Please take a look at Mr. Paterno’s personal blog, unabashedly connected through his child psychologist website, in which he raves about how we should reduce spending on special ed because it’s not fair to the average and gifted, how parents should spank their kids more, how parents should control education (read: put sex ed back in the school yard and alley where they belong), how public education is a liberal plot to teach liberal values (what? such as that radical assumption that all men are created equal? that the earth is round and is not 5,000 years old?)

If you want the JOhn Bircher types running D64, Paterno’s your guy. Shame on you, Bob. Being cheap is not the key driver for everything.

EDITOR’S NOTE: This editor has first-hand experience with special ed – including the sometimes gross incompetence of D-64’s administration of it, and the waste of countless taxpayer dollars because of that incompetence – and will match his support of special ed against anybody in this community. And we’ve never advocated “cheap” over good, or over value.

Although Dr. Paterno properly notes the expense of special ed relative to the number of children it serves, we have seen and heard nothing from him that indicates he is advocating that D-64 “reduce spending on special ed” – even though his opponents seem intent on engaging in that and other (e.g., “John Bircher types”) such demagoguery.

But since you appear to consider schools as sociology experiments rather than educational service providers, we can understand how you would focus your comments on extrinsic social issues while D-64’s educational quality continues to stagnate (if not decline) by objective measures as the D-64 administration and school board continue to rearrange deck chairs and play “Nearer My God To Thee.”

OK fair enough…on the one hand you say he has a ….”willingness to address tough issues like the cost-benefit equation for D-64’s traditional special education programs, which he correctly notes are “enormously expensive” for the relatively small number of students served” and on the other you say….”we have seen and heard nothing from him that indicates he is advocating that D-64 “reduce spending on special ed”.

So do tell what the hell exactly does he want to do??? He notes it, and has a willingness to address it yet he does not want to cut spending?? Gee, we are spending a lot of money on this and I do not want to cut spending??

So what exactly does he want to do. If he feels this is an issue how exactly would he like to improve it.

By the way 10:34, thanks for mentioning the blog. I will look for it and read it myself to see if what you have claimed is true.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We assume he wants to do what he said he wants to do: examine the special ed curriculum and services to determine if they could be improved. Whether that improvement will cost more or less remains to be seen, but we would sure expect it to cost less.

Frankly, from this editor’s firsthand knowledge of D-64 special ed going back almost 20 years and continuing to the present, there is far too much negligence, ineffectiveness and outright waste shrouded in secrecy that not only robs the taxpayers of their money but, worse yet, robs the kids of their time, their effort and, effectively, their youth.

Meanwhile, D-64 tends to keep pounding the same square pegs into the same round holes. And as with so many other of its activities, real measurable achievement is given the back of the hand – unless its favorable and useful for propaganda value.

I’d be interested to hear more about these special ed issues. My son has an IEP and he has absolutely thrived since we moved into D64, with just the right level of support that has gradually decreased over time, which is how I believe it’s supposed to work. I feel like I’ve had a lot of input into the process, but that those in charge were absolutely competent. I’d like to think our experience has been typical for a special ed kid but maybe it isn’t.

EDITOR’S NOTE: What you describe is, indeed, how it’s supposed to work. From what we understand, however, all such experiences are not equal. And people’s view of what they get here is also colored, sometimes substantially, by what they had where they came from.

One thing that D-64 is loathe to disclose, however, is the cost of special ed services provided during regular school hours; and it is even more loathe to disclose the cost of supplemental or remedial services (e.g., during the summer) to compensate for insufficient/ineffective in-school service. And we understand D-64 still farms out some special ed students to other schools (usually private, and usually a lot more expensive than D-64’s cost per special ed pupil). And it had been, and may still be, common practice for such supplemental or remedial to be agreed to under a promise of confidentiality; i.e., we’ll give them to you if you don’t tell anybody, because we don’t want more people asking for them.

I can answer a couple of Mr. Anon’s and Ms. Anonymous’s questions.

One of my fantastic ideas mimics something other school districts have done with stupendous success: building, training, and utilizing a volunteer “army” of parents, high school students (from our highly praised D207 schools), college students, and retired persons to assist struggling students with the basics of reading, writing, and math, as well as assisting with homework.

Man (woman) power is at a premium when it comes to helping children learn phonemic awareness, math facts, and other basics that are often deficient in children with learning disabilities. Summers and after-school programs (like homework clubs) could take advantage of many willing volunteers. We have a wealth of free labor at our disposal that into which we have failed to tap.

In fact, some children would be able to improve significantly enough on math, reading, or writing skills that they would no longer have a disability. That’s right, learning disabilities CAN BE eradicated (cured, fixed, healed). Graduating some children out of special education would free up education dollars and teacher hours for other special education students and/or be used for those students who don’t qualify for special education but are falling through the cracks (there are many of those in our district).

If we are creative and committed, we can both improve special education services AND cut costs. Increased funding is not a necessary condition for success.

Not specifically related to special education, but equally relevant, volunteers could and should be manning (OK, “womaning” for the PC crowd) lunch duty and other jobs. We shouldn’t have to pay for those services.

Second, intimating that I would “put sex ed back in the school yard and alley where they belong” is either disingenuous or profoundly ignorant, because I have never suggested anything like that. Let’s try an equally preposterous straw man: apparently you don’t want parents to have ANY role in their child’s education and believe the Benevolent state should teach all things scientific and moral. See how silly that sounds? That’s because it is. So are your suggestions/presumptions of my views.

After reading Dathan’s blog, where he states that he endorses a BRING YOUR FINGER GUN TO SCHOOL DAY This is a very disturbing endorsment from someone who wants to be on our school board. In addition he says THE ADMINISTRATORS WHO SUSPENDED THE 7 YEAR OLD POP TART GUN BOY, SHOULD BE FIRED. I find this equally disturbing. Mr. Paterno wants to be on the D64 school board, is he going to be encouraging GUN play at our schools? Is he going rant that our administrators need to be fired when he disagrees with one of their decisions?

EDITOR’S NOTE: You find finger guns “very disturbing”? Seriously? You consider finger guns “GUN play”? Seriously?

Wow!

If a D-64 administrator were to suspend a 7 year old boy solely for “shooting” a finger gun, we would hope that EVERY member of the D-64 Board would publicly question the sanity, the competence and the total lack of common sense of whatever unhinged adminstrator imposed the suspension, and of every other administrator who sanctioned it.

Yes, imaginary gun play is a very healthy and normal behavior pattern for boys–something that Dr. Meg Meeker eloquently addresses in Boys Should Be Boys. Shaming boys for what is normal is not only inappropriate, it is borderline abusive. I think anyone with a 4th Grade reading comprehension level could ascertain that I was being facetious in my suggestion, but my point stands.

WOW is right. finger guns are not dangerous, But for a PROFESSIONAL in the child psychology field, and a school board candidate, to recommend any type of “gun”, wether finger, or pop tart , to be brought TO SCHOOL !!!! is ridiculous, irresponsible, insensitive and down right bizarre. With all the mass shootings that have been going on at schools through out the country, kids should be taught that this type of behavior is not acceptable at school !! PERIOD.

EDITOR’S NOTE: You do realize, don’t you, Concerned, that so long as these kids bring their hands to school with them, the finger guns come along with them?

You DO understand that, right?

FINGER GUNS ARE NOT DISTURBING, ITS KIDS PLAY, CLEARLY. THE POINT IS THAT THIS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED IN SCHOOL. FINGER GUNS AT SCHOOL, POINTED AT OTHER KIDS, TEACHERS, ADMINISTRATORS, ECT. IS VERY DISTURBING. AND SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED. AND WHEN A KID GET TOLD THAT ITS NOT ACCEPTABLE AND THE KID CONTINUES, THE DISCIPLINARY ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN.

EDITOR’S NOTE: HOW ABOUT FINGER GUNS AT HOME? IN CHURCH? IN THE JEWEL?

What if we just ban finger guns with large capacity magazines? WOULD THAT WORK FOR YOU?

i think the point was “finger gun TO SCHOOL DAY”. finger guns are not dangerous but what is disturbing is that a school board candidate endorses a bring your finger gun TO SCHOOL day. finger guns should be saved for home and the back yard, not at school, and not encouraged by a potential school board member.

EDITOR’S NOTE: What if they are registered and the owner has a permit?

The point is GUNS AT SCHOOL ! weather finger, poptart, paper, or otherwise, they should not be AT SCHOOL. What Dr. Meeker doesn’t address, is guns at school. You are right, kids should not be shamed for normal play. What is disturbing, is the FACT that you encourage GUN PLAY, AT SCHOOL. And what I did was read over and over, is that you agree with gun play at school.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Wow, you sure have had a full day today. You must be exhausted. Time for your attendant to take you back to the home. And just maybe, if you eat all your vegetables and don’t wipe your mouth on your sleeve, the nice people there will let you have some green jello with fruit cocktail in it.

very funny, Bob. Your kids are grown. I’m a believer in boys being boys but when you read Mr. Paterno’s views in their entirety it’s clear he’s longing for the good old days when “boys will be boys” covered a multitude of sins.

Ain’t happenin.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Finger guns don’t kill people; even people WITH finger guns don’t kill people; and even people with UNREGISTERED finger guns don’t kill people.

As far as whether Dr. Paterno or anyone else truly is “longing for the good old days when ‘boys will be boys,'” are you suggesting that you would prefer that (borrowing a lyric from Ray Davies) “girls will be boys and boys will be girls”?

My point is that imaginary gun play is utterly healthy. So is dressing Barbies. Both can be disallowed at school, but neither should be shamed or punished. If a 1st Grader goes “bang bang” with his finger or a pop tart, the teacher should simply remind little Jimmy, “You can do that at home, but it’s not appropriate during school time.” No punishment, no shame, no concern for the child’s future violent tendencies.

If a child happened to “get away with” some gun play at school, no one would be hurt by it, so in that regard, I’m “for” gun play at school. I’m also for teachers putting reasonable limits on it.

Leave the kids alone. They’re playing!

EDITOR’S NOTE: Er…Dr. Paterno, you did mean finger “gun play,” right?

Be careful now!! Someone might take those words (just those words and no context) and use it as a theme for an entire convention!!!

EDITOR’S NOTE: Or a line of t-shirts. Or a new organization: MAGPI[E]S (“Mothers Against Gun Play In Schools”)

Yes, Mr. Editor, I meant finger gun play, although I also support sticks on the playground being used as “laser guns”, whole arms being used as “cannons” or “antiaircraft weapons”, and paper towel rolls being used as “tank guns”. It’s all healthy fun.

I’m not for the bygone days where “boys being boys” covered a multitude of sins. Please refer to other blog posts of mine where I sufficiently dispel that nonsense. If you know anything about me, I’m completely against that good ol’ boy culture. That being said, pretend gun play is not a sin, so it needn’t be covered at all.

Seems to me teaching kids (and adults) that there’s a time and a place for everything is key to being self-expressed while living in society. Freaking out isn’t the answer but neither is turning a blind eye. I’m still troubled by Mr. Paterno’s belief that some kids with IEP’s don’t need them and that it’s a waste of money to provide special ed at the levels we do. The world is designed for the average and the gifted will make their way, but if they’re gifted and LD, which happens, and nothing’s done to address it, that’s when finger guns sometimes turn real. And the notion that LD can be cured by well-meaning volunteers may hold merit, but who wants to tutor for free these days? And who’s to determine whether the tutoring skill is the kind needed for a special-needs learner? If the plain vanilla model doesn’t work in our well-funded, smallish classroom settings, why would an even less trained volunteer have better results? One on one is ideal, but only if they know what they’re doing. And as we all know, being good at something has zero correlation to being good at teaching that something.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Please direct us to the source authority for your contention that Dr. Paterno has said the things you accuse him of saying.

“[W]ho wants to tutor for free these days?” How about all those high school kids that need “service” hours to graduate? Or, better yet, Kate Kerin and all those Teen Center adult “volunteers” who’ll have nothing to do on weekends after the Teen Center closes at the end of this month?

you are right about the healthy fun, playing arm cannon, and laser stick, the issue is IS THIS APPROPRIATE AT SCHOOL ? and what do you do when little jimmy continues to finger shoot , or arm cannon shoot at school? what about when little jimmy tells you to F*^&-off!? what does a school board member do then? especially when he finds this acceptable healthy behavor.

EDITOR’S NOTE: What you do “when little jimmy tells you to F*^&-off” after you tell him to lose the finger gun? The same thing you would do if he told you to “F*^&-off” after you told him to stop singing the Ode to Joy from Beethoven’s 9th in its original German.

Really, Zippy, you’ve got to start making these questions a little tougher.

Elementary school is more supportive of the conventional feminine model of behavior which has unfortunate ramifications for both boys and girls. Street-smart and book-smart should be all of a piece, and in modern society, they’re not. However, few men want to teach at the elementary school level due to the lack of prestige (any field dominated by women is, ipso facto, less prestigious) and the lower pay. We need more men as thinking role models for boys in the early grades, but now we’re back to the M-word issue: Money. If the economy stays troubled for the 99% more men may get into grade school teaching. But more hands-on, experiential learning styles should be incorporated either way.

EDITOR’S NOTE: What, you don’t think our kids learn street smarts roaming the mean streets of Park Ridge?

As we understand it, there are plenty of young men in the Teach for America program. Maybe a 2-3-4 year teaching “career” would attract some bright, enthusiastic and altruistic young men who would be happy to earn the D-64 $45,000 minimum wage with benefits for a few years before they move on to an MBA, JD, or other program. And who knows: maybe a few of them might just stay.

Volunteers should not be manning or womanning the lunch hour-the D64 paid teachers should be. This is how many other school districts handle the lunch period for the students-teachers have a rotating schedule through out the year. Given how many paid educators-and administrators-there are in the building-volunteers for this duty are not needed.

Thank you for providing this information about the candidates for the D207, D64 and PRPD elections. Aside from the material in the local papers and some of the candidates’ websites, it fills in with more useful background. And thank you to Dr. Paterno for commenting on here. It is only a quick snapshot but useful in deciding how to vote.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We don’t see any particular “policy” argument against volunteers performing lunchroom supervision, but we also don’t see one against teachers doing it, either.

You’re welcome.

There is something called “discernment” (look it up; it’s between “disbarred” and “disgusting”). Our teachers and administrators have it in abundance; I have no doubt that they can utilize this great gift to determine what to do if a child persists in displaying otherwise healthy behavior in an inappropriate venue, just like they tell a young child picking his nose that it’s not appropriate to do in the classroom. But the child isn’t referred for a psychological evaluation or presumed to be on the road to mass murder. That’s near psychotic fantasy is part of what is wrong with the knee-jerk response to what is a very palpable concern about violence in our culture.

Seriously, there is no evidence whatsoever that pretend gun play (fingers, sticks, etc.) increases the propensity for future real violence. None. Any fantasy re: this is just that–fantasy.

By golly, more male teachers is one of my bright ideas for D64; agreed.

And I am FULLY confident that many volunteers would sign up for a few hours a week of tutoring, mentoring, assisting with homework, lunch duty, especially if they got some valuable service hours or knew that they were contributing to the education of future generations. I would fight (maybe even with my finger gun) to be first in line to volunteer.

For crying out loud, I never said that some children with IEPs don’t need them. But I’ll say something similar now: some children with IEPs don’t need them FOREVER. If we can improve their skills sooner than later so that they don’t need an IEP or 504 Plan, what could possibly be bad about that?

EDITOR’S NOTE: What could be bad about reducing the number of special ed students? How about reducing the need for special ed teachers and administrators? Or reducing the need for special ed funding? Oh, wait, those might actually be good things.

Never mind.

Going back to the post @1:37 (I cant even with the finger gun tangent), I’d be extremely hesitant to rely heavily on volunteers to work with the kids who are struggling the most. I’m positive my “special needs” son is doing so well today because he was in the hands of highly trained professionals, both in school and privately outside of school.

But on the playground or in the lunchroom? Sure. Or to help teachers with the kids who are not struggling profoundly, such as leading a literature circle or being an extra pair of hands in a busy art room? That would be fine.

Although having done all those things, I wonder what the turnover rate would be because those are not easy “jobs.” I know they gave me just a taste of what teachers have to deal with every day and I would leave exhausted after just a couple periods per week. It truly gave me a greater appreciation for the profession…it’s not something you can just phone in, as many people seem to think.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Let’s not throw the term “profession” around too casually, because we’re unaware of any “profession” whose members are unionized and who collectively bargain with their employers.

Gee…I wonder if all those folks you hope will stick around realize that you think that the field they are considering entering does not even qualify as a profession. Is it ok for me to use the word field?? Maybe that does not even apply…I mean they are just teachers. It is not like they have a JD.

Good lord what a disdainful comment.

I guess that means that pilots, police and firemen, those in the trades and others do not apply as professions either.

Just to be clear to those who will make assumptions, I have never been in a union. There is not a single person in my family that has ever been in a union.

EDITOR’S NOTE: This editor, on the other hand, HAS been a member of a couple of unions; and he has the utmost respect and admiration for those private-sector unions and their leaders who did so much to improve the lot of the American worker – unlike public sector unions who have purchased their strength and influence by colluding with corrupt politicians to pick the taxpayers’ pockets, which is why even FDR was against them.

Anybody with average intelligence and reasonable motivation can earn a JD. The same can’t be said for an MD, DO, DDS, and the other types of medical doctors. But both of those professions have several characteristics that teaching does not, starting with ultimate ACCOUNTABILITY to their clients for the quality of the work they perform. That’s why doctors and lawyers can be sued for malpractice, while teachers can barely even be fired or disciplined for it.

Doctors and lawyers also have an ethical obligation to put their clients’ interests above their own, which is why they can be suspended from practice and even disbarred (lawyers) or stripped of their license (doctors).

When was the last time a teacher was effectively suspended or disbarred, other than for molesting students or knowingly condoning their molestation?

is the school board a nonpartisan group? if it is, or should be, then why is the Republican Women of Park Ridge, the “group of concerned citizens” that approached Mr Paterno and Mr Seib ? Are they trying to bring a Republican view to the D64 school board? Are they being planted there by the RPOPR ? do you endorse this ?

EDITOR’S NOTE: Did you use up all your pseudonyms yesterday (“Concerned About Guns,” “Concerned Guns,” “Gun Play,” “Finger Gun,” “Guns At School” and just plain “Guns”)?

All local elections – City, Park District and School Boards – are, by law, non-partisan, which means the candidates don’t run with party affiliation even though they may be predisposed to one party or the other. But when you ask if anybody is “trying to bring a Republican view to the D64 school board,” that seems to imply that there’s currently a “Democratic view” over there. And all this time we thought it just stupidity, ignorance, irresponsibilty and bad judgment.

As a general principle, we dislike both parties equally – although in Illinois disliking Republicans is like kicking a dead dog. But because of the irresponsibility and corruption that has dominated state government for the past 3 decades under Democrat control, we blame the Democrats – along with Republican parasite governors “Big Jim” Thompson, “Slim Jim” Edgar and “Ex-Con” Ryan – more than the dead dog.

Come on. You don’t think teaching is a profession? You think anyone can walk into a class of 3- or 12- or 18-year-olds and impress knowledge into them?

You may not consider teaching to be a viable or valuable calling but seriously, did you — or anyone here, really — become who you are, professionally and/or personally, with zero help from any teachers? Please.

I’m not a teacher but I am so tired of people giving them so very little credit.

EDITOR’S NOTE: 99% of the American public can’t walk into their garage and figure out what’s wrong with their car, but that doesn’t make every auto mechanic a “professional.”

Your statement about “zero help from any teachers” is too stupid for any response other than to note its stupidity.

Parents aren’t “professional” child care workers, but they are almost infinitely more influential – for both good and bad – on who most of us become than virtually EVERY teacher who taught us.

Oh, PubDog. You need to get off the anti-union rant. The problem with teachers is not that they have unions to ensure they aren’t living on a pttance in various family attics as they did in the Good Old Days on the lonesome prairie. They problem with teachers is not that they as employees have some say in their daily and long-term fates; a feature virtually absent these days in the private sector, regardless of “professional” status. The problem with teachers is that 1) administrators are lazy and refuse to do the paperwork required to document grounds for termination. It’s easier to blame the teacher’s union for “tying our hands;” 2)school boards, administrators and teachers all work together to discourage accountability for results. The private sector parents know this stinks, but cutting special ed and focusing on finger guns is not how we solve it. We need to walk the line between protecting workers from arbitrary unfairness as happens routinely in the private sector, but at the same time insist on accountability for standardized test results. It’s not brain surgery.

EDITOR’S NOTE: In the 25 years this editor has lived in Park Ridge and observed D-64 schools, NO BOARD MEMBER has ever “insisted on accountability for standardized test results.” And we can confirm that no brain surgeon has sat on that Board during that time.

Not a single thing you just wrote or stated in your original post is a required part of any common definition of the word profession. In fact if you look at some of the published definitions of profession teachers are even referenced or listed. It may be a part of your own personal definition. But that is not even my point. You and I could debate that all day.

My point is best summed up but the word I chose…..DISDAIN!! Why on earth would you even feel the need to say that?? You are above them.

All you have to do is just read back your original post but use the tone and accent of Thurston Howell III…..it’s perfect.

They can be called a profession….I am in a profession and I don’t want them with me!!!!! Lovey!!!!

EDITOR’S NOTE: Nobody associated with this blog has ever claimed to be “above” anybody else, in terms of occupation or otherwise. To suggest otherwise is simply false and intentionally misleading.

The “common definition” of the word “profession” would include almost every occupation that (a) generates compensation, and (b) requires some kind of training. So, by that definition, the garbageman who needs specialized training to run his automated garbage truck and gets paid for doing so is a “professional.”

If that’s the definition you want to use, fine. But even the Wikipedia entry for “profession” suggests many more criteria than just those two.

“99% of the American public can’t walk into their garage and figure out what’s wrong with their car, but that doesn’t make every auto mechanic a “professional.”

Of course not EVERY mechanic is a professional. Neither is every teacher or every lawyer….doctor…etc…etc. Who would argue with that??

The problem is that is not what you said. What you said is that teaching is not a profession. Those are two VERY different statements.

EDiTOR’S NOTE: We stand by what we said.

yes I used up all my good pseudonyms yesterday. But I don’t this you clearly answered my question? why is the Republican Women of Park Ridge out getting petition signatures for your Candidates ? It seems clear to me that the RWOPR are trying to get some “paws” into the school board? Do they have some agenda? To me is seems wrong that a partisan group has hand picked 2 men, gone out and did their foot work, have had fund raisers, have paid for their signs, and who knows what else? Its just interesting that your candidates don’t reveal who is paying for their campaign. Maybe because it could be illegal? Just a thought.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We haven’t seen any evidence (as opposed to the mere speculation you offer) that “the Republican Women of Park Ridge”…as an organization, not as individual members…”getting petition signatures” for the candidates we endorsed for the D-64 board. Nor have we seen any evidence (as opposed to the mere speculation you offer) that the “Republican Women”…as an organization, not as individual members…”picked” those two candidates, or did any of the other things you claim.

You should probably stick with finger guns…you seem to be more of that caliber.

clearly I’m not as edumcated, as you, but I just see it how it is, and go to the smart “professionals” for their input and clarification. To me it should not matter whether you are Republican or Democrat , It just seems disturbing to me that a political group , as a single individual, or group, is involved in getting someone elected to a supposed non partisan group. To me it would seem that this group or group of individuals would have an agenda to get their individuals elected. Especially the RWOPR.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Figuring this stuff out is basic common sense, no advanced degree required. Feel free to come back when you acquire some.

I am perfectly fine with using wiki as a reference. go to the section 3 – List of professions.

Teachers made the list. Funny thing is so did auto technicians.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Man oh man, wiLL the garbage men ever be ticked!

Im back, i googled wikipedia, and common sense, and seems like I pass…… why don’t you explain the RWOPR going to your candidates, getting their petitions signed, handing out flyers at the polling office, holding fund raisers, purchasing their yard signs?

EDITOR’S NOTE: Only in your own mind.

When you can come back here with proof instead of rumor and conjecture that the RWOPR organization is supporting ANY D-64, D-207, Park District or City candidates, we might consider wasting a bit more time on you.

If my “your above them comment” was out of bounds I apologize. It’s just that I do not know what else to think about your reaction.

A poster made a simple offhanded comment about an appreciation for the profession. He was basically saying the job is harder than it appears. But nooo!!!!!! Calling teaching a profession will not be tolerated!!!!!

Maybe it is not that you think you are above them. Maybe you just hold them in such contempt that even the slightest silly thing said in an offhanded way that in your mind seems like a compliment (like the use of the word profession) must be attacked.

Either way, I too stand by what I said: Good Lord what a disdainful comment.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Your comment wasn’t “out of bounds,” it simply was inaccurate.

“Calling teaching a profession” most certainly IS “tolerated,” as demonstrated by the fact that we posted such a comment. But it won’t go unchallenged. Big difference.

When teachers accept both practical and legal accountability for how well they perform their jobs (hint: never) we’ll gladly revisit our opinion that they are not “professionals.”

Apparently, some believe that if they can effectively label you as part of a collective group, party or club, then you are not permitted to think as an individual, form your own opinion, or (gasp) participate in a non-partisan election. Your blue is showing, finger guns! Fortunately, republicans, conservatives, libertarians and many, many Park Ridge independents believe that EVERYONE has a right to support any candidate of their choosing in any election, no matter who you associate with. No party, group or club defines me and can tell me what to do or think. It’s shallow to make sweeping assumpions that party preference drives who we vote for or what we seek in non-partisan affairs, and it’s dishonest to pretend that you and your preferred candidates are innocent of having partisan stripes. Thank goodness for liberty and self-reliance – so i don’t have swallow your directive that i can’t participate in the process.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Let’s not get any further into this “red” and “blue” nonsense, folks, especially on this blog where the terms “Democrat” and “Republican” are little more than counterfeit currency.

People can speak and act individually AND collectively in this country – interchangeably, sequentially, intermittently, but probably not at the same time. It falls under freedom of speech and freedom of association, and you can find them in the First Amendment.

To be clear, The Republican Women of Park Ridge are not endorsing any school board candidates in this non-partisan school board election… nor did our organization get signatures.

EDITOR’S NOTE: That’s what we figured, board member.

But we seriously doubt that will be sufficient to persuade Mr/Ms Finger Gun that there’s no grand conspiracy by the RWOPR to seize control of the D-64 Board and try to impose some seditious “agenda” of increased accountability, higher achievement and fiscal responsibility; or to loosen the PREA’s traditional stranglehold on that Board.

Ok, so you equate “increased accountability, higher achievement and fiscal responsibility” with a Republican agenda? Who’s showing their partisan stripes now?

EDITOR’S NOTE: No, but apparently Mr/Ms Finger Gun does, hence his/her obsession with the RWOPR’s alleged role in the campaigns of the two candidates we endorse.

As we’ve said before on several occasions, including in a note to a comment in this string, we view the current Democratic Party and the current Republican Party, nationally, as two sides of the same counterfeit coin; and in Illinois, the Democratic Party is effectively a RICO enterprise while the Republican Party is a dead dog.

The Republican Party is not a dead dog in the northwest suburbs and nothing in Rush Limbaugh/Mitch McConville’s stance makes me think we are safe from the science book burning/ good ole days’ returning goal they have set for their party. All politics is local, PubDog; ever hear that? You have only one viable point — that taxpayers deserve accountability for teaching and school administration results, and that unions should not (and I maintain do not) mean no accountability. All else is sound and fury.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Tip O’Neill’s dead.

If the unions don’t mean “no accountability,” then who do we blame for the 4th highest administrator compensation, the 25th highest teacher compensation, and only 1 school cracking the top 75 in achievement?

Even more disturbing than the “finger guns” stance is Dr. Paterno’s blatantly partisan agenda, as outlined on his website, http://policology.com/:
• Embolden patriots to fight for conservative principles with honor and virtue
• Teach conservatives how Psychology intersects with politics
• Educate conservatives about the Left’s “playground politics”; teach conservatives how to fight on the liberal playground while rendering their Alinsky tactics impotent
• Equip parents to raise civic-minded ladies and gentlemen

EDITOR’S NOTE: Yeah, and that last one ticks us off the most. He’s got one heck of a lot of nerve trying to help parents “raise civic-minded ladies and gentlemen.”

PWD@12:21, of course that last point you’ve latched onto is innocuous. Does that mean it negates the first three points? He seeks to educate Conservatives? Apparently everyone else isn’t worth reaching, except inexplicably “parents” as noted in that last bullet point. Shouldn’t a member of a public body seek to serve his entire electorate?

EDITOR’S NOTE: What’s so “innocuous” about it – the fact that it’s not something with which you can legitimately take issue?

We’re willing to bet that virtually every candidate for public office this Tuesday has some particular political leaning – Democrat, Republican, Independent, Liberal (or the newly-fashionable “Progressive”), Conservative, etc. – that describes their overall political views or philosophies. We are aware of nothing in the Illnois School Code or elsewhere that prevents Dr. Paterno from serving on the D-64 School Board merely because he may have “conservative” leanings or, on occasion, writes to a conservative audience.

I think it is sad that Ms. Anonymous would prefer that people fight for their principles WITHOUT honor and virtue. This call for incivility is wholly inappropriate. I find it equally sad that she endorses Alinsky tactics.

It is sad that she prefers to keep parents impotent in raising children properly.

What I find deplorable is that what she is ultimately suggesting is that I lack the integrity to separate my agenda as an author from my agenda school board member. If she has evidence of this, I welcome the challenge, but until then, I will presume she is speaking out of ignorance. I stand by everything on my blog.

Further, I have several agendas in life. One is serving and leading my wife and children. One is training my children so they are independent, solid citizens. Another is worshiping God with my talents. Another is helping equip children and adolescents to lessen their need for psychiatric medication. Yet another is saving for retirement so I can write more books.

I vow that I will actively avoid attempting to serve any of these agendas as a school board member. I naturally wouldn’t, but if Ms. Anonymous or other voters are aided by my clarifying, so be it. I serve those other agendas while I am in other spheres of life (home, church, work). I don’t mix agendas in different environments and I won’t do so if I am elected to D64 Board.

Paterno sounds logical. Wonder if his running mate Seib thinks the same…his ‘executive memo’ that you linked in your endorsement gives me a jolt! What kind of spending trajectory are we on with this District???

EDITOR’S NOTE: We agree that he sounds logical, but when he’s sparring with someone who thinks “finger guns” have no place in schools, that’s not a high bar to clear.

We think Seib’s analysis speaks for itself. And the fact that nobody from D-64, or their apologists with the PREA or elsewhere, are stepping up to refute it suggests it’s solid.

I am “Ms. Anonymous” and it seems telling that a mere questioning of your background is seen as “a call for incivility.” What’s more, to immediately accuse me of endorsing “Alinsky tactics” makes your position seem even more extreme.

I was simply questioning whether your potentially controversial and divisive points of view as an author have any place on the non-partisan D64 school board.

I don’t have evidence that your agenda as an author can’t be separated from your agenda as a potential school board member. I only know that for many people, myself included, the “political” cannot be separated from the “personal” very easily. I basically have one “agenda,” which is a single, general outlook on life. I don’t tailor or censor my point of view depending on the audience.

Lastly, I’m not sure how my raising this question is evidence that I “prefer to keep parents impotent in raising children properly.” So unless one identifies as a Conservative, one is incapable of raising a child properly? You may claim to be able to keep your agendas separate but that statement indicates otherwise.

EDITOR’S NOTE: What is so “potentially controversial and divisive” about those “points” – other than your desire to characterize them as such?

If you are biased against “conservatives,” or in favor of “Alinsky tactics” being employed in the administration of schools, why not just say so instead of playing Coy Joy with your “concerns”?

I could say that I am disappointed that you have not chosen to endorse me for one of the four openings on the D64 school board, but I will not. Instead I am considering a quote from your 4/01/13 posting, “When it comes to school board candidates, we are admittedly and unapologetically biased against “educators” and incumbents.” I suppose I could follow this quote with “yada, yada, yada,” but that would be dismissive and sarcastic, right?

I have reviewed a number of comments from readers in reference to the 4/05/13 posting that imply that some are either the parents of students with a disability, or they have experienced the (IEP) Individualized Education Plan format in one way or another. One parent indicated that their child has been increasingly served in a general education setting as time has progressed and less through special education services. This isn’t sometimes the plan, it is always the plan. Special Educators are advocates for children. An IEP team (parents, student, special education teacher, school psychologist, social worker, school nurse, general education teacher, and parent advocates) meets to specifically identify areas of need for students with disabilities, and develop a plan for serving the student in the “least restrictive” manner possible. This term, “least restrictive” means that at the heart of specialized service is the charge to educate every child in the most ordinary/routine environment possible with their peers. As students are able to demonstrate that they can compensate for their deficit(s), less and less service is required and provide. Thus, students should eventually receive no service at all in a perfect world.

A learning disability is not an illness that can be cured. However, students can learn compensatory skills to offset their deficits. There is nothing wrong with a learning disabled student any more than there is something wrong with someone who is left handed merely because more people tend to be right handed. Parents of students being served should know that until very recently, a prerequisite of being labeled as “learning disabled” was that a child must have at least an average I.Q. This is no longer a requirement.

Learning disabled students are often students who require specialized instruction because they learn differently. Trained Special Education Teachers teach to the individual strengths of students instead of their deficits. A student who cannot readily comprehend materials they read may be creatively supported with audio or visual formats generated by their special education teacher to fully understand materials.

I would like to point out to any who cares to know that special education is a service and not a place. A student is not IN special education, but receives special education services as required by their IEP. These students receive the supports they need and are not the cause of any fiscal dilemma in our community, or any other.

I could go on about special education, but this page is about an election. I am one of you! I want my kids to be successful and happy individuals, and I want the same for yours. I live in this community, pay property taxes here, use the library facilities, take my kids to camp, and maintain my home here in Park Ridge. I want to save more for college expenses, earn more at my place of work, save for retirement, put money aside for the roof to be replaced in a few years, pay less in taxes (property and other), and reduce my monthly expenses. I want all of these things, but I feel I am practical in recognizing that I cannot have everything I desire. I must carefully consider what I can afford to do, how I can manage my funds better to allow for some of my wants, how to consolidate my debts, and eventually select the best roofer that can effectively provide me with a roof that will last for the best price. The school district faces similar challenges, but on a grand scale.

What do you, the voters of District 64, want? If anything I have written makes sense to you, please consider voting for me on Tuesday, April 9th, 2013. I am interested in being one voice of seven on the school board. If you desire someone who speaks his mind, is interested in governing costs and maintaining high standards then I don’t think you would be wasting your vote to vote for me, Rick Van Roeyen.

EDITOR’S NOTE: If you want to “yada, yada, yada” us, go right ahead. And if readers think the “yada” fits, then we’ll wear it.

Special Educators SHOULD be advocates for children. But neither they nor any other member(s) of any IEP team – or any other teachers, administrators or parents – are entitled to a blank check when it comes to the cost of that education (or any education), nor freedom from accountability to the taxpayers for the money being devoted to those pursuits.

Nobody associated with this blog has ever suggested that a learning disability is “an illness” that can be “cured.” But stating that a learning disability is the equivalent of being left handed is nothing less than ridiculous – which would be obvious simply by asking any parent of a learning disabled kid if he/she would trade their kid’s learning disability for left-handedness!

First, let me say that I have only met Ben Seib twice. He seems like a nice fellow and he is interested in serving our community. That’s great, but…

I would like to make reference the “executive” memo created by Mr. Seib and linked to this posting. A few people have made comments in reference to the document. I believe the document presents specious arguments and is inflammatory. My feeling is that voters need to make educated decisions about what happens in our schools and what happens with their funding. I think some things about the “executive memo” need to be stated.

GRAPH # 1

The first graph is a representation of the fact that our property taxes have gone up between 2005 and 2012. I am certainly aware of this, and I bet you are too. However, so we can intelligently consider this topic let’s look at some facts.

The portion of our property taxes attributed to schools is at 70%, as could be derived from looking at your last tax bill. Approximately 42%-43 percent of our property taxes are actually attributed to District 64. The balance can be attributed to District 207 (the high schools), and Oakton Community College.

The first graph, “D64 Property Taxes,” in my opinion, implies that District 64 is responsible for our property taxes being just a hair away from the $ 60,000,000 mark. After all, the title of the graph is “D64 Property Taxes.”

The graph also includes $ 70,000,000 in the legend. When you make a graph you have choices to make. I could see how including an excessively higher number than was needed might have been simply a choice made with no intent to imply that numbers would soon reach $ 70 million. But, did you notice that I just wrote $ 70 million instead of $70,000,000? That sure makes the numbers look different doesn’t it. The vertical axis of this graph was showed us dollars in a numerical fashion, yet the creator could have chosen to indicate that the vertical axis represented millions of dollars and merely used 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, and 60 to represent millions of dollars.

GRAPH #2

The second graph intends to show that D64 has exceeded that average operating expenditure per student in Illinois from 2005 through 2012. I’m sorry, but there is a problem with this data as well. The graph presented is demonstrating that D64 is spending more operating expenses per pupil than the state of Illinois average expenditure per pupil. While that is true, we should take a look at exactly what that means.

If we have any interest in comparing our expenditures to other districts we should not be comparing ourselves to schools in Peoria, Grayslake, and Cicero. If we wish to intelligently examine our expenditures we need to compare ourselves with North Shore districts in surrounding communities. I suspect we are on par with surrounding communities in this regard, but have no information to share at this time.

FROM THE CANDIDATE FORUM (can be viewed online at PREA)

Mr. Seib indicated that the cost per pupil in D64 was $ 16,000. However, and you can check this for yourself, the district cost per capita to educate one student is actually $ 13,322.

Mr. Seib further stated that certain district costs had increased as much as 70%, yet he doubted that value had similarly increased. Unfortunately, the cost of gasoline has gone up over time, yet a am not appreciating any increase in the value that I receive when purchase gasoline. I need it and I have to pay for it.

How can anyone read the points above without getting the feeling that Mr. Seib has not been marketing himself to the angry tax payer in all of us.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Anybody who thinks that “$ 70 million” is any different from “$70,000,000” is too simple to walk around without an attendant.

If you wish to “compare ourselves with North Shore districts” start with D-64 ISAT scores – unless you mean by being “on par with surrounding communities” you mean Des Plaines, Niles, Morton Grove, Norridge and Harwood Heights? But we understand that D-64 exceeds those districts in teacher and administrator compensation, so you can call that a “win” if you want.

We would assume Mr. Seib is “marketing himself” to anybody who questions the quality of education being delivered for the money spent. It such people are “angry taxpayers,” so be it.

I’ll stand by my anology that describes the learning disabled as individuals with learning differences (ie: reading decoding deficits, processing speed deficits, and Discalculia, etc..). I think I’ll lean on my professional education and more than a decade of experience in the area to support my position. So readers are not confused, I was not describing cognitively challenged students, or students who have suffered traumatice brain injuries.

Students with IEPs are protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act and are entitled to (FAPE) Free and Appropriate Education. The word appropriate is the focus in IEP meetings. No one person decides anything for IEP students. Rather, a team of professionals (including the parents and student) who focus on the needs of the individual student make decisions about placement and curriculum for the student. The district can modify service delivery systems and perhaps bring some students who are privately placed back into the building for service, but services provided to the students cannot be cut or diminished due to cost. It is the responsibility of this district and all others to serve students with special needs.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Good, because comparing learning disabilities to being lefthanded is so ridiculous that your willingness to “lean on” your “professional education and more than a decade of experience in the area” for that analogy is “Exhibit A” for why you shouldn’t be on the D-64 Board.

Nobody associated with this blog has ever suggested that a learning disability is “an illness” that can be “cured.”

No, you have not said this but you have endorsed someone who has, D. Paterno.

“But stating that a learning disability is the equivalent of being left handed is nothing less than ridiculous – which would be obvious simply by asking any parent of a learning disabled kid if he/she would trade their kid’s learning disability for left-handedness!”

I am the parent of a child with learning disabilities, who is on the autism spectrum. I agree with this analogy. His differences are just that, differences. Just as being left-handed is different from being right handed. Granted his differences require a lot more time, energy and patience to address than left-handedness (which, as I’m sure you’re aware, was once seen as a deficiency, by the way. My uncle likes to tell stories of how the nuns in school smacked his left hand with a ruler every time he tried to write it. It wasn’t until he went to public high school that he was finally able to use his left hand freely.)

Society is quick to peg neurological differences and learning disabilities as deficiencies but the fact is my son is not cognitively deficient. His brain simply processes information differently than the average or “neurotypical” kid.

With the right intervention, from teachers and special ed professionals, he is now proving that his differences are merely that, as he is working at grade level with minimal supports and accommodations. It took years and years of hard work but his determination to hang in there with his peers is paying off. He has had an IEP for over a decade, since he was three years old. I have been inside the “special ed” system and have seen firsthand how it has worked. I would not support a candidate like Paterno, who despite his professional pedigree, would seek to dismantle it.

EDITOR’S NOTE: This editor also has “been inside the [D-64] ‘special ed’ system and have seen firsthand how it has worked.” And if he had any suspicion Paterno intended to “dismantle” that system he would not have received this endorsement. But we don’t, because nothing he has said suggests anything more than that he would hold the special ed program to the same standards of accountability as all other programs…because nobody is entitled to a blank check; and special ed kids can least afford substandard services, irrespective of their cost.

To the contrary, I have never written that a “learning disability” is an illness that can be cured. In fact, I dedicated an entire chapter of my parenting book debunking the notion that Dyslexia is an illness or a disease.

And no, there isn’t one thing in my platform or mind that supports or would even suggest dismantling our special education system. That is an ugly straw man. I DO wish to improve it, incorporate what I think are some good ideas into the district’s special education plans, and, as the editor mentioned, hold special education programs to high standards of accountability. I don’t see how anyone can fail to support those principles.

We may disagree on whether my ideas will work or not, but that is quite different than concluding I want to “dismantle” anything.

Dr. Paterno, this is what you said in a post above, I have copied and pasted directly: “That’s right, learning disabilities CAN BE eradicated (cured, fixed, healed).”

EDITOR’S NOTE: We assume they can be “cured, fixed, healed” by the various “compensatory skills” that special ed teacher and Board candidate Rick Van Roeyen wrote about in his comment on 04.07. Otherwise, those kids would be screwed once they get out of school and no longer have special ed to fall back on.

You assume incorrectly!

EDITOR’S NOTE: Well now we’re really confused, Mr. Van Roeyen.

First you compare leaning disabilities to being left-handed, which in fact CAN be “cured” (or “changed,” presumably for a beneficial reason) by dint of effort on treating the right hand the dominant one.

Then you say that students can learn “compensatory skills to offset their deficits” – which sounds to us a lot like a lefty learning to bat righty, which is kind of a “cure” for being a lefthanded batter if hitting righthanded is considered beneficial.

So, Mr. Van Roeyen, why aren’t kids who learn “compensatory skills to offset their deficits” effectively “cured”?

I took Mr. Van Roeyen’s comment about compensatory skills to be a response to Mr. Paterno’s assertion that I quoted @6:21. Developing compensatory skills to work around a weakness or disability is not the same as having that disability “eradicated, cured, fixed, healed).” In any case, it seems that Mr. Van Royen has a greater understanding of how dis with special needs learn, and how the special ed system has been designed to help those kids succeed.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We assumed he did, until he effectively equated LDs with being lefthanded. And if you master “compensatory skills to work around a weakness,” then in common sense terms you have “cured” that weakness – unless, of course, there’s some advantage in not being “cured.”

So, Mr. Van Roeyen, why aren’t kids who learn “compensatory skills to offset their deficits” effectively “cured”?

If you have to even ask this question then you clearly haven’t had as much experience with special ed as you say you have.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We’re reasonably confident our 16 years of of real-life special ed experience can hold its own with Mr. Van Roeyen.

“We’re reasonably confident our 16 years of of real-life special ed experience can hold its own with Mr. Van Roeyen.”

I’m not so sure of that if you can equate developing compensatory skills with being cured. It’s like if you broke your leg. Yes, you could find a way to hobble, crawl or hop from place to place but that doesn’t mean your leg was healed.

In any case, you’re not a special ed professional. Where I get alarmed is with people like Dathan Paterno who think untrained volunteers can do the same work as highly trained professionals. Every day counts for a kid with specialsneeds. They can’t afford setbacks, which would inevitably occur as a result of ignorance and/or misinformation.

Of course volunteers have their place in schools but not necessarily on the front lines with our most vulnerable kids.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Pay attention! A learning disability IS NOT like a “broken leg” – it’s like being lefthanded. “Special ed professional” Mr. Van Roeyen said so!

Correct me if I am wrong, but are there not children with well beyond “learning disabilities” (autism for example) who fall into the special needs catagory?

You may better engage readers with less harsh directives like; “On three, eyes on me” instead of “Pay Attention!”

I am truly sorry that your efforts to have an honest discourse have been treated with such disdain.

This will be my last interaction on this blog. Frankly, I think this may only be the second blog I have ever engaged. It is now clear to me that there are a number of well meaning, and concerned citizens that read these sorts of blogs. Based on the number of entries within this blog a number of people may very well enjoy the biting wit that is offered to those who make comment. I do not. I respect the perspectives of others, but not to the extent that they diminish, or bully others. Educating children my career, and suspect many readers can appreciate my concern for providing clarity about education practices.

I don’t want anyone to be confused. A learning disability is a life-long challenge. As I previously stated it is not an illness. Thus, I believe using the word “cure” is a poor word choice in referencing attempts to remediate such a disability.

Below are five common definitions for the word “cure.” The first three reference health conditions and either returning to a healthy condition once formerly held, or a treatment for a disease. The fourth definition speaks for itself in terms of using the word as a metaphor, and I certainly don’t think that we have been kicking around concepts related to the curing of meats.

1. a means of healing or restoring to health; remedy.
2. a method or course of remedial treatment, as for disease.
3. successful remedial treatment; restoration to health.
4. a means of correcting or relieving anything that is troublesome or detrimental: to seek a cure for inflation.
5. the act or a method of preserving meat, fish, etc., by smoking, salting, or the like.

My experience in working with young people and children with disabilities is on record. I believe that my work, and from what I gather from friends in our community, the work that Dr. Paterno performs positively impacts young people who have serious need. Our professional actions will long be remembered, yet this blog interaction will quickly fade into obscurity by the end the week.

If anyone reading this has a child with a disability, or would like more information about special education I recommend you visit the Illinois State Board of Education Web site and download the PDF presentation under “Parent Guide – Educational Rights and Responsibilities: Understanding Special Education in Illinois.”

http://www.isbe.state.il.us/spec-ed/html/parent_rights.htm

I believe you will not find the word “cure” anywhere in it.

🙂

EDITOR’S NOTE: Mr. Van Roeyen, this blog is not for the faint of heart; and “Kumbaya” is not its theme song. If you consider the kind of sharp-edged banter and critical discussions that regularly occur here as things that “diminish, or bully others,” you just may be a bit too sensitive a soul for this blog.

But if it makes you feel better as you take your leave from us, if we ever decide to publish “PublicWatchpuppy,” we’ll definitely replace “Pay attention!” with “On three, eyes on me.”

@1:53. Yes there are kids who are affected to a much greater degree than those identified with learning disabilities. My son is on the autism spectrum and he also has learning disabilities. We are lucky, from an education perspective, in that he is very high functioning and had managed to do well in the public schools with varying degrees of support.

We’ve touched on this here before but kids who have more profound disabilities are often “tuitioned out” to special schools that are better equipped and staffed to address their needs. I have friends with kids — both here in PR and in surrounding communities — who have moved out of the public schools into these private schools. Each has had varying degrees of success. If I’m not mistaken, D64 is hoping to bring more of the kids who have typically been tuitioned out back into the “regular” schools and provide their services there, presumably to save money.

The adage in the autism community I hear most often is “if you’ve met one kid with autism you’ve met one kid with autism,” and I’m sure that applies to many other disabilities. I think that’s what makes special ed so expensive..each kid is completely different, so what works for one doesn’t necessarily work for another. Unlike the regular classroom that demands a cookie cutter sort of conformity, which is easier and cheaper for schools to provide.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Nobody – least of all this editor – is saying that special ed is an easy task. But getting their kids diagnosed as LD and placed in the program of extra, specialized teaching help and additional time for things like tests, has become a cottage industry for certain parents who are looking for any edge they can get for their kids. And because extra state and federal funding can be available for special ed services, keeping kids in special ed for as long as possible can become an economic strategy for both school administrators and special ed teachers.

In response to Anon, who correctly copied and pasted my earlier comment re: “curing”, the important variable is the word “illness”. Learning disabilities are not illnesses or diseases. So I still assert that they can be eradicated. Perhaps adding the word “cured” as one of several weak but still valid synonyms confused the issue, since “cure” presupposes illness or disease, which Mr. Van Roeyen and I agree is not reflective of learning disabilities.

I respectfully disagree with Mr. Van Roeyen, however, that learning disabilities are necessarily life-long struggles. I strongly believe–and have witnessed MANY times–learning problems that have been diagnosed as “LD” being eradicated, fixed, etc. to the point that the student’s reading, math, or writing skills are average or better. This isn’t just developing “adequate compensatory skills”; I mean actually improving one’s fundamentals to the point they don’t need ANY extra help. This is why I loathe the term “learning disability”.

Another poster “Anon” asked the question of whether autism is a non-learning disability that falls under the category of “special needs”. I think all who have posted here would agree that autism is indeed included in that category (informal or formal). It is not a learning disability per se but a developmental disorder.

Finally, it is true that special education teachers have some important specialized training. More importantly, from what I have witnessed in D64, they have other remarkable personality traits and gifts: patience, commitment, nearly boundless empathy, to name a few. But a great deal of what teachers (including special ed teachers) do CAN be done by volunteers. It doesn’t take the level of training of a brain surgeon to read with a 1st Grader, to do flash cards with a 3rd Grader, or to remind Junior how to hold his pencil properly. Volunteers shouldn’t create curricula, but they can certainly help out in critical areas.