Skip to main content

View Diary: Romney's radical plan for Title I and IDEA (63 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Given the expense of educating (15+ / 0-)

    children with disabilities, including aides for inclusion in mainstream classrooms, this "money follows the child" will condemn most children to cut-rate online programs--unless the parents can afford to pony up the difference and find a private school willing to take the child.

    Given the R's division of the country's population into makers and moochers, I suspect this is just an effort to push persons with disabilities out of sight and to the margins--the way we were treated until about 30 years ago.

    •  You may be on to something. (9+ / 0-)

      Republicans have been quietly pushing for clauses in education laws guaranteeing that online education must not be excluded from this or that funding opportunity. I'd bet $10,000 that it's mostly for-profits wanting to "educate" kids online. I imagine you could set up a program pretty cheaply, then just sit back and watch the profits roll in. No need for an actual, trained, pesky, unionized human teacher to interact with students or individualize her teaching for each student in her class.

    •  Yep. I have encountered more than one right (10+ / 0-)

      winger who resents the fact that money is getting spent on special needs kids--they see it as taking money away from regular ed kids. This is a way to forced special needs students out of the public schools. The same sort of people also resent the fact that these children are often eligible for medicaid and SSI.

      •  The kids with highest needs (10+ / 0-)

        won't have anywhere to go. Whatever meager voucher amount Mitt deems them worthy of will not be even close to covering the cost of putting them in a charter or private school, and the loss of Title I and IDEA funds from the public schools will make it harder for them to be served there. It's despicable.

      •  Are these same people right to lifers? I would (8+ / 0-)

        ask them if they are saying that they would have preferred that these children have been aborted.  If they say no of course not, then our duty is clear to educate and support these children in every way we can.  

        •  Suffering after birth is of no concern to the anti (4+ / 0-)

          Choice people. Take that first breath, and you're on your own, kid.

          "'s difficult to imagine what else Republicans can do to drive women away in 2012, unless they decide to bring back witch-hanging. And I wouldn't put it past them." James Wolcott

          by Mayfly on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 07:51:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I never really got that. Is the assumption (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Mayfly, Leap Year

            that we're "sinners" the moment we're born?

            •  Exactly Deejay Lyn! That's why the anti-choice (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Leap Year

              people specify that they "...defend innocent human life."

              Innocent is the key word.  After a person is born, he/she is tainted with "original sin."

              Their crusade costs them no contribution and no sacrifice, because the only life they champion is one encased in a womb. (The womb, of course is of no consequence--being just a vessel for the "innocent human life.")

              The whole concept is a holier-than-thou freebe.

              "'s difficult to imagine what else Republicans can do to drive women away in 2012, unless they decide to bring back witch-hanging. And I wouldn't put it past them." James Wolcott

              by Mayfly on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 11:27:48 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The "pro-life" position ends at conception. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Leap Year, Mayfly

                If the anti-choicers really thought fetuses were innocent miniature humans, they would not be opposed to WIC, Medicaid, and other programs that see to the health of the fetus.

                The purpose of the anti-choice movement is subjugation of women, pure and simple. If some fetuses then never reach birth, or are born to suffering when it could have been avoided, somehow this is all well and good in their twisted little minds.

                Just because you're not a drummer doesn't mean that you don't have to keep time. -- T. Monk

                by susanala on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 02:05:03 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  schools already have to pay huge fees (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Temmoku, JanL, Mayfly, Leap Year, ladybug53

      when a kid has unique disabilities that require an outside school, sometimes close to 100k a year plus transportation. I don't see the feds coughing that up ( yet the school district is obliged under the law ) and it's just another stupid ass thing they come up with on the right which is not thought throuhg, butmanages to hurt the public schools.

      •  There have been lots (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Deejay Lyn, ladybug53, Bernie68

        of unfunded mandates - like the kind of case you mention, under IDEA, and also many of the NCLB measures. Schools must comply with these federal laws, but aren't given the funds to do so. I'm sure the right wing anti-taxers love to see how this is slowly squeezing the life out of public schools. And many states (like my own) are cutting school funding, even as the student-age population increases. It's a recipe for disaster, all due to idiocy and greed.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site