Public School Offers $86K to Keep Autistic Boy Out

[Ratttking]

infinity-9999

What about a child born only with one right arm and he is right handed? should he not attend public school too?

How many right arms is he supposed to have? rolleyes

[jamilee-nicole]

Ratttking

Kai-Shan Valandria

THIS is a major part of the reason why education costs so damn much in this country. The article beautifully shows that this ADULT should be institutionalized. The mother rejected the offer because she's not interested in the "education" he's receiving (he's obviously unable to learn basic life skills), she wants the state-mandated daycare for as long as she can possibly force someone else to pay for it.

Quote:

The teacher then said she wouldn't give David [a cupcake] because of his diabetes. Armstrong says she reminded the teacher that all she had to do was adjust his insulin levels, and he could eat it.

Yay, let's give the diabetic kid super sweet stuff so she can turn around and sue if a teacher without medical training can't properly figure out his medication dosage!

If he's been in school this many years and still can't - or won't - write his name I don't think keeping him for one more school year is going to do the trick. You said it, mom just wants the free babysitting. How many improvements in the school could be made for children able to learn for the cost of upkeep for this ineducable adult?

Seconded. She sounds like a b***h who thinks that the world should absolutely revolve around her and her son. If she wants proper care for her son, either send him to a facility that is trained and equipped to care for a person with special needs, or hire a nurse.

Teachers, even special needs teachers, have only so much training for this sort of thing. And for her to keep forcing the school to keep her son even to this advanced age makes me think very little of her, as she seems to think the school is there specifically to serve her and her son, while their resources can be better distributed to other students. She's has no business acting like her son will somehow suddenly make a turn for the better in a public school, of all places. Hence, nursing facilities or the like.

You know what? If she really was so concerned for his education, she should teach him herself. That way she would know for sure her son is getting proper and attentive care. But she's probably too lazy.

[infinity-9999]

Ratttking

infinity-9999

What about a child born only with one right arm and he is right handed? should he not attend public school too?

How many right arms is he supposed to have? rolleyes

whoops

[jamilee-nicole]

infinity-9999

What about a child born only with one right arm and he is right handed? should he not attend public school too?

Only one right arm?

I'm not sure how a one armed student could be barred an education. As far as physical needs go, lacking an arm is not all that debilitating, at least compared to more extreme physical needs. If you have one arm, you can still easily feed yourself, dress yourself, go to the bathroom, bath, take notes, do your homework, and so on and so forth.

The point is, losing an arm isn't going to seriously crimp your ability to learn, and it's silly to imply that such physical need could possibly equate the extreme physical and learning disabilities like the man in question. It will be a huge pain in the a**, especially if you lose your dominant arm, but it probably wouldn't interfere with education too much.

[infinity-9999]

jamilee-nicole

infinity-9999

What about a child born only with one right arm and he is right handed? should he not attend public school too?

Only one right arm?

I'm not sure how a one armed student could be barred an education. As far as physical needs go, lacking an arm is not all that debilitating, at least compared to more extreme physical needs. If you have one arm, you can still easily feed yourself, dress yourself, go to the bathroom, bath, take notes, do your homework, and so on and so forth.

The point is, losing an arm isn't going to seriously crimp your ability to learn, and it's silly to imply that such physical need could possibly equate the extreme physical and learning disabilities like the man in question. It will be a huge pain in the a**, especially if you lose your dominant arm, but it probably wouldn't interfere with education too much.

The two right arms was a oops I err. The example about the arm was merely to point out a person should not be segregated (discriminated against) based on the degree of disability. I am glad the person I was actually having a conversation about it understood. Of course, AliKat read the entire conversation. (thankfully)

[AliKat1988]

infinity-9999

AliKat1988

infinity-9999

AliKat1988

infinity-9999

She was making a point about the absolute discrimination against David. It may be she already knew he would not be accepted this year so she needed more solid evidence. Also no one knows if she was intending to stay with him during his school day this time. It was never stated. As far as FAFSA goes.. It pays for higher education and David will barely pass elementary school. You cant go straight from elementary school to high school; David is forever home bound. The mothers break may have been a job to feed David. It would be up to a lawyer to argue the inferences made. Precedence has been set regardless of the mothers variables. Her actions may not seem logical to us.(BUT) Someone has to scream for justice. Why not the mother on behalf of her son? The school in question already receives funding from the federal government. They are responsible for complying with all laws. It is true that david can get in home care for some of the time. The law gives them a better quality of life for a limited time until he is home bound. Example: An "infant" has no real thought. Yet, we coo at the baby and the baby clearly shows he enjoys the cooing. Her thought to Davids quality of life could merely have been interaction with others for a time.(while it is allowed ) I'm sure there are some children kind enough to walk by David and say hello. Hopefully some parents are not so afraid of him that they might attempt to engage him from time to time. Therefor, David had the potential if the school did not completely violate the law; to have some sort of quality of life. (his quality of life truly would not be the same as ours but it would have been his version of one)

Personally I think the only person who actually seems to be take much interest in his care is his nurse who like his mother seemed to be surprised when he was turned away at the start of the school year. Though it does not have legal standing, if I had my way I would have the nurse be the one to get the money from the lawsuit for David and be his legal guardian. I am disappointed with his mother and think she has failed him. I don't think children that young would really understand how to interact with a severely autistic, nonverbal adult. Unfortunately, I expect that the children would exclude him for being odd. He does not belong there and should go to either a private school or nonprofit that accommodates people with severe autism.

You should research ARC yourself so that you understand exactly what it is they do for people with severe disabilities. You used their name to support your opinion when in fact they by their own statements would completely disagree with you. Research ARC

It was the first that came to mind for disability nonprofits that exist in multiple states. There are other charities I know of that are more extensive but I am not sure if they are specific to my state though it is more than likely that there are similar programs on that state. I live in Texas and know that Any Baby Can has a ton of stuff for therapy with autistic kids. With nonprofits I do not expect him to be at the place as much as at school, just get proper help there from people who do understand him.

I agree; proper care should be first and foremost. The ARC that I know of in Washington State gives out clothing. Our school systems here in my area had such a child as David. I will call her Lynn. My oldest child was in the same grade so we were able to interact with "Lynn" every so often. She was in a wheel chair. Her body was distorted so there would never be a chance of walking. She could not talk. Her hands were stiff in a particular position so writing was out of the question. Yet, a person could tell "Lynn" benefited from being there. She had one teacher assigned to her. No one ever wished nor did anyone ever participate in negligence causing harm. "Lynn" eventually became sick enough that she could no longer attend our public school system. No one begrudged her her civil right to learn how to smile; even if that is all she would ever learn.

With "Lynn," the school was helping her so I support her going to the school as long as she was able to. The ARC does a lot of different things-though it mainly seeks to advocate for those with developmental disability. When I looked it up I saw they have a program called Autism Now which helps with some aspects of integrating autistic people into the community. When I looked it up I found out one organization that does rather intensive therapy programs for the disabled works with autism a lot and is a national organization-Easter Seals. I don't think the school David went to was good for him and I think it might be doing more harm than good. He might have a right to be at that school, but he deserved to be put somewhere better. I support a lawsuit for incompetence and negligence against the school to pay for private school, but not for his return to a place where the teachers are unfit to handle him.

[jamilee-nicole]

infinity-9999

jamilee-nicole

infinity-9999

What about a child born only with one right arm and he is right handed? should he not attend public school too?

Only one right arm?

I'm not sure how a one armed student could be barred an education. As far as physical needs go, lacking an arm is not all that debilitating, at least compared to more extreme physical needs. If you have one arm, you can still easily feed yourself, dress yourself, go to the bathroom, bath, take notes, do your homework, and so on and so forth.

The point is, losing an arm isn't going to seriously crimp your ability to learn, and it's silly to imply that such physical need could possibly equate the extreme physical and learning disabilities like the man in question. It will be a huge pain in the a**, especially if you lose your dominant arm, but it probably wouldn't interfere with education too much.

The two right arms was a oops I err. The example about the arm was merely to point out a person should not be segregated (discriminated against) based on the degree of disability. I am glad the person I was actually having a conversation about it understood. Of course, AliKat read the entire conversation. (thankfully)

It wasn't too hard to decipher.

But I do think that young man should not be taking up all those resources. Yes, we are all entitled to an education, but he is 21 years old and seems to have the mentality of a kindergartener. At some point you are going to have to take a step back and wonder why so many resources are being poured into someone who is basically a lost cause when there are other students, both with average and special needs who can do so much more with the same resources.

The point is, why should he be prioritized over other students when A. It doesn't seem to be doing him any good, and B. Those other students are being ignored and neglected to his favor?

To that end, I propose that if he needs further education, his mother should find it elsewhere. The public school isn't helping him, as it most likely isn't trained or equipped to handle his needs properly. The reason the mother is getting so much flak is because it looks increasingly like she only wants free caretakers by making him go to school at such an advanced age. That's not fair for the school, the students, or even him as many would resent his presence when they could have the teachers dedicate time to younger students to more effect.

[infinity-9999]

jamilee-nicole

infinity-9999

jamilee-nicole

infinity-9999

What about a child born only with one right arm and he is right handed? should he not attend public school too?

Only one right arm?

I'm not sure how a one armed student could be barred an education. As far as physical needs go, lacking an arm is not all that debilitating, at least compared to more extreme physical needs. If you have one arm, you can still easily feed yourself, dress yourself, go to the bathroom, bath, take notes, do your homework, and so on and so forth.

The point is, losing an arm isn't going to seriously crimp your ability to learn, and it's silly to imply that such physical need could possibly equate the extreme physical and learning disabilities like the man in question. It will be a huge pain in the a**, especially if you lose your dominant arm, but it probably wouldn't interfere with education too much.

The two right arms was a oops I err. The example about the arm was merely to point out a person should not be segregated (discriminated against) based on the degree of disability. I am glad the person I was actually having a conversation about it understood. Of course, AliKat read the entire conversation. (thankfully)

It wasn't too hard to decipher.

But I do think that young man should not be taking up all those resources. Yes, we are all entitled to an education, but he is 21 years old and seems to have the mentality of a kindergartener. At some point you are going to have to take a step back and wonder why so many resources are being poured into someone who is basically a lost cause when there are other students, both with average and special needs who can do so much more with the same resources.

The point is, why should he be prioritized over other students when A. It doesn't seem to be doing him any good, and B. Those other students are being ignored and neglected to his favor?

To that end, I propose that if he needs further education, his mother should find it elsewhere. The public school isn't helping him, as it most likely isn't trained or equipped to handle his needs properly. The reason the mother is getting so much flak is because it looks increasingly like she only wants free caretakers by making him go to school at such an advanced age. That's not fair for the school, the students, or even him as many would resent his presence when they could have the teachers dedicate time to younger students to more effect.

The thing is: public schools are partly funded by the federal government. Therefor on order to receive federal funding and because of legislation schools are required to comply with federal regulation. Hence, Never violating someones civil rights or liberties. If we did not allow David regardless of his severe disabilities to attend public school which is open to the public(David is part of our public) We would be guilty of discrimination. I f we were to say have a public facility solely geared for a very few individuals with severe disabilities, (to comply with the law) placed in every city and every in every town It would financially crush the financial future of America. Fighting for David's right to a public education ( however ridiculous it may appear to some) actually solidifies your own civil rights and liberties to never be taken away from you. David is not causing harm and no harm in any manner (denying David anything which is constitutional) should be imposed on David. The school should find a helper just for David and David should have already been moved into the high school. (given his age) That is the negligence of the school district in which David lives.

[infinity-9999]

AliKat1988

infinity-9999

AliKat1988

infinity-9999

AliKat1988

infinity-9999

She was making a point about the absolute discrimination against David. It may be she already knew he would not be accepted this year so she needed more solid evidence. Also no one knows if she was intending to stay with him during his school day this time. It was never stated. As far as FAFSA goes.. It pays for higher education and David will barely pass elementary school. You cant go straight from elementary school to high school; David is forever home bound. The mothers break may have been a job to feed David. It would be up to a lawyer to argue the inferences made. Precedence has been set regardless of the mothers variables. Her actions may not seem logical to us.(BUT) Someone has to scream for justice. Why not the mother on behalf of her son? The school in question already receives funding from the federal government. They are responsible for complying with all laws. It is true that david can get in home care for some of the time. The law gives them a better quality of life for a limited time until he is home bound. Example: An "infant" has no real thought. Yet, we coo at the baby and the baby clearly shows he enjoys the cooing. Her thought to Davids quality of life could merely have been interaction with others for a time.(while it is allowed ) I'm sure there are some children kind enough to walk by David and say hello. Hopefully some parents are not so afraid of him that they might attempt to engage him from time to time. Therefor, David had the potential if the school did not completely violate the law; to have some sort of quality of life. (his quality of life truly would not be the same as ours but it would have been his version of one)

Personally I think the only person who actually seems to be take much interest in his care is his nurse who like his mother seemed to be surprised when he was turned away at the start of the school year. Though it does not have legal standing, if I had my way I would have the nurse be the one to get the money from the lawsuit for David and be his legal guardian. I am disappointed with his mother and think she has failed him. I don't think children that young would really understand how to interact with a severely autistic, nonverbal adult. Unfortunately, I expect that the children would exclude him for being odd. He does not belong there and should go to either a private school or nonprofit that accommodates people with severe autism.

You should research ARC yourself so that you understand exactly what it is they do for people with severe disabilities. You used their name to support your opinion when in fact they by their own statements would completely disagree with you. Research ARC

It was the first that came to mind for disability nonprofits that exist in multiple states. There are other charities I know of that are more extensive but I am not sure if they are specific to my state though it is more than likely that there are similar programs on that state. I live in Texas and know that Any Baby Can has a ton of stuff for therapy with autistic kids. With nonprofits I do not expect him to be at the place as much as at school, just get proper help there from people who do understand him.

I agree; proper care should be first and foremost. The ARC that I know of in Washington State gives out clothing. Our school systems here in my area had such a child as David. I will call her Lynn. My oldest child was in the same grade so we were able to interact with "Lynn" every so often. She was in a wheel chair. Her body was distorted so there would never be a chance of walking. She could not talk. Her hands were stiff in a particular position so writing was out of the question. Yet, a person could tell "Lynn" benefited from being there. She had one teacher assigned to her. No one ever wished nor did anyone ever participate in negligence causing harm. "Lynn" eventually became sick enough that she could no longer attend our public school system. No one begrudged her her civil right to learn how to smile; even if that is all she would ever learn.

With "Lynn," the school was helping her so I support her going to the school as long as she was able to. The ARC does a lot of different things-though it mainly seeks to advocate for those with developmental disability. When I looked it up I saw they have a program called Autism Now which helps with some aspects of integrating autistic people into the community. When I looked it up I found out one organization that does rather intensive therapy programs for the disabled works with autism a lot and is a national organization-Easter Seals. I don't think the school David went to was good for him and I think it might be doing more harm than good. He might have a right to be at that school, but he deserved to be put somewhere better. I support a lawsuit for incompetence and negligence against the school to pay for private school, but not for his return to a place where the teachers are unfit to handle him.

I agree but because of where David lives; the public school system may have been the only option they had. David at the very least should have been moved to middle school and then high school just as it is done here. I LOVE WASHINGTON! And someone should have been hired by the district to ensure David got exactly what David needed.

[jamilee-nicole]

infinity-9999

jamilee-nicole

infinity-9999

jamilee-nicole

infinity-9999

What about a child born only with one right arm and he is right handed? should he not attend public school too?

Only one right arm?

I'm not sure how a one armed student could be barred an education. As far as physical needs go, lacking an arm is not all that debilitating, at least compared to more extreme physical needs. If you have one arm, you can still easily feed yourself, dress yourself, go to the bathroom, bath, take notes, do your homework, and so on and so forth.

The point is, losing an arm isn't going to seriously crimp your ability to learn, and it's silly to imply that such physical need could possibly equate the extreme physical and learning disabilities like the man in question. It will be a huge pain in the a**, especially if you lose your dominant arm, but it probably wouldn't interfere with education too much.

The two right arms was a oops I err. The example about the arm was merely to point out a person should not be segregated (discriminated against) based on the degree of disability. I am glad the person I was actually having a conversation about it understood. Of course, AliKat read the entire conversation. (thankfully)

It wasn't too hard to decipher.

But I do think that young man should not be taking up all those resources. Yes, we are all entitled to an education, but he is 21 years old and seems to have the mentality of a kindergartener. At some point you are going to have to take a step back and wonder why so many resources are being poured into someone who is basically a lost cause when there are other students, both with average and special needs who can do so much more with the same resources.

The point is, why should he be prioritized over other students when A. It doesn't seem to be doing him any good, and B. Those other students are being ignored and neglected to his favor?

To that end, I propose that if he needs further education, his mother should find it elsewhere. The public school isn't helping him, as it most likely isn't trained or equipped to handle his needs properly. The reason the mother is getting so much flak is because it looks increasingly like she only wants free caretakers by making him go to school at such an advanced age. That's not fair for the school, the students, or even him as many would resent his presence when they could have the teachers dedicate time to younger students to more effect.

The thing is: public schools are partly funded by the federal government. Therefor on order to receive federal funding and because of legislation schools are required to comply with federal regulation. Hence, Never violating someones civil rights or liberties. If we did not allow David regardless of his severe disabilities to attend public school which is open to the public(David is part of our public) We would be guilty of discrimination. I f we were to say have a public facility solely geared for a very few individuals with severe disabilities, (to comply with the law) placed in every city and every in every town It would financially crush the financial future of America. Fighting for David's right to a public education ( however ridiculous it may appear to some) actually solidifies your own civil rights and liberties to never be taken away from you. David is not causing harm and no harm in any manner (denying David anything which is constitutional) should be imposed on David. The school should find a helper just for David and David should have already been moved into the high school. (given his age) That is the negligence of the school district in which David lives.

A school is an institute of education, NOT a care facility. The teachers are neither equipped nor trained to take long term care of a single disabled adult, and nor should they be expected to., hence why he should be in a care facility that IS equipped and trained to care for him. Why you think a school is a nursing facility, I have no idea.

To rehash what I mentioned in my last post, this guy is needlessly soaking up resources and is a bleeding hemorrhage to the school. If they are offering more than 80,000 dollars to get him out of there, you better believe he is a problem to the school.

As for the care facility for people with special needs you claim would crush our financial future, I say are you serious? Do you honestly believe that public schools are not only more capable of caring for disabled persons than registered doctors, nurses, specialists, etc, but also would cost far less while providing exceptional care?

Bullshit. If anything, forcing the schools to pick up the slack would be the one to cost more, and would ultimately fail both the patients and the students. Care/nursing faculties for the disabled, schools for the students. Next you will be suggesting that hospitals should be rolled into the schools as well rolleyes

[infinity-9999]

jamilee-nicole

infinity-9999

jamilee-nicole

infinity-9999

jamilee-nicole

infinity-9999

What about a child born only with one right arm and he is right handed? should he not attend public school too?

Only one right arm?

I'm not sure how a one armed student could be barred an education. As far as physical needs go, lacking an arm is not all that debilitating, at least compared to more extreme physical needs. If you have one arm, you can still easily feed yourself, dress yourself, go to the bathroom, bath, take notes, do your homework, and so on and so forth.

The point is, losing an arm isn't going to seriously crimp your ability to learn, and it's silly to imply that such physical need could possibly equate the extreme physical and learning disabilities like the man in question. It will be a huge pain in the a**, especially if you lose your dominant arm, but it probably wouldn't interfere with education too much.

The two right arms was a oops I err. The example about the arm was merely to point out a person should not be segregated (discriminated against) based on the degree of disability. I am glad the person I was actually having a conversation about it understood. Of course, AliKat read the entire conversation. (thankfully)

It wasn't too hard to decipher.

But I do think that young man should not be taking up all those resources. Yes, we are all entitled to an education, but he is 21 years old and seems to have the mentality of a kindergartener. At some point you are going to have to take a step back and wonder why so many resources are being poured into someone who is basically a lost cause when there are other students, both with average and special needs who can do so much more with the same resources.

The point is, why should he be prioritized over other students when A. It doesn't seem to be doing him any good, and B. Those other students are being ignored and neglected to his favor?

To that end, I propose that if he needs further education, his mother should find it elsewhere. The public school isn't helping him, as it most likely isn't trained or equipped to handle his needs properly. The reason the mother is getting so much flak is because it looks increasingly like she only wants free caretakers by making him go to school at such an advanced age. That's not fair for the school, the students, or even him as many would resent his presence when they could have the teachers dedicate time to younger students to more effect.

The thing is: public schools are partly funded by the federal government. Therefor on order to receive federal funding and because of legislation schools are required to comply with federal regulation. Hence, Never violating someones civil rights or liberties. If we did not allow David regardless of his severe disabilities to attend public school which is open to the public(David is part of our public) We would be guilty of discrimination. I f we were to say have a public facility solely geared for a very few individuals with severe disabilities, (to comply with the law) placed in every city and every in every town It would financially crush the financial future of America. Fighting for David's right to a public education ( however ridiculous it may appear to some) actually solidifies your own civil rights and liberties to never be taken away from you. David is not causing harm and no harm in any manner (denying David anything which is constitutional) should be imposed on David. The school should find a helper just for David and David should have already been moved into the high school. (given his age) That is the negligence of the school district in which David lives.

A school is an institute of education, NOT a care facility. The teachers are neither equipped nor trained to take long term care of a single disabled adult, and nor should they be expected to., hence why he should be in a care facility that IS equipped and trained to care for him. Why you think a school is a nursing facility, I have no idea.

To rehash what I mentioned in my last post, this guy is needlessly soaking up resources and is a bleeding hemorrhage to the school. If they are offering more than 80,000 dollars to get him out of there, you better believe he is a problem to the school.

As for the care facility for people with special needs you claim would crush our financial future, I say are you serious? Do you honestly believe that public schools are not only more capable of caring for disabled persons than registered doctors, nurses, specialists, etc, but also would cost far less while providing exceptional care?

Bullshit. If anything, forcing the schools to pick up the slack would be the one to cost more, and would ultimately fail both the patients and the students. Care/nursing faculties for the disabled, schools for the students. Next you will be suggesting that hospitals should be rolled into the schools as well rolleyes

Glad you cannot care about taking away David's civil rights. Your point of view was shot down 60 years ago. How is it Washington state can have students just like David in our school system. And manage to teach them something without thinking they are worthless, waste of their time and resources? David has the right to a public school education. You do not have to agree it is the LAW. All you are doing is stating your opinion without any form of supporting evidence. Your opinion should be golden to the rest of us? Just because you have interrupted and stated it. Have your opinion all you wish you have a civil right to it. I do not agree with you because I agree with the foundation of the law which protects people like David from people like you. This particular conversation is a rant about what you believe. WHO CARES what your belief is. Apparently David Is and has been for the past 21 yrs capable of attending school. The nurse said David was great she did not understand why the school would want to keep him out. Don't you think people would have gotten a clue if David was such a burden to them before 21 years occurred.PLEASE WHAT? He was so bad the ignorant a**es put up with it for that long. REALLY?

[Kai-Shan Valandria]

infinity-9999

Glad you cannot care about taking away David's civil rights. Your point of view was shot down 60 years ago. How is it Washington state can have students just like David in our school system. And manage to teach them something without thinking they are worthless, waste of their time and resources? David has the right to a public school education. You do not have to agree it is the LAW. All you are doing is stating your opinion without any form of supporting evidence. Your opinion should be golden to the rest of us? Just because you have interrupted and stated it. Have your opinion all you wish you have a civil right to it. I do not agree with you because I agree with the foundation of the law which protects people like David from people like you. This particular conversation is a rant about what you believe. WHO CARES what your belief is. Apparently David Is and has been for the past 21 yrs capable of attending school. The nurse said David was great she did not understand why the school would want to keep him out. Don't you think people would have gotten a clue if David was such a burden to them before 21 years occurred.PLEASE WHAT? He was so bad the ignorant a**es put up with it for that long. REALLY?

I care about her opinions, as a matter of fact. They are far more logical and recognizant of the fact that the law is being abused. He isn't capable of being in school, since he requires handlers and a constant on-duty nurse to care for him.

'Civil rights"? Please. There is no benefit to him being in that school, and I honestly missed that he was still in ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. He is 21 years old, still in elementary school, and cannot even write his own name. He is very large and profoundly autistic, and yet they have him around children under 10. Quite frankly, I'm worried he would have a tantrum and really hurt some little kid. He is an adult - a mentally incompetent adult - and yet for some reason is being forced on the public school system every day for as long as the mother can get away with getting that free daycare, even though it is blindingly obvious that he belongs in a group home or in a daily group set with other people like himself, not normal little kids.

Here's a fact. In the U.S., it costs about $10,000 per year to educate a normal child in the public school system. This school offered first $50,000 and now raised the offer to $86,000 just so they won't have to put up with him for a few more months when he ages out of the system at 22 in the spring. That amount is likely far less than what it costs to supply him with his own nurse, and however many teachers are forced to provide one-on-one care - he can't even be left to eat by himself.

So, it obviously costs many times more the amount to have him in regular school than it does a normal child. If he were placed in an appropriate environment for people with "special needs," the cost would undoubtedly be lower, because instead of having to make lots of special arrangements around him, the environment would be made to cater TO people like him. Instead, we have the current arrangement, and his care is literally stealing money away from the many, many more children that could be helped. How many children could receive extra tutoring in math or reading in that elementary school with that money, children that will actually learn? Instead, we get to pay for him tooling around with expensive electronics (which like the administrator, I doubt he's using to communicate on any advanced level, since all we saw indicated was that he knows how to say 'yes' or 'no'), "personal hygiene" (how to wipe his own a**), and how to ET phone home in case he wanders off.

This is a big chunk of why our school system in this country is failing. School systems are so broke that kids don't get their own textbooks to use and teachers have to buy their own school supplies in many places - how much of this is due to little (or not so little) Davids foisted on the school system because of the law and the drive for integration?

[infinity-9999]

Kai-Shan Valandria

infinity-9999

Glad you cannot care about taking away David's civil rights. Your point of view was shot down 60 years ago. How is it Washington state can have students just like David in our school system. And manage to teach them something without thinking they are worthless, waste of their time and resources? David has the right to a public school education. You do not have to agree it is the LAW. All you are doing is stating your opinion without any form of supporting evidence. Your opinion should be golden to the rest of us? Just because you have interrupted and stated it. Have your opinion all you wish you have a civil right to it. I do not agree with you because I agree with the foundation of the law which protects people like David from people like you. This particular conversation is a rant about what you believe. WHO CARES what your belief is. Apparently David Is and has been for the past 21 yrs capable of attending school. The nurse said David was great she did not understand why the school would want to keep him out. Don't you think people would have gotten a clue if David was such a burden to them before 21 years occurred.PLEASE WHAT? He was so bad the ignorant a**es put up with it for that long. REALLY?

I care about her opinions, as a matter of fact. They are far more logical and recognizant of the fact that the law is being abused. He isn't capable of being in school, since he requires handlers and a constant on-duty nurse to care for him.

'Civil rights"? Please. There is no benefit to him being in that school, and I honestly missed that he was still in ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. He is 21 years old, still in elementary school, and cannot even write his own name. He is very large and profoundly autistic, and yet they have him around children under 10. Quite frankly, I'm worried he would have a tantrum and really hurt some little kid. He is an adult - a mentally incompetent adult - and yet for some reason is being forced on the public school system every day for as long as the mother can get away with getting that free daycare, even though it is blindingly obvious that he belongs in a group home or in a daily group set with other people like himself, not normal little kids.

Here's a fact. In the U.S., it costs about $10,000 per year to educate a normal child in the public school system. This school offered first $50,000 and now raised the offer to $86,000 just so they won't have to put up with him for a few more months when he ages out of the system at 22 in the spring. That amount is likely far less than what it costs to supply him with his own nurse, and however many teachers are forced to provide one-on-one care - he can't even be left to eat by himself.

So, it obviously costs many times more the amount to have him in regular school than it does a normal child. If he were placed in an appropriate environment for people with "special needs," the cost would undoubtedly be lower, because instead of having to make lots of special arrangements around him, the environment would be made to cater TO people like him. Instead, we have the current arrangement, and his care is literally stealing money away from the many, many more children that could be helped. How many children could receive extra tutoring in math or reading in that elementary school with that money, children that will actually learn? Instead, we get to pay for him tooling around with expensive electronics (which like the administrator, I doubt he's using to communicate on any advanced level, since all we saw indicated was that he knows how to say 'yes' or 'no'), "personal hygiene" (how to wipe his own a**), and how to ET phone home in case he wanders off.

This is a big chunk of why our school system in this country is failing. School systems are so broke that kids don't get their own textbooks to use and teachers have to buy their own school supplies in many places - how much of this is due to little (or not so little) Davids foisted on the school system because of the law and the drive for integration?

You are correct; David was of an age that he should never have been in an elementary school. My point of view has always been (from any post I have posted) that the school is negligent. If you think the law is flawed; help someone come up with a reasonable solution that does not violate the rights of any individual.You are also merely inferring when it comes to what David can and should be able to do.You see the law as being flawed? Help fix it. In the mean time; David has the right.

[infinity-9999]

infinity-9999

Kai-Shan Valandria

infinity-9999

Glad you cannot care about taking away David's civil rights. Your point of view was shot down 60 years ago. How is it Washington state can have students just like David in our school system. And manage to teach them something without thinking they are worthless, waste of their time and resources? David has the right to a public school education. You do not have to agree it is the LAW. All you are doing is stating your opinion without any form of supporting evidence. Your opinion should be golden to the rest of us? Just because you have interrupted and stated it. Have your opinion all you wish you have a civil right to it. I do not agree with you because I agree with the foundation of the law which protects people like David from people like you. This particular conversation is a rant about what you believe. WHO CARES what your belief is. Apparently David Is and has been for the past 21 yrs capable of attending school. The nurse said David was great she did not understand why the school would want to keep him out. Don't you think people would have gotten a clue if David was such a burden to them before 21 years occurred.PLEASE WHAT? He was so bad the ignorant a**es put up with it for that long. REALLY?

I care about her opinions, as a matter of fact. They are far more logical and recognizant of the fact that the law is being abused. He isn't capable of being in school, since he requires handlers and a constant on-duty nurse to care for him.

'Civil rights"? Please. There is no benefit to him being in that school, and I honestly missed that he was still in ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. He is 21 years old, still in elementary school, and cannot even write his own name. He is very large and profoundly autistic, and yet they have him around children under 10. Quite frankly, I'm worried he would have a tantrum and really hurt some little kid. He is an adult - a mentally incompetent adult - and yet for some reason is being forced on the public school system every day for as long as the mother can get away with getting that free daycare, even though it is blindingly obvious that he belongs in a group home or in a daily group set with other people like himself, not normal little kids.

Here's a fact. In the U.S., it costs about $10,000 per year to educate a normal child in the public school system. This school offered first $50,000 and now raised the offer to $86,000 just so they won't have to put up with him for a few more months when he ages out of the system at 22 in the spring. That amount is likely far less than what it costs to supply him with his own nurse, and however many teachers are forced to provide one-on-one care - he can't even be left to eat by himself.

So, it obviously costs many times more the amount to have him in regular school than it does a normal child. If he were placed in an appropriate environment for people with "special needs," the cost would undoubtedly be lower, because instead of having to make lots of special arrangements around him, the environment would be made to cater TO people like him. Instead, we have the current arrangement, and his care is literally stealing money away from the many, many more children that could be helped. How many children could receive extra tutoring in math or reading in that elementary school with that money, children that will actually learn? Instead, we get to pay for him tooling around with expensive electronics (which like the administrator, I doubt he's using to communicate on any advanced level, since all we saw indicated was that he knows how to say 'yes' or 'no'), "personal hygiene" (how to wipe his own a**), and how to ET phone home in case he wanders off.

This is a big chunk of why our school system in this country is failing. School systems are so broke that kids don't get their own textbooks to use and teachers have to buy their own school supplies in many places - how much of this is due to little (or not so little) Davids foisted on the school system because of the law and the drive for integration?

You are correct; David was of an age that he should never have been in an elementary school. My point of view has always been (from any post I have posted) that the school is negligent. If you think the law is flawed; help someone come up with a reasonable solution that does not violate the rights of any individual.You are also merely inferring when it comes to what David can and should be able to do.You see the law as being flawed? Help fix it. In the mean time; David has the right.

Also Kai have you not considered that this was a money game for the school? The federal government gave funding to the schools to offset any expense the school may have incurred just to keep David in school. The feds also give funding to the schools based on how many kids ride the public school system. The school likely (yes an inference) made an income on Davids grants from the gov. When the sequester hit us budget cuts were imminent. Those kids were cut funding. Now the school after keeping David in it for 21 years as not a burden; concludes he is now a burden. Their district may be required to put up the cash. David turns 22 this year before the school ends. Why spend budget money on David now when he is so close to not being covered under the law? (age 22) in their state.

[Kai-Shan Valandria]

infinity-9999

Kai-Shan Valandria

infinity-9999

Glad you cannot care about taking away David's civil rights. Your point of view was shot down 60 years ago. How is it Washington state can have students just like David in our school system. And manage to teach them something without thinking they are worthless, waste of their time and resources? David has the right to a public school education. You do not have to agree it is the LAW. All you are doing is stating your opinion without any form of supporting evidence. Your opinion should be golden to the rest of us? Just because you have interrupted and stated it. Have your opinion all you wish you have a civil right to it. I do not agree with you because I agree with the foundation of the law which protects people like David from people like you. This particular conversation is a rant about what you believe. WHO CARES what your belief is. Apparently David Is and has been for the past 21 yrs capable of attending school. The nurse said David was great she did not understand why the school would want to keep him out. Don't you think people would have gotten a clue if David was such a burden to them before 21 years occurred.PLEASE WHAT? He was so bad the ignorant a**es put up with it for that long. REALLY?

I care about her opinions, as a matter of fact. They are far more logical and recognizant of the fact that the law is being abused. He isn't capable of being in school, since he requires handlers and a constant on-duty nurse to care for him.

'Civil rights"? Please. There is no benefit to him being in that school, and I honestly missed that he was still in ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. He is 21 years old, still in elementary school, and cannot even write his own name. He is very large and profoundly autistic, and yet they have him around children under 10. Quite frankly, I'm worried he would have a tantrum and really hurt some little kid. He is an adult - a mentally incompetent adult - and yet for some reason is being forced on the public school system every day for as long as the mother can get away with getting that free daycare, even though it is blindingly obvious that he belongs in a group home or in a daily group set with other people like himself, not normal little kids.

Here's a fact. In the U.S., it costs about $10,000 per year to educate a normal child in the public school system. This school offered first $50,000 and now raised the offer to $86,000 just so they won't have to put up with him for a few more months when he ages out of the system at 22 in the spring. That amount is likely far less than what it costs to supply him with his own nurse, and however many teachers are forced to provide one-on-one care - he can't even be left to eat by himself.

So, it obviously costs many times more the amount to have him in regular school than it does a normal child. If he were placed in an appropriate environment for people with "special needs," the cost would undoubtedly be lower, because instead of having to make lots of special arrangements around him, the environment would be made to cater TO people like him. Instead, we have the current arrangement, and his care is literally stealing money away from the many, many more children that could be helped. How many children could receive extra tutoring in math or reading in that elementary school with that money, children that will actually learn? Instead, we get to pay for him tooling around with expensive electronics (which like the administrator, I doubt he's using to communicate on any advanced level, since all we saw indicated was that he knows how to say 'yes' or 'no'), "personal hygiene" (how to wipe his own a**), and how to ET phone home in case he wanders off.

This is a big chunk of why our school system in this country is failing. School systems are so broke that kids don't get their own textbooks to use and teachers have to buy their own school supplies in many places - how much of this is due to little (or not so little) Davids foisted on the school system because of the law and the drive for integration?

You are correct; David was of an age that he should never have been in an elementary school. My point of view has always been (from any post I have posted) that the school is negligent. If you think the law is flawed; help someone come up with a reasonable solution that does not violate the rights of any individual.You are also merely inferring when it comes to what David can and should be able to do.You see the law as being flawed? Help fix it. In the mean time; David has the right.

I don't see negligence on the school's part, considering he has a multitude of staff looking after him, he is in a public school, and is apparently being taught...well, they're attempting to give him an education. The whole fuss is because supposedly someone tried to force-feed him and *gasp* teach him table manners. At least they only have him for a few more months before that waste of resources will be home tormenting his worthless mother.

After reading over an overview of FAPE, it's fairly obvious what needs to be changed, but if we even attempt to remove the stupid idea of having the severely "intellectually challenged" taught side-by-side with their non-disabled peers as well as forcing the public school system to fund this nonsense, it'll be a massive shitstorm and ZOMG ACLU time. FAPE and IDEA are standing directly contrary to common sense and logic in cases like this, and while I could probably make up some good reasoning and rally a few people, no one in power will pay attention or go anywhere near this radioactive potato.

Here's another fun point too - his current educational goals are to "communicate" using his Ipad, "basic hygiene", and learning to write his own name and phone number. These are his educational goals at 21. What have his educational goals been prior to this, or has this been the goal for the past 16 or 17 years?