Sarah Palin and funding for special needs education...

[hsmamainva]

No diatribes about teen pregnancy here or any other rumors!

 

This was sent to me on a list that I'm on because I have two children with autism. I'm cutting and pasting the email as I received it, so any commentary was added by the original poster.

 

As a parent of two special needs children (and my youngest receives speech and occupational therapy through the public school system), this does concern me.

 

..........

 

SOME Real FACTS about Sarah Palin

 

Gov. Sarah Palin oversees the budget for the Department of Education and Early Development Special Schools in Alaska. This is of course part of her governor duties.

 

The funds allocated to the Dept. of Education and Early Development Special Schools provide supplementary educational services to students with severe disabling conditions as well as assist funding to the Alaska Challenge Youth Academy. The local school where the child would normally be placed does not have the resources to provide an adequate educational program without the supplementary service funds.

 

The following programs are funded by the allocations of these funds:

 

Special Education Service Agency (SESA) The Annual budget for 2007,

which was BEFORE Gov. Palin; was $8,265,300.

 

http://www.gov.state.ak.'>http://www.gov.state.ak.'>http://www.gov.state.ak.'>http://www.gov.state.ak.'>http://www.gov.state.ak.'>http://www.gov.state.ak.'>http://www.gov.state.ak. us/omb/08_ OMB/budget/ EED/comp2735. pdf

 

The Annual budget for 2008, enacted by Gov. Palin is $3,156,000.

 

http://www.gov.state.ak. us/omb/08_ OMB/budget/ EED/comp2735. pdf

 

The Annual budget for 2009, enacted by Gov. Palin is $3,156,000.

 

http://www.gov.state.ak. us/omb/09_ omb/budget/ EED/comp2735. pdf.

 

This is a cut in special needs services to children in Alaska of 62%. !!!

The Alaska State Budget description states, "Without the supplementary services the child's needs would not be met by the local school district in most cases."

 

Did 62% of all of the special needs children in Alaska stop having needs once Gov. Palin took office? It seems Govenor Palin felt having a child with special needs would never happen to her.... A 62% cut in these funds is a

disgrace!

[6packofun]

She seems to be running on a reputation of cutting wasteful spending...could that play into it? I don't know many public school districts that are being as wise and efficient with their funding as they could be.

 

A 62% cut in funding does NOT equate to 62% of special needs kids being left out in the cold, no pun intended.

 

The SESA website says this about what it actually does:

The agency promotes and supports education that:

 

-is student, family and community centered,

-is personally and culturally relevant and

-provides individualized supports and accommodations for equal and appropriate access to learning opportunities.

 

HOW do they "promote and support" that? The first 2 items aren't even necessarily tangible things that can be itemized financially, IMO. Until we know what this service actually provides to those children and how many children, it's pretty hard to say that they aren't receiving enough money.

 

Next topic!

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

John McCain has the worst record in the Senate for children according to the Children's Defense Fund Council

 

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/27/mccain-children/

 

They will make a wonderful pair.

[chiguirre]

-is student, family and community centered,

-is personally and culturally relevant and

 

[/i]

 

HOW do they "promote and support" that? The first 2 items aren't even necessarily tangible things that can be itemized financially, IMO.

 

The first point is a nice way of saying that they will avoid institutionalizing disabled children and adults.

 

The second point probably addressed the special needs of Inuit communities which may not be settled at the same place all year and may need different life skills training than someone in an Anchorage suburb.

 

Unless the funding that was cut was reinstated in some other line item, I'm sure that special needs kids received fewer services than they did in 2007 (maybe not 62% less, maybe only 50% less). Unfortunately that's just robbing Peter to pay Paul because they'll be that much less likely to be able to be self supporting adults.

 

Families can rarely take up the slack when schools don't provide adequate therapy and education, it's simply too expensive. For example, ABA therapy for autism can easily run $60,000 a year. It's the only research backed therapy available, but it's simply too expensive for most families to do if it's not provided by an early intervention program or school district.

[hsmamainva]

What concerns me is that my daughter receives therapy services *because* there are excess funds.

 

Let me explain...

 

I've been told by our public school system's Director of Special Education that there is a certain amount allocated for providing therapy to homeschoolers. (Say, for example, that it's $5,000 per year).

 

If no other homeschoolers ask for speech and occupational therapy, which is what my daughter needs, then my daughter has no problem receiving services.

 

But, if another homeschooled child is in need of services, then the amount is divided in half (so my daughter is only going to receive $2,500 in services for the year).

 

It goes down from there, depending on the number of homeschoolers who have children in need of therapy services. And some states don't offer therapy services to homeschoolers at all (Maryland is one of them -- I know because we used to live there)

 

Our health insurance doesn't cover speech or OT because autism is classified as a mental illness. Even those insurance companies that do cover it only cover a certain amount (say 6 sessions per year -- my daughter would go through that in less than 2 months)

 

So the only way for her to receive what she needs is either (a) I put her in public school and then she can receive anything she needs because she's enrolled there, or (b) I pay out of pocket for private therapy, which we did last year and it cost us $125 a week.

 

(Btw....This is the one area where I find myself breaking with the Republican party. I would describe myself as pro-life and I'm very pleased that they support homeschooling vs siding with the NEA every time they turn around. BUT when it comes to health issues, such as health care and insurance reform, I find myself siding with the Democrats)

[hsmamainva]

Unfortunately that's just robbing Peter to pay Paul because they'll be that much less likely to be able to be self supporting adults.

 

You are sooo right!!!

 

My daughter has made tremendous improvements, thanks to early intervention and years of therapy...and she has more to go! And I'd rather see our society pay for therapy NOW (say it's $6000 per year, which is what 50 weeks of weekly speech and OT sessions would cost in the private sector, for 18 years) vs her being placed in a residential care facility when she's an adult who can't work, can't live on her own, can't function as an adult. That sort of care can cost anywhere from $50,000 to $100,000 per year, or more, and she would need it for 40, 50, or 60 years or even more.

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

Our health insurance doesn't cover speech or OT because autism is classified as a mental illness. Even those insurance companies that do cover it only cover a certain amount (say 6 sessions per year -- my daughter would go through that in less than 2 months)

 

This is ridiculous. I had no idea! Thank you very much for the enlightenment, even if it did make me want to fling things off the desk. :glare:

[6packofun]

OK, I get it. All cuts in funding for this issue--bad. More money needed regardless of how it's used. Got it. :001_huh:

 

All I'm saying is that unless I *know* how funds are being used and that a certain amount for ANY government program is "needed" for the people it serves, I'm not going to bash a cut in funding just because it sounds like someone's being a big ol' meanie. Especially not when emotions are running so high because of a current presidential race. That really seems reasonable to me, but OK.

[JFSinIL]

If it is in the child's IEP that they get, say, 60 minutes of speech and 30 minutes of OT a week, that can not be cut due to the budget. Something else in the school/district has to give or the parents have grounds for a lawsuit. If the district/school has no SLP or OT - then they have to contract out and pay for it.

That is why it is so hard to get ABA funded by the schools in most places - the money is not there for it so the school folk will not write it into the IEP (if they did, they would probably not be working there very long, We lost a great local sped pre-school principal because she was in favor of helping us with our child's ABA program. The district managed to fire her. :-( )

[Jennifer3141]

You are sooo right!!!

 

My daughter has made tremendous improvements, thanks to early intervention and years of therapy...and she has more to go! And I'd rather see our society pay for therapy NOW (say it's $6000 per year, which is what 50 weeks of weekly speech and OT sessions would cost in the private sector, for 18 years) vs her being placed in a residential care facility when she's an adult who can't work, can't live on her own, can't function as an adult. That sort of care can cost anywhere from $50,000 to $100,000 per year, or more, and she would need it for 40, 50, or 60 years or even more.

 

We privately paid for my DS' OT/ST for 18 months back when he was originally diagnosed because the school system up here is about 20 years behind in treatment plans. It was essentially another house payment every month - a NICE house.

 

Our insurance covered 40 sessions of OT and 15 sessions of ST PER YEAR. And we had to fight like crazy to get them to cover that.

The only thing that helped us is that my husband signed his last letter to the insurance company with the "M.D." after his name.

 

I watched family after family drop out of services because they could not afford it. It wasn't why we ultimately stopped going but it was a factor in the decision.

 

The way we "treat" autism in this country is a national shame.

 

Jen

[PrairieSong]

 

Families can rarely take up the slack when schools don't provide adequate therapy and education, it's simply too expensive. For example, ABA therapy for autism can easily run $60,000 a year. It's the only research backed therapy available, but it's simply too expensive for most families to do if it's not provided by an early intervention program or school district.

 

Wow, I am simply amazed that everything is SO expensive. WHY would a certain therapy run $60,000 a year per child??? If this therapist (okay, maybe it's a team, I don't know) treats, say, 10 children at a time, that would be $600,000 a year!!! That would pay several nice salaries. Is there waste somewhere in that figure? Is it contract work? I know many contract workers (in social services, engineering, lots of fields) are paid several times over what they would make if they were salaried.

 

Everything from education to health care just costs way too much IMO. How can we afford it all??? There's no magic money forest somewhere. I wish every child could receive the intervention they need, but I wish it wasn't so darned $$$.

 

And how do we decide what's covered and what's not? A cousin of mine who is a teacher said it is known that many children would benefit from vision therapy but the schools can't require it because then they'd have to pay for it. (So I'm thinking it's never written into their ISP's?) Another lady I met who now homeschools said her son's dyslexia (he's been diagnosed by professionals) was not addressed by our local school district, because they don't even acknowledge dyslexia.

 

It's so complicated.

[Holly IN]

Here is my opinion and it is NOT a popular opinion at all...

 

I am not for funding period. Yes I am a parent of a special needs child. Yes, I was considered a special needs child growing up due to my hearing loss. My parents paid for my own therapies through their copays and insurance company. I am paying for my child's therapies through our copays and insurance whch I had to jump through hoops to get them to pay for it. (I fought long and hard!! It was a battle but I won)

 

The reason I am not for funding is that it takes money away from taxpayers which is anybody that works. Why should I work to pay for somebody's child's therapies when I have my own child to take care of? I do not believe it is a gov'ts job to take care of us. It is my job to take care of my dd and get her the therapies she needs not my fellow taxpayers or other people that work. I work part time and I would love to have all the money I worked hard for to be retained by me not the gov't. I sure need that extra $50 to $100 that they take from me to pay for my own child's special needs.

 

I have to think funding in terms of they are taking other people's money that they worked hard for to fund somebody's problem.

 

Yes, my dd is my problem not yours or the gov't or anybody else out there. I say kudos for Sarah Palin.

 

I do know that there those that do not have insurance or can't pay a dime for their child's special needs programs or whatever the case may be. Perhaps the funding for those types of situations can be done privately not through taxpayers?

 

I do applaud Sarah Palin in her efforts to clean up Alaska because I am for less taxes and less gov't.

 

There you go, just my opinion on this matter as a parent of a special needs child.

 

Holly

[Renee in NC]

The reason I am not for funding is that it takes money away from taxpayers which is anybody that works. Why should I work to pay for somebody's child's therapies when I have my own child to take care of? I do not believe it is a gov'ts job to take care of us. It is my job to take care of my dd and get her the therapies she needs not my fellow taxpayers or other people that work. I work part time and I would love to have all the money I worked hard for to be retained by me not the gov't. I sure need that extra $50 to $100 that they take from me to pay for my own child's special needs.

 

I have to think funding in terms of they are taking other people's money that they worked hard for to fund somebody's problem.

 

Yes, my dd is my problem not yours or the gov't or anybody else out there. I say kudos for Sarah Palin.

 

 

 

I won't say that I agree with you, but I applaud that your stance on gov't funding is consistent. It always perplexed me that the same people who are violently against poor people getting anything often have no problem with gov't paying for things like this.

[mommaduck]

I also would like to believe that there would be more private donation, support, and funding if the government did not tax everyone to death for it (and how much money gets lost along the way?). I also have two special needs brothers. One was passed through the system and not taught to read (at 26, he can barely read). Another was basically placed in learning disabled class where they just let the kids play. They wouldn't even teach him to tie his shoes. My mama was getting frustrated and they just told her that there was no point in teaching him, that he wouldn't be able to do it. She would end up afterschooling him (grandma and I tried to convince her to homeschool). All the OT that was being paid for and getting nothing out of...instead my mother accomplished more in the little bit of time she had. This isn't a child with minor disability either...as an adult, he is mentally still only 9-12yrs.

[PrairieSong]

I also would like to believe that there would be more private donation, support, and funding if the government did not tax everyone to death for it (and how much money gets lost along the way?).

 

I am sorry about what happened to your brothers. Yes, quite a lot of govt $ gets "lost along the way" or is just not used well at all, as in your brothers' cases. When there is big govt bureaucracy, you have what my dad calls "slippage". The money gets passed along and part of it "slips" out at each step. When it finally gets to those who need it, there isn't much left.

 

Holly, thank you for your opinion. I am for less govt as well, and wonder if privately funding this stuff would be the way to go. I am willing to bet there would be much less "slippage" and red tape and bureaucracy.

 

My parents have both been in health care for years...well, my mom is deceased now...but their major complaint was more and more paperwork, so that RN's and others spend many hours just doing that instead of on the floor with the patients. My mom hated it when inspectors would come and go over the paperwork with a fine toothed comb but barely look at the patients.

[RebeccaC]

When our son was in the ps in the mid 90s the head of he was making, if memory serves me right and maybe JFS remembers better, $300,000 a year. Yet there was no money in the budget for slp curriculum, photo cards, aids, or.... and we had a ghost OT that never showed up for sessions with my son. I thought then and I think now that some cuts in special ed should be made, as in huge salaries for folks whose sole job is to make sure IEPs are written in favor of the district. So not all cuts are bad. School district will cry foul but in our neck of the woods there is so much waste and mismanagement that it just boggles the mind.

 

How we handled it since our insurance would not cover anything, is my finding folks in private practice who would train me and recommended curriculum and equipment. I then did the therapy at home, bought the curriculum and equipment that we could afford and we had quarterly or tri yearly assessments to make sure that our sons were making progress and to reassess the curriculum and equipment being used. This worked out well for us but not every parent can do that. In fact doing what we did meant that our sons got better therapy than they would have in the ps system. They certainly got more hours than they would have in the ps system.

[Niffercoo]

Here is my opinion and it is NOT a popular opinion at all...

 

I am not for funding period. Yes I am a parent of a special needs child. Yes, I was considered a special needs child growing up due to my hearing loss. My parents paid for my own therapies through their copays and insurance company. I am paying for my child's therapies through our copays and insurance whch I had to jump through hoops to get them to pay for it. (I fought long and hard!! It was a battle but I won)

 

The reason I am not for funding is that it takes money away from taxpayers which is anybody that works. Why should I work to pay for somebody's child's therapies when I have my own child to take care of? I do not believe it is a gov'ts job to take care of us. It is my job to take care of my dd and get her the therapies she needs not my fellow taxpayers or other people that work. I work part time and I would love to have all the money I worked hard for to be retained by me not the gov't. I sure need that extra $50 to $100 that they take from me to pay for my own child's special needs.

 

I have to think funding in terms of they are taking other people's money that they worked hard for to fund somebody's problem.

 

Yes, my dd is my problem not yours or the gov't or anybody else out there. I say kudos for Sarah Palin.

 

I do know that there those that do not have insurance or can't pay a dime for their child's special needs programs or whatever the case may be. Perhaps the funding for those types of situations can be done privately not through taxpayers?

 

I do applaud Sarah Palin in her efforts to clean up Alaska because I am for less taxes and less gov't.

 

There you go, just my opinion on this matter as a parent of a special needs child.

 

Holly

 

I agree with you, as another mother of special needs children.

 

My husband works for a small company which cannot afford to pay for the sort of health insurance plan that would pay for therapies. We have used a combination of credit cards and money from family members to pay for the therapies the children have gotten so far. Yet, the money from the taxes my husband pays out of his 1 full-time and 2 part-time jobs pays for therapy for other people's children instead of his own.

 

I probably just should have stuck to "I agree" but this is a hot topic for me right now. We're in the middle of a medical crisis with my son that the insurance company is refusing to cover because he has Aspergers. So far we have an ER visit, ambulance ride, EKG, and EEG, with an MRI coming up in the next 10 days. And insurance is refusing to pay. So I'll be spending hours on the phone trying to convince the insurance company that absence seizures aren't part of his Aspergers. Let's don't even get into the point that this child hasn't had ANY claims against our insurance policy since March 2006 when he had strep throat.

[CLHCO]

...unless I *know* how funds are being used and that a certain amount for ANY government program is "needed" for the people it serves, I'm not going to bash a cut in funding just because it sounds like someone's being a big ol' meanie. Especially not when emotions are running so high because of a current presidential race. That really seems reasonable to me, but OK.

 

:iagree:

 

It's very difficult to not make such things an emotional issue. It's really an automatic thing anymore where children are concerned. I understand this. It is very possible she was being irresponsible to the needs of children in her state. It's also possible the money was cut in areas where condensing all that good old government paperwork will make things more efficient. I don't know, but I agree that details and rational discussion are important to avoid knee-jerk reactions.

 

I see this often when our local school district tries to increase funding. They advertise in a very emotional manner. Our children are failing. Our property taxes will get lower because people will not want to move in an area with failing schools, etc. It's for the children. When we looked closely at what the money was earmarked for it was things more along the lines of "new and enhanced football stadium" at the worst and at the best we had new faculty positions needing training to then come train teachers for some new phonics program. Our district is well known for excess spending and they needed to adjust their funds to be more efficient. It was voted down.

 

Again, this may not be the case in this situation. I don't happen to think Palin walks on water and is above scrutiny. I do think more information would be needed before reacting.

[johnandtinagilbert]

email is such a blessing and a curse. Without further research, I couldn't be upset by this. Factually speaking, a cut of 62% could mean a lot. We just don't know if all the money was spent (i.e. did a surplus exist?). Did she cut other areas of educational funding? Did she reduce the "political paperwork" and allot for a cut? Budget cuts aren't always bad and often times force people to be resourceful.

 

Honestly, with a special needs child, I would bet she will certainly stand up and become an advocate. I wonder how many of us, before we started home schooling, would have been advocates to the cause? KWIM?

 

As for McCain, and being the worst for children, he tends to prefer reform over a continuous increase. The area of education, particularly, is always approached emotionally, then financially. How often does a commercial say, "We've really worked on fixing overspending; we're improving with the tons of money we already receive." Education in this country gets A LOT of money, we continue to put money in, and I'm not so sure the return is balanced. Consider the amount of money per student your state spends....if I had that much money for home schooling...WOW! We'd be traveling the country, shoot, we'd be traveling Europe as we studied history and I would Never have to spread out my school spending.

 

I can also say, that the amount of therapy prescribed for one of my children on his IEP really seemed to be overkill. I had his therapist teach me and we progressed using 1/2 of his prescribed treatment. I realize that might not be the case for everyone, but it was for us.

 

Prayers for all the children and hopes that the next leaders will help without requiring more money in taxes.

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

Consider the amount of money per student your state spends....if I had that much money for home schooling...WOW!

 

When I add up what I spend on curriculum, equipment, mortgage and other building expenses, utilities, and food alone- it comes out to WAY more than what the government spends per pupil.

[LNC]

Never mind...

[chiguirre]

I have to think funding in terms of they are taking other people's money that they worked hard for to fund somebody's problem.

 

Yes, my dd is my problem not yours or the gov't or anybody else out there. I say kudos for Sarah Palin.

 

 

Unfortunately, my oldest will definitely be the state of Texas' problem when my dh and I die. He won't be able to live on his own and will have to live in a supervised environment. Taxpayers can train him now so that he can hold at least supported employment, or they can pay for his institutionalization as an adult.

[latinteach]

Wow, I am simply amazed that everything is SO expensive. WHY would a certain therapy run $60,000 a year per child??? If this therapist (okay, maybe it's a team, I don't know) treats, say, 10 children at a time, that would be $600,000 a year!!! That would pay several nice salaries. Is there waste somewhere in that figure? Is it contract work? I know many contract workers (in social services, engineering, lots of fields) are paid several times over what they would make if they were salaried.

 

ABA is almost always delivered by a team and it is a time intensive therapy. Typically, a BCBA (board certified behavior analyst) will administer a standardized baseline examination of the child's abilities and then write an individualized and specialized plan. BCBAs are highly trained professionals and, while more are being trained all the time, there aren't very many of them. It is expensive because the BCBA needs to receive compensation as well as the team who provides the day to day therapy.

 

The team delivering the service is usually made up of habilitation workers, who are trained to do the prescribed activities recommended by the BCBA, but are not highly trained BCBAs or BCABAs. These hab workers can often be graduate level psychology or child development majors. Usually a child with autism will need 20-40 hours of ABA per week, depending on the severity of their autism. Most of that time is provided by the hab workers. The hab workers will maintain data and hand it in to the BCBA or BCABA who will monitor progress and recommend new activities. It is also very difficult to find the hab workers, because they need to be dependable, intelligent, patient and willing and able to work with individuals with autism.

 

It is not likely that BCBAs or the hab workers are being overpaid. It's not easy to find a BCBA in many parts of the country who does not have a long waiting list. The hab workers need fair compensation as well for the hard work they do too.

 

Everything from education to health care just costs way too much IMO. How can we afford it all??? There's no magic money forest somewhere. I wish every child could receive the intervention they need, but I wish it wasn't so darned $$$.

 

Pay now or pay later. If those children with autism don't get the ABA therapy, they may very well need institutionalization later. A few years of ABA now, or permanent institutionalization in the adult years. Which is more expensive?

[FloridaLisa]

Honestly, with a special needs child, I would bet she will certainly stand up and become an advocate. I wonder how many of us, before we started home schooling, would have been advocates to the cause?

 

 

Her sister stated last night that she also has a special needs child that has been loved by the family, even before Sarah Palin delivered her son.

 

Lisa

[johnandtinagilbert]

When I add up what I spend on curriculum, equipment, mortgage and other building expenses, utilities, and food alone- it comes out to WAY more than what the government spends per pupil.

 

I can't say for other states, but in FL there are funds for "building expenses" and funds per child. We get taxed for both, but their budgets are separate, so in your example, you'd have to separate the two. In addition, not everyone gets free lunch and still have to pay for school supplies. Some schools even have to bring in copy paper these days. These expenses go beyond what is taxed.

 

....lots of tax money spent on a system that has a very low graduation rate and, as an educator, when I consider the amount of money per child, WOW! I really believe every dept. of the public school system very likely could handle a cut and still improve. I am certain I could provide a world class education on that much money, especially b/c I believe I already am on about $450 per child! (reference intended)

[asta]

Here is my opinion and it is NOT a popular opinion at all...

 

I am not for funding period. Yes I am a parent of a special needs child. Yes, I was considered a special needs child growing up due to my hearing loss. My parents paid for my own therapies through their copays and insurance company. I am paying for my child's therapies through our copays and insurance whch I had to jump through hoops to get them to pay for it. (I fought long and hard!! It was a battle but I won)

 

The reason I am not for funding is that it takes money away from taxpayers which is anybody that works. Why should I work to pay for somebody's child's therapies when I have my own child to take care of? I do not believe it is a gov'ts job to take care of us. It is my job to take care of my dd and get her the therapies she needs not my fellow taxpayers or other people that work. I work part time and I would love to have all the money I worked hard for to be retained by me not the gov't. I sure need that extra $50 to $100 that they take from me to pay for my own child's special needs.

 

I have to think funding in terms of they are taking other people's money that they worked hard for to fund somebody's problem.

 

Yes, my dd is my problem not yours or the gov't or anybody else out there. I say kudos for Sarah Palin.

 

I do know that there those that do not have insurance or can't pay a dime for their child's special needs programs or whatever the case may be. Perhaps the funding for those types of situations can be done privately not through taxpayers?

 

I do applaud Sarah Palin in her efforts to clean up Alaska because I am for less taxes and less gov't.

 

There you go, just my opinion on this matter as a parent of a special needs child.

 

Holly

 

My mother paid for all of my speech therapy in cash. She also paid for the behavioral therapist for my sister. I was allowed to visit the same BT when "overwhelmed" (no one had Aspergers in those days).

 

Both therapists had an office at the school, but the district didn't pay for them, the parents did.

 

We didn't have health insurance.

 

I'm with you, Holly: it isn't the government's job to take care of me and my family, it is the job of me and my spouse to do that (by hook or by crook).

 

 

asta

[anewday]

If you talk to someone who works in a public school special services department, you would be AMAZED at the things the money is spent on.

 

A cut in the spending doesn't mean the children suffer. At least in the school district my mother worked for for 29 years, the stuff a lot of that money went to was totally inappropriate.

[anissarobert]

I hesitate to jump in because I have been lucky enough not to have children with special needs. However, I do want to point out that when Republicans talk about reducing government expenses they are fully aware that someone will suffer. We, as a people have become accustomed to relying on the government to help when life becomes challenging. These programs are socialist in nature, as they take from some to give to others. I am of a mind that all such programs should not exist, but I know that people would suffer, so I have always agreed with a more moderate approach to reducing funding.

 

The question at the heart of this or any similar discussion is; "What is the proper role of government?" My belief is that the care of children is not the proper role of governments, but that communities should help those who cannot help themselves. We have all seen what can happen when a community rallies around those in need. There is no little waste and mulitiple levels of government bureaucracy are not needed. This is what I believe in, but I realize that any move in the libertarian direction will hurt someone. If change happens slowly people will pick up the slack. (Yes, I am consistent on this and do not believe that we should have public schools either. In my view, there are few areas truly in the government's domain.)

 

All of you dealing with children who have special needs are my heros. Homeschooling is never an easy job, but you deserve medals.

[LNC]

never mind

[sassenach]

Here is my opinion and it is NOT a popular opinion at all...

 

I am not for funding period. Yes I am a parent of a special needs child. Yes, I was considered a special needs child growing up due to my hearing loss. My parents paid for my own therapies through their copays and insurance company. I am paying for my child's therapies through our copays and insurance whch I had to jump through hoops to get them to pay for it. (I fought long and hard!! It was a battle but I won)

 

The reason I am not for funding is that it takes money away from taxpayers which is anybody that works. Why should I work to pay for somebody's child's therapies when I have my own child to take care of? I do not believe it is a gov'ts job to take care of us. It is my job to take care of my dd and get her the therapies she needs not my fellow taxpayers or other people that work. I work part time and I would love to have all the money I worked hard for to be retained by me not the gov't. I sure need that extra $50 to $100 that they take from me to pay for my own child's special needs.

 

I have to think funding in terms of they are taking other people's money that they worked hard for to fund somebody's problem.

 

Yes, my dd is my problem not yours or the gov't or anybody else out there. I say kudos for Sarah Palin.

 

I do know that there those that do not have insurance or can't pay a dime for their child's special needs programs or whatever the case may be. Perhaps the funding for those types of situations can be done privately not through taxpayers?

 

I do applaud Sarah Palin in her efforts to clean up Alaska because I am for less taxes and less gov't.

 

There you go, just my opinion on this matter as a parent of a special needs child.

 

Holly

 

If you are against ALL public education, then I can accept that opinion. I am not against free public education. Therefore, I believe that it is the state's responsibility to appropriately educate disabled children to their full potential. I also don't think our country will ever head in the direction of NO free education, therefore, we need to work within the reality that states will and should continue to fund education for disabled children.

[Elaine]

No diatribes about teen pregnancy here or any other rumors!

 

This was sent to me on a list that I'm on because I have two children with autism. I'm cutting and pasting the email as I received it, so any commentary was added by the original poster.

 

As a parent of two special needs children (and my youngest receives speech and occupational therapy through the public school system), this does concern me.

 

..........

 

SOME Real FACTS about Sarah Palin

 

Gov. Sarah Palin oversees the budget for the Department of Education and Early Development Special Schools in Alaska. This is of course part of her governor duties.

 

The funds allocated to the Dept. of Education and Early Development Special Schools provide supplementary educational services to students with severe disabling conditions as well as assist funding to the Alaska Challenge Youth Academy. The local school where the child would normally be placed does not have the resources to provide an adequate educational program without the supplementary service funds.

 

The following programs are funded by the allocations of these funds:

 

Special Education Service Agency (SESA) The Annual budget for 2007,

which was BEFORE Gov. Palin; was $8,265,300.

 

http://www.gov.state.ak.'>http://www.gov.state.ak.'>http://www.gov.state.ak.'>http://www.gov.state.ak.'>http://www.gov.state.ak.'>http://www.gov.state.ak.'>http://www.gov.state.ak. us/omb/08_ OMB/budget/ EED/comp2735. pdf

 

The Annual budget for 2008, enacted by Gov. Palin is $3,156,000.

 

http://www.gov.state.ak. us/omb/08_ OMB/budget/ EED/comp2735. pdf

 

The Annual budget for 2009, enacted by Gov. Palin is $3,156,000.

 

http://www.gov.state.ak. us/omb/09_ omb/budget/ EED/comp2735. pdf.

 

This is a cut in special needs services to children in Alaska of 62%. !!!

The Alaska State Budget description states, "Without the supplementary services the child's needs would not be met by the local school district in most cases."

 

Did 62% of all of the special needs children in Alaska stop having needs once Gov. Palin took office? It seems Govenor Palin felt having a child with special needs would never happen to her.... A 62% cut in these funds is a

disgrace!

 

 

Check this out from Education Week. Not everything is as it seems.:001_smile:

[Jugglin'5]

The fine print:

 

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/09/newest_palin_smear_she_cut_spe.asp

 

Of course this doesn't win any shiny stars from me, since I'm sort of a libertarian, and I'm for cutting the entire public school budget. :) But if it is not true, it is not true. For many, any stick is good enough to beat her with, though.

[Beth in SW WA]

As a parent of two special needs children (and my youngest receives speech and occupational therapy through the public school system), this does concern me.

!

 

Why do we need special funding for special needs? I want a smaller government w/ LESS govt. programs. This was my one disagreement w/ Palin in her speech Wed night.

[TXMomof4]

Check this out from Education Week. Not everything is as it seems.:001_smile:

 

Pretty darn impressive! ETA: Seriously, go read that article. Isn't it funny how "facts" often have very little to do with reality.

[Laurie4b]

Thanks for the link. I can't give you rep right now. The article certainly does present a different picture.

[sdWTMer]

No diatribes about teen pregnancy here or any other rumors!

 

This was sent to me on a list that I'm on because I have two children with autism. I'm cutting and pasting the email as I received it, so any commentary was added by the original poster.

 

As a parent of two special needs children (and my youngest receives speech and occupational therapy through the public school system), this does concern me.

 

..........

 

SOME Real FACTS about Sarah Palin

 

Gov. Sarah Palin oversees the budget for the Department of Education and Early Development Special Schools in Alaska. This is of course part of her governor duties.

 

The funds allocated to the Dept. of Education and Early Development Special Schools provide supplementary educational services to students with severe disabling conditions as well as assist funding to the Alaska Challenge Youth Academy. The local school where the child would normally be placed does not have the resources to provide an adequate educational program without the supplementary service funds.

 

The following programs are funded by the allocations of these funds:

 

Special Education Service Agency (SESA) The Annual budget for 2007,

which was BEFORE Gov. Palin; was $8,265,300.

 

http://www.gov.state.ak.'>http://www.gov.state.ak.'>http://www.gov.state.ak.'>http://www.gov.state.ak.'>http://www.gov.state.ak.'>http://www.gov.state.ak.'>http://www.gov.state.ak. us/omb/08_ OMB/budget/ EED/comp2735. pdf

 

The Annual budget for 2008, enacted by Gov. Palin is $3,156,000.

 

http://www.gov.state.ak. us/omb/08_ OMB/budget/ EED/comp2735. pdf

 

The Annual budget for 2009, enacted by Gov. Palin is $3,156,000.

 

http://www.gov.state.ak. us/omb/09_ omb/budget/ EED/comp2735. pdf.

 

This is a cut in special needs services to children in Alaska of 62%. !!!

The Alaska State Budget description states, "Without the supplementary services the child's needs would not be met by the local school district in most cases."

 

Did 62% of all of the special needs children in Alaska stop having needs once Gov. Palin took office? It seems Govenor Palin felt having a child with special needs would never happen to her.... A 62% cut in these funds is a

disgrace!

 

Haven't read the other posts, but here's a quote that I found:

 

"In the Washington Post, a respected reporter noted disapprovingly that Palin had “slashed†funds for a program benefiting pregnant teens. He failed to mention the relevant fact that she was using her line-item veto power to quadruple funds for the program instead of quintupling them."

 

You can find it here.

 

To me, that doesn't sound that bad at all.

[LizzyBee]

I found this on the factcheck website:

 

Palin did not cut funding for special needs education in Alaska by 62 percent. She didn’t cut it at all. In fact, she increased funding and signed a bill that will triple per-pupil funding over three years for special needs students with high-cost requirements.

 

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html

[Jean too]

This is NOT true. You can check your facts here: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html

[Audrey]

John McCain has the worst record in the Senate for children according to the Children's Defense Fund Council

 

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/27/mccain-children/

 

They will make a wonderful pair.

 

You make a good point. "Wonderful" wasn't exactly the word I was thinking, though. :D

[Parabola]

The fine print:

 

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/09/newest_palin_smear_she_cut_spe.asp

 

Of course this doesn't win any shiny stars from me' date=' since I'm sort of a libertarian, and I'm for cutting the entire public school budget. :) But if it is not true, it is not true. For many, any stick is good enough to beat her with, though.[/quote']

 

For most though, its the opposite. Can't find a stick even though there are many of them laying around begging to be picked up.

 

Why do we need special funding for special needs? I want a smaller government w/ LESS govt. programs. This was my one disagreement w/ Palin in her speech Wed night.

 

I would think we need special funding for special needs because, as said above, the cost for delivering what it takes to help special needs kids reach their full potential is astronomical. Very few families can afford it. I personally can't abide the thought of leaving these families without help. They pay for that government, its supposed to work for them so give them what they pay for, some help.

[Reya]

Argh. She reallocated spending by shifting what difference budgets covered. The net effect was TRIPLING special-needs spending--from about $25k per student to about $75k per student. Different services are now coming out of different "pockets". When this happened, some "pockets" got smaller, and others got bigger. She did lots of overhauling of the state budget to make things more efficient and sensible.

[jejily]

Argh. She reallocated spending by shifting what difference budgets covered. The net effect was TRIPLING special-needs spending--from about $25k per student to about $75k per student. Different services are now coming out of different "pockets". When this happened, some "pockets" got smaller, and others got bigger. She did lots of overhauling of the state budget to make things more efficient and sensible.

 

 

Unfortunately, people only see what they want to see, despite the facts. :sad:

 

I know that's true on both sides of the political aisle, but, honestly... the number and variety and intensity of the Palin attacks (most of which have been debunked for the smears that they are, but keep getting repeated as truth) are just... unbelievable. Truly unbelievable. It's really quite a phenomenon.

[Parabola]

Unfortunately, people only see what they want to see, despite the facts. :sad:

 

I know that's true on both sides of the political aisle, but, honestly... the number and variety and intensity of the Palin attacks (most of which have been debunked for the smears that they are, but keep getting repeated as truth) are just... unbelievable. Truly unbelievable. It's really quite a phenomenon.

 

Its quite true that Palin is under close scrutiny right now. As well she should be, as she's running for VP. And its also true that there are a fair amount of smears out there, that aren't facts at all. But that does not discount the fact that there are also facts out there that do show her negatively...and they really are facts. They really are reality, I wouldn't go so far as to say "most" of them have been debunked. There's a lot still out there that are actually true, including her record on earmarks which she is supposedly against, and her true role in the bridge to nowhere. Those are a couple that come to mind.

As much as it bothers you to see her attacked constantly, it bothers me as much that so many are unwilling to admit that she has not presented herself entirely factually.

As for this particular charge - about the special needs funds - I have no idea, I don't go to any links from either side. I'm not making an opinion on that, I don't have all the info.

And there are also smears going around against Obama as well, so don't think its all directed at Palin. Though as a recent addition to the ticket, and one that is somewhat of a questionable choice to many people, she is getting a lot of flack. Politics is pretty good at this kind of thing, even if the politicians running don't instigate it.

[jejily]

And there are also smears going around against Obama as well, so don't think its all directed at Palin.

I don't disagree with you on this -- in my post, you'll note I said it went both ways. But, you have to admit, this has been unprecedented. I know it's all a matter of viewpoint, but goodness. No way has Obama -- who is running for the top of the ticket -- been subjected to the same kind of scrutiny by the media that Palin -- who is running for the VP position -- has been.

 

Very few (if any) of the far-right smears against Obama were picked up by the mainstream media, except in terms of the media mocking the right for their pathetic attempts to discredit the man. Yet, the mainstream media picks up just about every smear against Palin and reports on it as "something to be investigated." If you throw enough mud, eventually some of it will stick.

 

Ugh. This just makes me sad. Not angry, just really depressed. By the time this election cycle is finished, we will surely be the divided states of America, no matter who wins.

[bettyandbob]

I used to work as an advocate for persons with disabilities, before I had any children. The reality is if you put more into providing education, remediation and skills when a child is young the more likely the child will be independent or at least have some ability to contribute to his own support. Therapy is outrageously expensive. I have paid out of pocket for many therapies for both my ds's. My youngest ds is likely to live at home long term. He is also likely to outlive dh and I. Quite honestly, dh will not ever be able to retire and I will be working more in years to come (I have 2 part time jobs), because of the money we have spent on therapies to increase ds's chances of living independently.

 

When dh and I can't work and can't support our adult ds, then all three of will be a drain on society (or I guess we can be homeless together). Perhaps we can be like a woman I read about a year ago from my state. Upon being diagnosed with breast cancer for the 2d time, she gave her adult daughter who had down syndrom an overdose and then she killed herself.

 

I'm prolife, but I think this plays in here. If you want a government that is going to dictate against abortion, then you must help families who have children with disabilities. There are certainly many children with disabilities who could have been prevented from needing services, if they had just not been born.

[Parabola]

I don't disagree with you on this -- in my post, you'll note I said it went both ways. But, you have to admit, this has been unprecedented. I know it's all a matter of viewpoint, but goodness. No way has Obama -- who is running for the top of the ticket -- been subjected to the same kind of scrutiny by the media that Palin -- who is running for the VP position -- has been.

 

Very few (if any) of the far-right smears against Obama were picked up by the mainstream media, except in terms of the media mocking the right for their pathetic attempts to discredit the man. Yet, the mainstream media picks up just about every smear against Palin and reports on it as "something to be investigated." If you throw enough mud, eventually some of it will stick.

 

Ugh. This just makes me sad. Not angry, just really depressed. By the time this election cycle is finished, we will surely be the divided states of America, no matter who wins.

 

I did note that you said the bolded, I was just sort of reinforcing it. :D

 

Obama has been known in political circles for some time. Not as long as McCain, but definitely longer than Palin. She's like a new toy, lets see how many positions we can pose her in.

The media had most of their fun with Obama, a lot of it way back before he won that first primary in Ohio. That surprised a lot of people. Before that, his inexperience and lack of foreign relations records etc. were all over the news and Hillary was *the winner* before any races were run.

Then he won. Now, along with the inexperience and foreign relations, comes insinuations of islamic ties (which isn't even terrible in and of itself...but I suppose EXTREMIST is just assumed), a scandal involving one of his members, another scandal involving his paster, a rumor accu8sing him of calling Palin a big (sheesh), another rumor saying he wanted to kill babies.......and so on.

You can see, it may not be equal running right now when it comes to smears, but it aint like Palin's the only out there dodging bullets. And I hope you can also see why this is so. She's the newbie, lets dig up all we can. Which is both beneficial to the voter, and distracting.

[Mom24bz1g]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/11/palin.truth/index.html

 

Blessings,

Michele

[jejily]

She's like a new toy, lets see how many positions we can pose her in.

 

 

OK, the mental picture that evoked has me grinning. :laugh: