Woo hoo! First set of LAUSD budget cuts approved!

brbr
Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
And if you scroll down to the bottom of the document, it mentions that a budget increase amidst the first wave of cuts totalling over 400 million was approved. What was this budget increase for? 80 new assistant principals specifically for special ed. I'm pissed.



First, let me say, I'm decidedly anti-retard. Is that politicall correct? No, but as you probably already know, I don't really care either. Special ed gets way too much funding in my opinion--funding that should be going to the smartest of the smart, assisting them in becoming the scientists that find cures to diseases or the next great authors. Instead, such money is WASTED on those that will be lucky if they can ever hold down a job at McDonalds. Even more outrageous is the money burned on helping kids that are literal vegetables--all because the parents are selfish pricks that can't face reality that their children are not going to ever become productive members of society.



ENOUGH ALREADY!!! *storms off in frustration*



*storms back and post URL*

http://www.lausd.k12.ca.us/announcem...ateMay2003.pdf

*storms off again*

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 12
    thuh freakthuh freak Posts: 2,664member
    well, first off, i can't stand it when people use literal(ly) incorrectly. literal means: "Being in accordance with, conforming to, or upholding the exact or primary meaning of a word or words." the kids are "...figurative vegetables...", not literal. unless, of course, these goats are infact edible plantlife.



    but, back on topic, i think the smart do get a lot. (we) have opportunities and capabilities of getting good paying jobs and everything. challenged people (sometimes) aren't capable, and need extra help in order to even get the piss-poor jobs.
  • Reply 2 of 12
    alcimedesalcimedes Posts: 5,486member
    "mainstreaming" of mentally challanged students is probably the worst idea in elementary education ever. you have teachers that aren't trained to deal with special ed students trying to control a room with 1 kid who needs a ton of attention, and another 25-35 who end up ignored.



    so you screw over 35 kids in order to (maybe) help out the 1 kid who's not going to amount to much in an economic sense.
  • Reply 3 of 12
    naderfannaderfan Posts: 156member
    I agree. Special ed kids shouldn't be treated as "normal" kids. They just aren't. And yeah, that's sad, and it sounds mean, but you do a huge disservice to special ed kids when you don't give them the attention they need. That doesn't mean we should cut off all their funding or give them all their own personal classroom. But rather, have smaller classes of special ed kids who have a teacher that is specifically trained to deal with their problems. Also, we may need a stricter definition of "learning disorder." Just because a kid doesn't pay attention or is rowdy doesn't mean he/she has ADD or whatever. But it's a hard line to walk as far as funding is concerned.
  • Reply 4 of 12
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by thuh Freak

    well, first off, i can't stand it when people use literal(ly) incorrectly. literal means: "Being in accordance with, conforming to, or upholding the exact or primary meaning of a word or words." the kids are "...figurative vegetables...", not literal. unless, of course, these goats are infact edible plantlife.



    He's literally a vegetable. It's called figurative language and exaggeration. Deal with it.



    Anyway, this kid gets money thrown at him at the drop of a hat. What? A 21 inch monitor *MIGHT* help him see the screen better? Sure, we'll have one by tomorrow. What? Now you're saying that you aren't focusing on his vision anymore but instead just trying to get him to react to sounds? YOU JUST GOT HIM A 21" MONITOR AND NOW YOU ARE DOING NOTHING WITH IT?



    Give me a break. Too much funding is WASTED on kids that will not give any return on the investment.



    Alc: I 100% agree with you. Mainstreaming this vegetable of a kid to 4th grade makes no sense. He disrupts the class with his alternating crying and grunting. He cannot read, write, or let alone speak. The parent is a selfish bitch and gets upset when her demands for her kid aren't immediately met.



    Why do we put up with this shit? Well, if the bitch of a parent moves the kid to a private school, the public school still has to pay for it because of his "special needs." It's much cheaper throwing 21" monitors at him than it is to pay the tuition of a private school.





    Oh, and why shouldn't highly gifted kids get free private school? They have special needs too that normal teachers aren't trained to handle. Hell, they would actually become more productive members of society if given a little more attention instead of being bored their entire school life as square bigs trying to be jammed into the lowest common denominator round hole.
  • Reply 5 of 12
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Naderfan

    I agree. Special ed kids shouldn't be treated as "normal" kids. They just aren't. And yeah, that's sad, and it sounds mean, but you do a huge disservice to special ed kids when you don't give them the attention they need. That doesn't mean we should cut off all their funding or give them all their own personal classroom. But rather, have smaller classes of special ed kids who have a teacher that is specifically trained to deal with their problems. Also, we may need a stricter definition of "learning disorder." Just because a kid doesn't pay attention or is rowdy doesn't mean he/she has ADD or whatever. But it's a hard line to walk as far as funding is concerned.



    If the kid isn't going to be able to learn how to read, write, or speak, NO SCHOOL FOR HIM! Too bad. I know it's sad but that's the luck of the draw. Instead, let's focus half the funding we use on special ed on finding cures to the diseases that made the kids this way.



    Like we do with everything else in this backwards society, we are treating the symptom and not the problem.
  • Reply 6 of 12
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Bah...no one else hates how much money we spend on retards?
  • Reply 7 of 12
    haraldharald Posts: 2,152member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BR

    Bah...no one else hates how much money we spend on retards?



    Eugenics!



    Let's use them for experiments; that way they can add to society instead of sucking up resources.
  • Reply 8 of 12
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Harald

    Eugenics!



    Let's use them for experiments; that way they can add to society instead of sucking up resources.




    Yes, let's not be sensible about this issue and treat my thread with a modicum of respect. I'm not advocating eugenics you twit. I'm advocating that we allocate our limited resources in a much more productive way.
  • Reply 9 of 12
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,455member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Harald

    Eugenics!



    Let's use them for experiments; that way they can add to society instead of sucking up resources.




    Oh be reasonable now. If we wanted to discus eugenics, we would discuss Margaret Sanger and the history of Planned Parenthood.





    Nick
  • Reply 10 of 12
    alcimedesalcimedes Posts: 5,486member
    lol, i think everyone just agrees with you BR.



    you've become to agreeable as of late. really cuts down on the amount of replies to a thread in AO.
  • Reply 11 of 12
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    The REAL problem is that "special ed" used to mean smart kids that have something like dyslexia. But now days every kid has a "right" to go to school with everyone else. Poor old Mom and Dad can't face the fact that their kid is retarded a so they sue (lawyers, ruining the country one lawsuit at a time) to have their kid in public school when they belong in a special school. I'll let you all figure out who "they" refers to in the last sentence.



    Either way we pay for it though.
  • Reply 12 of 12
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    Oh be reasonable now. If we wanted to discus eugenics, we would discuss Margaret Sanger and the history of Planned Parenthood.





    Nick




    Just as relevant as Sanger and PP...don't forget those who financed and championed the cause of Eugenics...members of The Bush, the Rockefeller and Harriman families back in the 1920s and onwards.



    A random selection of reading from left-wing and right-wing sources....



    http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/20...16no02_roe.htm

    http://www.baltech.org/lederman/bush-farben-1-5-01.html

    http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/eugenizz.htm



    The acorn never falls that far from the tree.

Sign In or Register to comment.