Special Ed

Discussion in 'Chit Chat' started by nutmeg, Nov 6, 2011.

  1. In New York, general ed spending per pupil is 10k per year.

    Spending on Special Ed students = 26k a year.


    Seems like we are spending a whole lot of money on kids who will still will be drooling on their papers years from now and not capable of contributing a whole lot to society except perhaps breeding with their classmates.

    Now if the numbers were reversed and we spent 26k on the capable students we might have a better roi for society.
  2. I think hitler said the same thing.
  3. BSAM


    Oh, sorry for butting in.
    I thought this was a thread about Ed Sullivan and the Beatles.
    Sorry, please disregard this post.

    P.S.---All illegals, please get your asses out of the USA.
  4. I suppose at the end of 12 years of schooling the special ed kids get a diplomer, then what? A subsidized apartment in a community where they may or may not take their medication. Get take advantage of by predators. They may end up in psy wards, prisons and released out onto the street into a half way house. The cycle repeats.

    Just saying, anyone have a better idea?

    Back in the day, they were taught a trade or something constructive, now nothing. 25k a year buys us a program to raise self esteem.

    The invaders in Zuccoti park, low lifes and criminals we probably raised @25k a pop annually. Now they probably cost society 50k a year in the criminal justice system. This is not doing anyone any good.

    ps. Re Ed Sullibvan and the beatles, there is quite a story on how they ended up on that show. I read it, and promptly forgot it or I would tell you all now.....:cool:
  5. Hooti


    It's a bell curve.... both ends deserve the best.

    I have relatives in the genius category, and one in the special ed... oxygen deprived at birth.
    What can you say? If I had to spend more, it would be on the brilliant end, with the hope they would help solve the issues for the special ed folk.
    Ballance is always an issue...
  6. Well, it's too late now...The "better idea" was to never subsidize those who could not independently raise their children on their own dime. The better idea was NOT to encourage women to have multiple children from multiple boyfriend's to garner more EIC's or welfare checks, etc, etc...

    I'm probably not the first to comment on this, but the birth rates amongst those who are ideally suited to be parents are dwarfed by those who are "wards of the state". When the more responsible members of society add up the cost of raising a child (without 18 years of freebies), they have to plan and budget accordingly.

    As anti-PC as this conversation is, most people know this to be the truth. It's just another one of those topics that never makes it to the mainstream.