Do ya wanna read something funny?

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:
Parents get their input very directly and effectively- by electing the board of education that hires teachers, fires them, and otherwise manages the school system, as well as by electing the legislators who make the laws affecting education, and by electing the Circuit Court judges and the Supreme Court judges who more or less police how those laws are used. Do you want a different kind of school system? Then when enough voters agree to elect people who will make and manage the schools as you want them managed they will get elected and make it happen. There should be more measurable objectivity in being a public school teacher than winning or losing a popularity contest among the general public.

Thus more reasons for education to be done in the private sector.

So then who would "hire and fire" school personnel and make policy decisions for the private schools? A board of directors elected by stockholders? Whose interests would such a private sector governance be beholden to? The students, or the stockholders?

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:Parents get their input very directly and effectively- by electing the board of education that hires teachers, fires them, and otherwise manages the school system, as well as by electing the legislators who make the laws affecting education, and by electing the Circuit Court judges and the Supreme Court judges who more or less police how those laws are used. Do you want a different kind of school system? Then when enough voters agree to elect people who will make and manage the schools as you want them managed they will get elected and make it happen. There should be more measurable objectivity in being a public school teacher than winning or losing a popularity contest among the general public.

If that's the case then why do so many schools, educators, administrators and teacher union personnel bemoan the lack of parental involvement and input they receive?

Because parents owe their school age children more than just voting on election day.

For the good of the child, they owe guidance and support to the child and support to the child's school.

But you just said parents had all their input very directly and effectively- by electing the board of education that hires teachers, fires them, and otherwise manages the school system, as well as by electing the legislators who make the laws affecting education, and by electing the Circuit Court judges and the Supreme Court judges who more or less police how those laws are used.

So which is it, they get their input at the ballot boxes or they owe their support to their school because they have school aged children? Wouldn't their voting for the proper people be for the good of the child?

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:
Parents get their input very directly and effectively- by electing the board of education that hires teachers, fires them, and otherwise manages the school system, as well as by electing the legislators who make the laws affecting education, and by electing the Circuit Court judges and the Supreme Court judges who more or less police how those laws are used. Do you want a different kind of school system? Then when enough voters agree to elect people who will make and manage the schools as you want them managed they will get elected and make it happen. There should be more measurable objectivity in being a public school teacher than winning or losing a popularity contest among the general public.

Thus more reasons for education to be done in the private sector.

So then who would "hire and fire" school personnel and make policy decisions for the private schools? A board of directors elected by stockholders? Whose interests would such a private sector governance be beholden to? The students, or the stockholders?

Would that be any worse then the current system which is beholden to teachers unions and if so, how?

Aaron wrote:So which is it, they get their input at the ballot boxes or they owe their support to their school because they have school aged children? Wouldn't their voting for the proper people be for the good of the child?

why can't we have both?

The issue on having parents decide per school what exactly would be taught - one runs the risk of having hundreds of different curricula being taught according to each areas "beliefs". What happens then when a child goes to college? Are we going to take on college curricula also?

College requirements drive most of the classes taught at the high school level. The high school must be accredited in order for a college to accept a students' credits. This ensures consistency of what the students coming in with will know and thus making their job of providing the path towards a degree possible.

The latest realization that colleges are having to provide zero level courses which do not count towards any degree but still cost money - should be a wake up call to everyone concerned. What a waste of time. Most college bound students take the ACT or SAT their junior year - that should tell them where they have weaknesses and work on improving them before applying to colleges and taking entrance exams. Once again - it comes back to student and parent responsibility. Take advantage of the FREE education (ok, not free....but at least not having to make monthly payments in the thousands of dollars) that is being provided.

I thought maybe I missed something but I can't find what it is. Where did anyone suggest the parents that are involved in a school should be able to decide what would be taught in school?

As for the rest of your post, I think what you are speaking of is the problem. 70% of WV high school graduates who go to college have to take a remedial math class. 40 some % have to take a remedial English course. Of those who take science courses, 40some% of those take a remedial class and right on down to 12% having to take some sort of remedial course for time management planning. There's something seriously wrong with this picture and it seems like no one really wants to accept responsibility.

I won't say it's all the teachers fault but I know in the past 8 years I've had at least one kid in high school and of those 16 semesters, I've had kids struggling or making low grades in one course or another and NOT ONE TIME have I had a teacher request to talk to me. I've went to them but not once, including this year when I have a kid failing senior English because he didn't get his work in, have I had any teacher call me from Poca High School.

In fact, when I used to try and help, I was treated like I was a leper. Seems about all they wanted from me was my signature on a check so I hardly see how we can have both when teachers don't want parents involved past what they can provide monetarily.

Personally, if I had it to do over again, I would have went elsewhere but had I stayed here, I would have pushed for smarting out.

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:Parents get their input very directly and effectively- by electing the board of education that hires teachers, fires them, and otherwise manages the school system, as well as by electing the legislators who make the laws affecting education, and by electing the Circuit Court judges and the Supreme Court judges who more or less police how those laws are used. Do you want a different kind of school system? Then when enough voters agree to elect people who will make and manage the schools as you want them managed they will get elected and make it happen. There should be more measurable objectivity in being a public school teacher than winning or losing a popularity contest among the general public.

If that's the case then why do so many schools, educators, administrators and teacher union personnel bemoan the lack of parental involvement and input they receive?

Because parents owe their school age children more than just voting on election day.

For the good of the child, they owe guidance and support to the child and support to the child's school.

But you just said parents had all their input very directly and effectively- by electing the board of education that hires teachers, fires them, and otherwise manages the school system, as well as by electing the legislators who make the laws affecting education, and by electing the Circuit Court judges and the Supreme Court judges who more or less police how those laws are used.[/i]

I did not say that was all the input parents have. I said that it was direct and effective input. And it is.

So which is it, they get their input at the ballot boxes or they owe their support to their school because they have school aged children? Wouldn't their voting for the proper people be [i]for the good of the child?

It is both. But Stephanie had said that teachers aren't fired no matter how many complaints parents make against them. And that is true. And that is as it should be. Being or not being a teacher should not be a popularity contest. Teachers should be hired and/or fired through the system set up by law- which comes through the election process. If you want that changed, get enough voters to agree with you and it will be changed- by the elected legislature and by the elected school board.

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:
Parents get their input very directly and effectively- by electing the board of education that hires teachers, fires them, and otherwise manages the school system, as well as by electing the legislators who make the laws affecting education, and by electing the Circuit Court judges and the Supreme Court judges who more or less police how those laws are used. Do you want a different kind of school system? Then when enough voters agree to elect people who will make and manage the schools as you want them managed they will get elected and make it happen. There should be more measurable objectivity in being a public school teacher than winning or losing a popularity contest among the general public.

Thus more reasons for education to be done in the private sector.

So then who would "hire and fire" school personnel and make policy decisions for the private schools? A board of directors elected by stockholders? Whose interests would such a private sector governance be beholden to? The students, or the stockholders?

Would that be any worse then the current system which is beholden to teachers unions and if so, how?

Yes. Because there would be yet another set of stakeholders demanding their cut of the available cash flow for education- the stockholders.

If parents would get as organized as voters demanding that their interests be addressed and protected as well as teachers are organized demanding that their interests be addressed and protected, then the system would not be so "beholden to the teachers unions". But as it is, candidates for the legislature- which is where major changes would have to be made- know that teachers unions are organized politically far more than parents and the general public are organized politically. And so, politically, teachers have more political influence than the politically disorganized general public.

I am not sure that parents demanding the kinds of changes Stephanie has suggested here from time to time are enough of the voting public to make it happen. And they are not politically organized enough to effect the changes in school law that would achieve their goals. In saying that I am not trying to marginalize Stephanie. I think I could agree with a lot of what she tries to think about and propose here. But to make it happen will require more effective political organizing by the reformers than what I see happening.

ziggy wrote:But as it is, candidates for the legislature- which is where major changes would have to be made- know that teachers unions are organized politically far more than parents and the general public are organized politically. And so, politically, teachers have more political influence than the politically disorganized general public.

The bold statement is true only because teachers circumvent state law and serve in the legislature. Under the West Virginia Constitution, section 6-13 states,

Eligibility to seat in Legislature.

No person holding any other lucrative office or employment under this state, the United States, or any foreign government; no member of Congress; and no person who is sheriff, constable, or clerk of any court of record, shall be eligible to a seat in the Legislature.

Teachers are classified as county employees, thus they skirt this provision of the West Virginia Constitution. As all teachers in this state draw 90% or more of their salaries from the state, they are in reality state employees (even Phil Kabler admitted as much in an article a few months back), thus they should be ineligible to serve in the legislature. Were they ineligible to serve as they should be, they would not enjoy near the political influence they do.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:Would that be any worse then the current system which is beholden to teachers unions and if so, how?

Yes. Because there would be yet another set of stakeholders demanding their cut of the available cash flow for education- the stockholders.

And I submit that privatization would be much better for the student as the schools would compete for the dollar and as such would do their best to provide a superior product. As a result, the parent would take their dollars to the most successful schools with administrations and teachers willing to teach children and away from failing schools with poor teachers and poor administrators, which would eventually fail.

Charleston Catholic has had every single student accepted to college for 5 years running (I believe) while many public schools in Kanawha have 30% or more drop out rates, with huge failure rates. Imagine what would happen to the enrollment at CCHS if suddenly parents received their tax dollars to spend on the school of their choice.

Cato's right on this one, privatization would provide the best education for our children.

Cato's right on this one, privatization would provide the best education for our children.

If you all knew your history then you would know that was the origin of all public schooling.

Each community decided when they needed a school, built it and hired a Teacher for it.

And if they didn't think the Teacher was doing a good job they would fire him/her and hire another one.

But then the county/state weazeled it's way into the process and eventualy took total control over the schooling of children ......... and the rest is more current history.


.

Does Catholic High take special education students? Do they educate the more difficult students - defined either by behavior or educational disabilities? Do they have the mandate where they MUST educate any who show up at their door as long as they live in the catchment area?

When Catholic has to take ALL comers and not have the option of kicking ANY of them out - then talk to me.

Otherwise, you are comparing apples to kiwi fruits.

I have no idea Sasha. You can always look here.

What it doesn't tell you is that CCHS isn't in the habit of making excuses. They don't allow teachers to show Fivel Goes West in history class, Finding Nemo for a science class or The Apprentice for an Introduction to Management class.

And if they do take marginial kids, I'm sure they don't have 18 different categories in which they attempt to lump the students in an effort to get more money from the government.

I for one though, if I had a special education kid, wouldn’t enroll them in either Charleston Catholic or in West Virginia’s public school system. I would enroll them in a proven school environment like my brother attended when he went to Green Acres in Lesage, WV. If you look, there are many that do work with such children including private centers for independent living that are ran throughout the state.

No excuses - just reasons and pointing out differences between the fruits.

Is Green Acres a full-boarding school? Did your brother have to live there? Who paid for the tuition?

Your family being able to provide that for your brother, that's awesome. I wish that somehow all students who need that level of assistance could receive it without having to send the children away or paying extra out of pocket.

I know that "separate but equal" rarely works out in reality - but in some cases it only makes sense to consolidate (at least within a county) services so that less duplication of services goes on.

Green Acres is a full boarding school but they also have commuters as well, which is what my brother was. It was paid for by the WV department of education because Lincoln County schools couldn't provide the services he needed at the public school. That used to happen a great deal in the 70's, 80's and even into the 90's, before it became a money thang.

As the administrator from GA explained to us, years ago, schools got wind of how much money they were losing and that's when they started taking on, as you say, all comers. Were the motivation to educate those kids that would be fine but considering the fact that money is the reason the county school systems want these students, that's just wrong.

Believe it or not, I'm a supporter of teachers, especially good ones. I just hate the lousy ones and I hate what our school system has become. Changes need to be made and like it or not, privatization, whether it be in the form of vouchers or charter schools, would solve a great deal of these problems. Of course, so would the elimination of tenure and ridding schools of poor administrators, which I think is as much a problem as poor teachers, if not more.

I know of at least 3 teachers at Poca High School who are either going to other schools or looking to go to other schools because of the poor administration at Poca High School and all are good teachers. That's wrong as well.

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:But as it is, candidates for the legislature- which is where major changes would have to be made- know that teachers unions are organized politically far more than parents and the general public are organized politically. And so, politically, teachers have more political influence than the politically disorganized general public.

The bold statement is true only because teachers circumvent state law and serve in the legislature. Under the West Virginia Constitution, section 6-13 states,

Eligibility to seat in Legislature.

No person holding any other lucrative office or employment under this state, the United States, or any foreign government; no member of Congress; and no person who is sheriff, constable, or clerk of any court of record, shall be eligible to a seat in the Legislature.

Teachers are classified as county employees, thus they skirt this provision of the West Virginia Constitution. As all teachers in this state draw 90% or more of their salaries from the state, they are in reality state employees (even Phil Kabler admitted as much in an article a few months back), thus they should be ineligible to serve in the legislature. Were they ineligible to serve as they should be, they would not enjoy near the political influence they do.

While out riding today, another aspect of why teachers have so much control occurred to me. In all but the largest of counties, the County Board of Education, which masquerades as the employment agency for state employeed teachers is often, if not the largest, then one of the top 3 largest employers in the county and with that kind of influence and power, the BOE and their employees have a tremendous say in who is elected to local House and Senate seats.

With that kind of leverage combined with the fact that so many educators and former educators serve in the Legislature, it would be difficult at best to wrest control away from educators.

As much as it pains me to say this, about the only way to combat this type of control may very well be federally mandated programs like the ones eliminating poor administrators or for federal dollars to mandate charter schools.

You would be astounded (or maybe not) at how much money that sp. ed. pulls in, that ends up in the "general" budget.

If we were allowed to actually keep the money that we are given/reimbursed for, we could provide OUTSTANDING services to our special needs students.

Granted - some of it should go to the general budget - they are using the same facilities, cooks, janitors, and so on - but it's not proportional what is given to which budget.

I wish there was more input possible as to where budget moneys came and went to/from more than just what the board members rubber stamp.

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:
Parents get their input very directly and effectively- by electing the board of education that hires teachers, fires them, and otherwise manages the school system, as well as by electing the legislators who make the laws affecting education, and by electing the Circuit Court judges and the Supreme Court judges who more or less police how those laws are used. Do you want a different kind of school system? Then when enough voters agree to elect people who will make and manage the schools as you want them managed they will get elected and make it happen. There should be more measurable objectivity in being a public school teacher than winning or losing a popularity contest among the general public.

Thus more reasons for education to be done in the private sector.

So then who would "hire and fire" school personnel and make policy decisions for the private schools? A board of directors elected by stockholders? Whose interests would such a private sector governance be beholden to? The students, or the stockholders?

Somebody, anybody, other than a politician. As far as interests goes, it is the parent that is responsible for the child, thus they need to be involved in knowing what their child is being taught. Additionally, because of the rigor of competition, private schools would ultimately cater to providing the best possible education to the student. Afterall, that is how they stay in business.

For a different reason - I don't think that "currently employed as a teacher" teacher should serve as Legislators is this: they miss way too much classroom time.

I have only once ever asked a favor requesting a particular teacher (or not) when my youngest was going to kindergarten and that request was to AVOID a particular one because she was a Legislator. I knew how much school she missed and I didn't want that for my child.

A classroom should not be subjected to that level of disruption for that amount of time, year after year after year. It's ridiculous.

Could you imagine if your child's chemistry teacher missed that much school? Or trig teacher? Or foreign language teacher? There's very little chance you'd find a substitute with the certification, knowledge, and experience to be able to take over and teach as well for the length of time required so as to not interrupt the educational process.

ziggy wrote:

Parents get their input very directly and effectively- by electing the board of education that hires teachers, fires them, and otherwise manages the school system, as well as by electing the legislators who make the laws affecting education, and by electing the Circuit Court judges and the Supreme Court judges who more or less police how those laws are used. Do you want a different kind of school system? Then when enough voters agree to elect people who will make and manage the schools as you want them managed they will get elected and make it happen. There should be more measurable objectivity in being a public school teacher than winning or losing a popularity contest among the general public.

Wait, I'll be back in a few. I have to go dig out my waders. Man it's getting deep in here, Ziggy.

It is both. But Stephanie had said that teachers aren't fired no matter how many complaints parents make against them. And that is true. And that is as it should be. Being or not being a teacher should not be a popularity contest. Teachers should be hired and/or fired through the system set up by law- which comes through the election process. If you want that changed, get enough voters to agree with you and it will be changed- by the elected legislature and by the elected school board.

Stephanie says there are bad teachers who are NEVER fired. Apparently neither you or one of your children ever had one. There are people there drawing a paycheck. There are teachers who don't give a rat's ass about the students they are being paid to teach. What happened to the teacher caught on audio ABUSING 5 year olds at Buffalo Elementary School? WHAT HAPPENED? WHY SHOULD SHE KEEP HER JOB?

Once a teacher obtains tenure, they are NEVER fired. It is far too costly to fight the union. Teachers who are cruel to children, year after year keep their jobs. That's as it should be? Bullshit, Frank.

I'd bet my eye teeth Sasha has encountered teachers that don't belong in the classroom. She offers no suggestion for how to get rid of them. Parents have no input. Taxpayers should just continue to pay their salaries and their benefits and children should continue to be their victims. BULLSHIT.

Teaching isn't a popularity contest, Ziggy. You've got that right. But those children don't belong to the NEA or the AFT. Schools exist for the benefit of the students, not for the benefit of the teachers.

Few things irritate me more than insisting that the people who are paying their salaries and the people entrusting their children to their care should have NO SAY over the people who have such a HUGE impact on a child's life and future.

If parents would get as organized as voters demanding that their interests be addressed and protected as well as teachers are organized demanding that their interests be addressed and protected, then the system would not be so "beholden to the teachers unions". But as it is, candidates for the legislature- which is where major changes would have to be made- know that teachers unions are organized politically far more than parents and the general public are organized politically. And so, politically, teachers have more political influence than the politically disorganized general public.

Holy crap you've got my blood pressure boiling! You are a smart guy, Frank and you have been around LONG enough to realize the score. Teachers are very well organized, they have a union. As a matter of fact, even if you don't want to join a teacher's union, in many locations you still are required to pay union dues. So they have an unbelievable pool of money. Money for lobbyists and money for lawyers and money for advertising campaigns. PLUS they have our precious children for several hours a day for 13 freaking years.

Most people think Kathie Crouse is nuts for doing what she did and going up against her child's teacher. I quite agree. She proved (quite convincingly) that a public school teacher and a classroom aide were abusing Kindergarten students. After being roundly ignored by the building principal, she made copies for the parents of the other students and went public. WTH was that woman thinking?

The teacher and aide are still being paid. As a matter of fact, I've heard they've already been reassigned to another school. I'd have to check that out to be fact, but I don't doubt it. Meanwhile Kathie Crouse is made out to be a wingnut by a parent who went to the press and the school board wanting to know why the school wasn't "locked down" because in a fit of frustration she banged on a door. How many of the media reports surrounding that incident made mention of the fact that the parent doing the bitching is the daughter of the aide Crouse nailed for being mean to little kids?

wvsasha wrote:You would be astounded (or maybe not) at how much money that sp. ed. pulls in, that ends up in the "general" budget.

If we were allowed to actually keep the money that we are given/reimbursed for, we could provide OUTSTANDING services to our special needs students.

Granted - some of it should go to the general budget - they are using the same facilities, cooks, janitors, and so on - but it's not proportional what is given to which budget.

I wish there was more input possible as to where budget moneys came and went to/from more than just what the board members rubber stamp.

Sasha,

You're thinking again like somebody is out to "get" special education teachers and students. What Aaron says is absolutely true. School districts in RI did decide to offer services they weren't previously providing to save the cost of transporting them. In RI the local school district had to pay tuition to send a student elsewhere, PLUS transportation costs, but the whole funding scheme is so different there.

The whole push for least restrictive environment and mainstreaming and parents DEMANDING their children be serviced by the local school district had an impact too because those judges (who were appointed by and confirmed by the elected officials we all weighed in on at the ballot box before some of us were old enough to vote) combined with idiots in office trying to undo the sins of the past by creating new sins for the future made it that way.

This isn't about should students with special needs get an education. It's about how to best do that for them, without disrupting the learning process for EVERYBODY else.

Tell me, in the state of WV if a student requires some special device for school, who pays for it? In RI the local school district pays for it, or at least they did a decade ago. If the IEP says Johnny needs a laptop, Johnny gets a laptop courtesy of the local school district. Is that not the case here? We were always told over and over again by the Director of Special Education, the Superintendent of Schools and the district's attorney we would spend a lot of money in court and lose the battle if we didn't provide those items.

Students with physical handicaps, kids with feeding tubes or who require injections, are they not serviced by the local high school or middle school? I know from working on a public school district's budget for 4 years from 1996-2000, the funds the feds sent that district for special education never came close to the addtional money required to service them.

Students with physical handicaps, kids with feeding tubes or who require injections, are they not serviced by the local high school or middle school? I know from working on a public school district's budget for 4 years from 1996-2000, the funds the feds sent that district for special education never came close to the addtional money required to service them.

Those Special Ed and LD students cost the District anywhere from $20K to $80K+ per year which for 13 years of schooling would be $260,000 to $1,040,000 ...... and many aren't any smarter when their parent is given their Graduation Certificate than they were when they first entered Kindergartner. But the students that are capable of learning something only cost the District about $100K for 13 years of disruptive schooling before they are pushed out the door with a Diploma.

And most of those SE & LD students in the $25K to $40K cost range get turned over to the DHHS to be taken care of upon leaving school and who provides them with food, clothing, medical and housing from then on and the $40K+'ers get signed up for SSI and/or SSD.

Note: all stated figures are approximates or estimates, but all within reason.

Sam,

I keep coming back to your post and reading it and rereading it and trying to find the correct words to respond.

What would do you believe should be done for students with disabilities, and who do you think should pay for it?

I don't want to go back to the days when children with Down's or kids who are autistic are tossed in institutions where they languish without the services that improve their quality of life. They are human beings, they too are citizens of the United States of America.

These are the youngsters I truly believe the taxpayers should be helping to educate because that is where the need is. I don't think students who are violent, disruptive, or severly disabled should be in every public school. There should be a school for the deaf and a school for the blind and their need to be residential facilities like Green Acres where kids have the opportunity to reach their full potential.

The trouble isn't that they are educated so much as they receive all these services and allowed to collect full SSI or SSD all of their lives. Many of the folks you're calling 40K'ers can wash dishes or bag groceries and there are employers who will hire them because they tend to be reliable. The supermarket I shopped in back in RI had a guy that rode his bike to work every day to bag groceries and collect shopping carts. He was a great employee for that store. Everybody liked him, always friendly and courteous and he is so PROUD he has that job.

I see the problem as the government demanding everybody have a license to do just about everything. It's another fee (tax) for the government to collect and then spend and the unions love it because you need that high school diploma or GED to receive the training you need just to take the exam. There was a time when your electrician and your plumber and your barber learned their trade by working an apprenticeship. Years ago a lot of the kids that are disruptive today would have dropped out of high school and gone to work as an apprentice somewhere.

Compulsory attendance laws are the trouble. What good is it to force a student who doesn't want to be in school to remain just based upon the fact that he or she is a minor? I'll tell you what good it is......NONE

A 16 y/o boy down the road was sent to some juvenile correctional facility down in Beckley because he refused to go to school earlier this month. No doubt about it, CJ is defiant when it comes to authority figures, but he doesn't commit acts of violent crime. What do the courts and Putnam County school officials think is going to happen as a result of this? They're going to turn him into a criminal because he surely isn't going to graduate high school. There is no way he is going to remain in that school for another 3 years to get a diploma after his release, but he may return long enough to avoid further incarceration. What a waste of resources, what a waste of a childhood.

Stephanie wrote:Sam,

I keep coming back to your post and reading it and rereading it and trying to find the correct words to respond.

What would do you believe should be done for students with disabilities, and who do you think should pay for it?

What a waste of resources, what a waste of a childhood.

Steph, the Schools are using those students as "Cash Cows" and that's because the Feds and the State are throwing the "cash" at them.

And the 1st thing I don't believe should be done is ...... Inclusion of any children that are disruptive, uncontrollable, incapacitated and/or requires a full-time Teacher or Aide to be with and care for them every minute they are at the school. Those lastly so noted are the ones that cost $80K+-/year and nothing educational is achieved.

Each School System could establish a Special Education room or two and instead of having a dozen Special Ed Teachers and 3 or 4 Babysitting Teachers ............. they could have 2 or 3 Special Ed Teachers and a dozen Aides taking care of them ...... and probably accomplish more with those children than they are now.

And for sure, it would be better for the "learning" of the other students in the schools.

Special Ed Teachers should be trained how to handle those LD students, ..... not trained in how to teach them Algebra, Calculus, Bookkeeping, English Literature, Biology, etc. ........ because it ain't gonna happen.

Now it is impossible to teach a Pekinese pooch to chase foxes and the sooner everyone realizes that the better off everyone will be, including the pooch.

Now the DHHS or whoever once rented an apartment off my buddy one time for a young couple, neither over 21 I don't believe, who were both LDs, paid all their expenses for everything, a Case Worker that paid their bills, etc., etc. .... and the only thing the boy did when living there was sit out on the sidewalk on his butt with a hammer ....... and straightened out old rusty nails he would pick up around the building or wherever.