I don't know how many education myths we've poked holes in here at the Tiger. To be honest, I've lost count. Let's say we're on #54. Autism.
Not a myth. It's real. The number of students that we are schooling with autism, as a percentage, has rapidly climbed in the recent past.
The myth is its effect on education spending. The new report that was covered in the Rutland Herald this last week seems to imply that it is a large financial burden. (I sure would like to see the actual report, because we know that Rutland Herald/Vermont Press Bureau coverage can be, well, a bit off sometimes. But the Agency of Human Services hasn't put a report on its website since 2006.)
There are 386 students in Vermont's public schools who are categorized as "autistic." They run the gamut from severe and cost-intensive to mild and relatively independent. The Department of Education makes no effort to distinguish among students at various places on the autism spectrum in the data. And, Lord knows, they probably have enough to do. At least they keep their website full of reports.
The latest data available from the Department of Education shows a net increase of four autistic students -- possibly mild cases -- from 2005 to 2006. That same year, special education expenses increased $13 million. Autism is not the cost driver that it is made out to be.
Who has actually said that autism is the real cost driver behind special education? Did I miss something here?
What do you think are the real cost drivers behind special education then? Do you even teach special education?
Posted by: Mister Guy | January 26, 2008 at 01:15 PM
"Who has actually said that autism is the real cost driver behind special education?"
First of all, I didn't say it was the only one or even the main one that's talked about. But it is very often talked about as a cost driver (which is a nice way of saying an excuse).
Every meeting ever held on special education finance inevitably turns to autism. The cost of autism was a key finding in the JFO report of 2001.
In the Herald article Thursday, it said: "According to LaWare's introduction message in the report, $57 million is a conservative estimate of what the state spends, excluding medical services, per year to serve the 700 identified Vermonters under the ASD umbrella. That is a cost of approximately $82,000 per person." I'd say, intuitively, that it would be a very liberal estimate, because it's very probable that most of those 700 people are not severely autistic. In the last couple of days I have spoken to experts from other states who think $82,000 per autistic person is a ridiculous figure.
"Do you even teach special education?"
Absolutely. I teach more special education than "special educators" do. I sit on IEP teams, and I carry out IEPs. I and other classroom teachers are the ones that carry out all the accommodations and modifications that are written into the students' plans. And I've done it for 21 years.
But because I haven't been indoctrinated by the special education professors at the local college, I can look at the issues a bit more objectively. And because I take the extra step to make a few phone calls and talk to key people, I don't have to just take the word of people whose main source of credibility is that they work in Montpelier.
Posted by: Curtis Hier | January 26, 2008 at 06:12 PM
I'm sorry. I neglected to answer one of Mr. G's questions.
"What do you think are the real cost drivers behind special education then?"
Parkinson's Law.
Posted by: Curtis Hier | January 26, 2008 at 06:14 PM
Come on...labelling something a cost driver (if it's an accurate description) is not just labelling something as an "excuse". It's about getting to the root causes of the problem (if you happen to think that the amount of money spent overall is a problem in the first place) in order to solve them more effectively.
Well, my Mom used to sit in on IEP development at her schools, and her area of expertise was just reading. Just because you sit in on IEPs doesn't mean your a special education expert IMO. I think almost all teachers carry out IEPs...so what? Aren't you just a high school social studies teacher? You'll forgive me if I'm wrong on that.
"But because I haven't been indoctrinated by the special education professors at the local college"
Well, this just confirms my above suspicion that you just have a pointed position on the matter, which is fine. I agree though that the further up the chain in management/supervision that you get from the "problem"...the harder it is for those people to solve the problem.
Your "Parkinson's Law" quip (the demand upon a resource always expands to match the supply of the resource?) leads me to believe that you might not think that special education is necessary at all or at least that it's not very effective. Do you suggest just mainstreaming all the "special-ed" kids then? What's you solution to the rising costs of special ed? Wouldn't it be nice if the federal govt. lived up to it's end of the special ed bargin?
Posted by: Mister Guy | January 26, 2008 at 08:40 PM
"Come on...labelling something a cost driver (if it's an accurate description) is not just labelling something as an 'excuse'."
It depends on who you are and what your motives are. VTNEA, VSBA, and VSA sit on the working groups of every governmnet-sponsored study. They are eager to find excuses that they can call "cost drivers" because they really don't want less money and less staff. It would hit them, especially VTNEA, directly in the pocketbook.
You aked me what I thought was the cost driver, and I told you. It wasn't a quip.
I am for inclusion, by the way. And I don't have a particular problem with IDEA. But, see, we have the highest percentage of instuctional aides out of total staff of any state in the country. Number one. Numero uno. And our percentage is WAY above the national average. We are also number one lowest in pupil per special education staff. Not two. Not three. Not close to the top. Top. I'll give you the link to the U.S. Dept of Ed data, if you'd like.
We can't blame the federal government for our spending habits. Other states are spending much less per capita. And we're getting absolutely nowhere in our special ed. outcomes. I can give you data there too.
Other states aren't as NEA-dominated as we are. VTNEA is a cost driver.
My solution? Ah. You'll see. Stay tuned to the Tiger.
Posted by: Curtis Hier | January 27, 2008 at 08:55 AM
Excuse me- the cost of sped is going up, and as caregiver to Autistic son- he is regular classroom with support- either small group or 1:1- the real kids that are driving sped up are the ones that CAN'T SIT, TALK BACK, REFUSE TO DO WORK- and those are not the majority of Autistic kids. It's the UNDIAGNOSED ones...that is what is pushing costs up!
Posted by: GBJ | January 27, 2008 at 04:52 PM
Special education is in a scandalous state nationwide. An excellent article, "Revamping Special Education," by Wade F. Horn, is available online. Just google the title; it's the first thing to come up.
Posted by: Jon Harrison | January 27, 2008 at 05:22 PM
What you're really running into here with me, not that you should care, is the concept of complaining without offering a solution. You didn't like the Rutland Herald article, fine. Complaining without offering solutions is, by definition I think, whining. I view problems as opportunities to excel above and beyond the staus quo. I actually *like* solving problems.
I hope your solution isn't getting rid of the VTNEA and/or simply having the public vote a few more times on school budgets. You sound like you have one of only a very few tunes to sing on the issue of education.
It can't be that simple to just get rid of non-teaching positions in the state and be done with the problem. I've already stated that I'm for more school district consolidation and more reasonable student-teacher ratios.
I don't claim to know everything about special education. I'm not a teacher...I just know a bunch of teachers personally. What I do know isn't very heartening though. A lot of special educators seem to do very little with a small group of very needy kids. The system isn't fully funded from the federal level like it should be. Jeezum Jim, from your neck of the woods Mr. Hier, tried and tried to correct that with little success. Surely, if the feds kicked in the money that they should that would help out *all* the states.
Posted by: Mister Guy | January 27, 2008 at 08:28 PM
"I actually *like* solving problems."
If that's the case, you'll be patient. I have a solution. It's forthcoming. I'm not running for anything, so this isn't a campaign trick or anything.
Good ideas take time to develop, articulate, package, get key people on board and willing to help pitch to the public, then unveil. I would never complain about something without a solution. Never have. Never will.
Posted by: Curtis Hier | January 28, 2008 at 07:18 AM
I'll be waiting with bated breath Mr. Hier...
Posted by: Mister Guy | January 28, 2008 at 07:46 AM