good grades for reasons outside of their control.
I'm currently working as a tutor in a center for gifted (high intelligence) children. Along with this intelligence, in many cases comes some mental difficulties. As an instructor in this environment, it is actually very difficult to deal with some children who are unable to interpret what I am saying to them. Not only does the child get frustrated when I don't understand what they're trying to tell me, but I get frustrated sometimes when I can't handle the situation, and the other students pick up on my frustration. The net result is that everyone loses out.
These students are commonly known as special needs students, and I think this very accurately represents them. Some of the children require just a few minutes extra attention, others require regular confirmation, and others require practically no extra care other than being aware of some issue. I have never personally had to deal with a student with Down's Syndrome, however I know of some family friends with children who have Down's Syndrome. If you have seen and talked to these parents, in very many cases these parents have to dedicate their lives to caring for these children. The same is true for many cases in students; If I as a teacher have two students that require constant attention (for whatever reason) that means the rest of the students don't get the attention they deserve, and the two students I am dealing with don't get the help they deserve either.
I don't know what the best solution is here, but I can't see having a large number of (excuse the wording, I can't think of a better word) difficult students such as those with aspergers/autism, Down's Syndrome etc. being a good one.
The only point I can make on it is that in most cases, the transition to high school involves classes being split, and separation from friends. If students such as Henri can be sent to the same school as their friends, but possibly separated from others (which is what happens currently; students with severe mental difficulties are sent to separate schools) they can receive the individual attention and care that they deserve, but still be in the same environment as their friends and companions.
I tried to be very careful with my wording here, and I apologise if I insulted anyone, it was not my intention.
My brother was diagnosed with autism to get accommodations for a learning disability that didn’t fit any available diagnoses. The school advised my parents to do this.
As an adult, he is certainly neuro-divergent in a significant way but not autistic. Having extra help in his early grades was absolutely necessary. He’s doing pretty well.
I tutored both economically disadvantaged students, and students with significant learning disabilities. My experience was that the economically disadvantaged students generally could make progress, if you caught them on a good day. Tutoring some of the students with learning disabilities was profoundly depressing though. Some students simply could not understand basic abstraction, like the idea that 'x' represents a number. Same with hypothetical questions. Getting shepherded through Algebra 1 won't magically grant those students abstract reasoning skills, it will just dilute the usefulness of passing the class as a metric.
People should not be deliberately handicapped. Forcing someone to waste years of their life is bad. School is so unlike every other social institution that it is (close to) useless as preparation for anything else. Outside school people actually care whether you do your work, and if your don’t do it there are real consequences, but the standards are completely different, depending on the workplace. Outside school if you’re surrounded by assholes you can just leave unless you’re in prison. Outside school the chances of physical violence being overlooked or covered up by the authorities nominally in charge of your welfare are much smaller. Outside school there are no contexts so rigidly age segregated.
People become responsible when responsibility is thrust on them. They do better, faster with real support. School doesn’t do that. It infantilises people. Nothing you do in school matters of itself. You can choose to do projects or research that people care about but that’s completely optional.
I believe that most school systems do get more money for disabled kids. But kids that do their homework, pay attention in class, etc. cost a lot less to educate than a kid who isn't really interested in learning--even without any disabilities.
To your point about charter schools, there is a strong argument to be made that when parents have a choice where there kids go, public schools will have to make sure they are providing more academic opportunities if they don't want to risk losing the academically minded families (and their money). That seems like it would be a good thing for everyone.
They are going to spend the rest of their lives helping those with less ability -- who do they have to be handicapped in school so as to be less capable of doing so? And have a miserable time of it to boot?
Learning disabilities are a type of neurodevelopmental disorder in which a student that is of otherwise average of above average intelligence struggle with a specific type of material, commonly reading (dyslexia) or basic math (dyscalculia). The most effective treatment is early remediation, in which students in primary education are identified and given extra lessons and exercises on their weakness to help make them more well rounded so they do not struggle later in their education. This is super effective.
I can tell your frustrated with accommodations. I think your arguments against accommodations would be a lot stronger if you knew more about them. I think you might have some good points inside, but your frustration and ignorance prevent them from being compelling. I encourage you to do more reading, but let me point out a few mistakes in your post.
* You seem to mistakenly associate a learning disability with low intelligence. A person cannot have a learning disability and be below average in intelligence by definition. Struggling to learn how to read while being average or above average in every other subject is different than strugglingly to learn everything. The more a student struggles to learn to read while excelling at everything else, the more likely they are to be diagnosed. This means very intelligent students with a learning disability are more likely to be diagnosed than average students with the same disability.
* Extra time on test is an accommodation.
* Accommodations are not being handed out like candy for no reason. Anyone can buy candy. Accommodations require a documented disability.
* Many standardized test accommodations are very appropriate, such as blind people being offered a braille version of the test, or people with poor motor control having someone else physically fill in scantron bubbles.
* A student can be disabled based on low intelligence. It's not called a learning disability, because it's fundamentally a different thing.
I would revisit this proposition. Whether it is native cognitive skill, an unwillingness to focus, or what is typically called a "mental block" due to so much negative attitude -- when someone can't learn, I think you have to call that a learning disability.
Depending on where she goes to school, you probably can get her some additional resources to help her deal with this problem. Don't assume just because you took to Math and love it that she shares either your enthusiasm (that's obvious) or your cognitive gifts. Let some professionals who have dealt with kids for years tease out what ails her.
This kind of help is typically mandated in most states (for public education). The problem is, districts are always tight for money, and they fail to offer these services unless parents explicitly push for them. It's a form of rationing -- the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
Your family needs to advocate for your daughter and get her the help she needs. It is not just attitude or laziness, it's a legitimate disability if she can't get herself into a frame of mind where she absorbs this stuff.
>A debate rages about when and how to include autistic children in mainstream classes.
Oh does this ever bring up a whole bag full of unpleasant childhood memories. I get that it's difficult for those with disabilities to function in 'normal' settings - I've got a physical handicap that is obvious from time to time (but hidden otherwise). In turn I never sought out activities for which I was an incorrect fit - you know, hockey, wrestling, soccer - they weren't going to change the sport to make it easier for me to play, nor should I expect them to. We are not all equal.
If there's a way to solve the mentioned debate, I think it will still take another 40 years for us to figure it out. We can't even take care of Gifted and Talented students with any systemic, national and local support, to fulfill their potential. If we're talking "beautiful minds" going to waste then, honestly, I think we should start with this end of the spectrum.
This article is, by and large, a plea for help and paints an extensively rosy and joyous picture of employing a person with the mentioned handicap. After half of my lifetime + change working in hourly or professional jobs, I did not particularly share the same optimism. Good help is hard to find, and that's before even considering "making little accommodations" for potentially disruptive conditions. I'm just not quite so optimistic, but would love to see society figure a lot of this stratified talent capitalization out sooner rather than later.
You've hit the nail on the head with your comparison. That's exactly how I'd felt all these years in school. It's easy to see that putting an averagely intelligent person in a class for developmentally disabled children doesn't make sense, yet for many people it appears impossible that putting a highly intelligent person in a class for regular children might be anything less than optimal.
I mean, it's crazy. If a child is special in any way, they'll probably get treated in a special way, except if they're highly intelligent. Say, in any kind of sports, if someone recognizes you're talented they'll give you special training and everything, so you can actually improve without being held back by others. But in school, if you're exceptionally intelligent, you still need to do the same stuff as everyone else even if it doesn't benefit you.
reply