Deseret News | Education ruling worrisome

Reader comments
In our opinion: Education ruling worrisome

OK | 6:50 a.m. June 29, 2009

When are we going to demand that the archaic way our schools are funded be replaced by new, robust funding / teaching methods that recognize the needs of our children in the world in which we live?

We focus on wrong groups | 7:28 a.m. June 29, 2009

If special consideration is to be given, it ought to be to exceptional students at the upper end, not at the lower end, raising standards for all students.

Our school system caters to special ed and those in the lower middle.

The return would be higher if we would raise standards across the board, and focus high standard teaching, not low standard teaching.

Anonymous | 8:02 a.m. June 29, 2009

I believe parents know what is best for their children. Not the state. The supreme court just reaffirmed that truth.

Over the past 15 years we did replace the" archaic system" with a system that claimed "robust funding/teaching methods and recognize the needs of our children in the world in which we live." This is how it was implemented:

1. 100% of all personal and corporate income tax in Utah goes to fund public schools.

2. Brigham Young University partnered with Utah schools to implement Social Constructivist Pedagogy. That is now the foundation of the educational philosophy in Utah. The philosophy is built around the concept that all knowledge is relative. There are no absolutes.

3. The public school monopoly was strengthened in Utah, creating one of the lowest private school rates in the nation.

The result is a state that is below the national average in most everything except dance and music. Our children excel as idols but are dunces when it comes to math and sciences.

Comments continue below

freedom | 8:30 a.m. June 29, 2009

What they fear most is freedom to choose. Pro choice is good, in this instance.

Voice of Reason | 10:18 a.m. June 29, 2009

Why, oh why must parents FIRST "try the public schools", if they know the best education for their child will be with private schools? Do we want to publicy fund the best education money can buy for our children, or do we want to publicly fund public schools? What's the goal here? I know it's hard for NEA jobs-for-life types to understand, but those two goals are NOT always the same.

The easy way to address the concern of higher costs is to simply limit the amount parents can use for private schools to what the State can afford.

Rosemary N. Palmer | 11:59 a.m. June 29, 2009

The media reporting of this case is incomplete. In the specific case, the school district refused to identify the student as disabled and give appropriate services over a period of years. Then they argued that they should be rewarded for their refusal by the court finding that since they hadn't given the student services, the parents could not get reimbursement for the placement they found that did provide the services.

The only people who argue that this decision is unfair or will drain critical public resources are those who are ill informed. In order for any parent to prevail in these cases and get reimbursement, they have the burden of proving that the student was disabled and the SD failed to offer free appropriate public education. That is not an insignificant burden to meet.

Rosemary N. Palmer | 12:01 p.m. June 29, 2009

Continuation:
If the decision prompts more schools to offer free appropriate public education, then it will SAVE our communities' resources in the long run since those students with disabilities who do not receive appropriate services end up disproportionately on public assistance, in mental health and substance abuse treatment, and even in prison ----AND the state doesn't get the benefit of their productive labor and tax payments that does occur when students are appropriately educated.

Utah Dem | 12:30 p.m. June 29, 2009

To Voice of Reason - from the Washington Post -
"The issue before the court is over two parts of the federal Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. First, the act guarantees a free, appropriate public education to "all children with disabilities." But a 1997 amendment to the act specified tuition reimbursement for students who "previously received special education and related services."
Until this service is offered parents cannot receive reimbursement.
Rosemary - not sure the district failed this kid as much as the parents did - junior in high school before testing was done - didn't they live with him? Why wait 11 or 12 years before testing? Then the parents placed the kid in a $5,200 per month school; then asked for reimbursement from the school district.

Matt | 3:51 p.m. June 29, 2009

"In a state with the lowest per-pupil funding in the nation, there's just cause for concern when the possibility exists to further dilute those resources."

Not all funding is worth it. As a state, we should be as self-reliant as possible and not accept federal funding, especially when there are strings attached to it. No money is "free" money.

Voice of Reason | 4:09 p.m. June 29, 2009

Utah Dem,

I don't doubt your claim that the law requires this lady to try the public schools first.

However, but considering the record of too many public school districts on educating students with special needs, it is not a reasonable presumption to assume that the public school is automatically the better option, and should always be the first choice. The first choice should be the BEST choice - that may be a public school, and it may not. Unsurprisingly, the best choice may be more expensive . . . with obvious limits on what we as a society can literally afford, of course. Nobody's saying special needs children should be personally tutored by hyper-expensive therapists. But where it's reasonably affordable, the best choice should be the only choice-even if it costs more.

Utah Dem | 6:18 p.m. June 29, 2009

Our courts made public education the first choice in cases such as the Forest Grove case; to change anything one would have to plead to the Congress to change the law. If a child can be 'controlled' with medications to become teachable why is a private school superior to any other?

Having worked indirectly with public schools and being a parent I do not believe most parents know what is best for their child; these Forest Grove parents certainly didn't.

RE.7:28 | 8:21 p.m. June 29, 2009

"Our school system caters to special ed and those in the lower middle."
This is true. Because some parents are too lazy to read to their kids or have them read a book or won't turn off the TV, or break the X-Box the rest of us and our kids get short changed. Leave the lazy bums behind I say. In Utah, if a child gets left behind it is the parents fault. Just check what the difference in spending is between funding for Gifted and Talented and Special Education. I think it would amaze you all.

Voice of Reason | 8:55 p.m. June 29, 2009

Utah Dem,

I am actually from Forest Grove, so this hits close to home. You seem to be thinking that because certain professionals are better than most parents at diagnosing and treating certain high-maintenance handicaps (certainly true), that means parents are not in a position to make the best informed decisions on where their children should be schooled. No one cares about the future of a child more than his/her parents. No one, including professionals, knows them better as individuals and what kind of environment is going to be best for them. Professionals are clearly of immense help in advising parents on their decision of what kind of care they need, but they are often useless-sometimes worse than useless-in deciding whether a child should go to public school A vs. private school B when both are certified, qualified, and capable. Which one should a child go to? That can only be a parent's decision in the end.

Voice of Reason | 8:59 p.m. June 29, 2009

One more thing, Utah Dem -
YOu seem to be repeating mainly the purely legal argument that these parents HAD to, by law, try the public schools first. Probably very true, I don't know. I am arguing more important overarching issue of parental responsibility. We don't want government raising children. Providing expertise to assist, yet - but we do NOT want government forcing parents to pick a certain school for political reasons when another may be the better choice for that child. Leave it up to parents, as long as the schools are certified, qualified and capable.

re RE.7:28 | 8:21 p.m. June 29, | 12:32 a.m. June 30, 2009

I voted against vouchers, I now regret my vote. I have pleaded with my district officials to raise standards in math education. I pleaded, if you wont raise standards across the board in Geometry, at least offer honors classes which will bring standards back to what they used to be before the dumbing down. They will not, they "don't see" there is a problem.

If we move totally to private schools or charter schools, then at least people will have a choice.

I do have a choice now, I supplement my kids at home, but I wish I didn't have to, at least not to the extent that I do.

I support Unions, I support Utah teachers, but I don't support mediocrity which is what we are being given. If I have to chose, I will come down on the side of fulfilling the needs of students and families who desire a quality education for their children.

Private School | 8:49 a.m. July 1, 2009

After the housing expense, the biggest item on the family budget was the private school tuition. The best money this family ever spent.

Constantly amazed.... | 11:37 a.m. July 1, 2009

at how many states claim to have the lowest per capita school spending. Oh they are so deprived! South Carolina was involved in a lawsuit over their supposed not accepting "stimulus money" since their schools were in last place. I am sure I could find 10 more states making the same claim. Performance is very seldom spending based. Give families choice, then we will see increased performance!

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.