Special Needs Teachers

[florin]

My daughter is bright and talented. She also needs a Special Needs Assistant.
Unfortunately, she has been cut to 10 hours per week.
when the SNA is there, she is one of the brightest kids in the school, and is popular and witty.
Without her, she gets completely restless, learns nothing, and disrupts the whole class. Cutting her SNA was a false economy.
Luckily she has not been dropped entirely. Not yet anyway.

Thanks for your helpful suggestion.

That's true, but you must agree that an educationally advanced child with an SNA is the exception. Most of them fall into the bottom 5%, and there's something wrong with an education system that expends so much more resources on the bottom 5% than on the top 5%.

yes
Not necessarily
No, this is nonsense. The suggestion that 'the most gifted' establish companies is balderdash.
A civilised community aspires to deveop the talent and skills of each individual so that that individual can fully enjoy their lives. we are all of equal value

Everything we have - everything that makes industry and civiliation - is ultimately built on the mental labour of the best. If by "fully enjoy their lives", you mean "reach their full potential", some just have much higher potentials.

Would the money spent on special needs not be better spent on promoting the brightest, most talented students? How much are these assistants paid, and what do they do exactly?

They help children with Down syndrome, ADHD, etc. on a one-on-one basis in the classroom. They don't need a teaching degree, it's just a two (or one?) year certificate.

That is the system that obtains now. You are a dab hand at changing the subject and ducking and diving. People with special needs should get extra resources to help them to develop their skills and talents and not just to make money, but so that they have a greater experience of this life.

What about the kids with genius IQs who are forced to spend most of their school time staring out the window or reading a book they brought in, while they wait for the rest of the class to catch up? Don't they deserve "extra resources to help them to develop their skills and talents" too? Especially as "skills and talents", in their case, will mean more than just becoming literate and numerate?

[uriah]

It would be very interesting to know how many successful entrepreneurs have a 'genius I.Q.'
The phrase 'our brightest and best (people)' is trotted out regularly, without any agreement on what is meant by 'brightest' and 'best' in terms of contribution to society.
Which form of 'brightness' is best and how do we measure it?

Children who are academically able should be capable of independent learning and do not need the constant attention of a teacher who will simply guide their learning, providing the material and challenge they need.

Children who have learning difficulties will need more individual /small group attention from a teacher.

Both groups can and do learn well side by side. Education is far more than academic instruction, and anyone who knows anything about how young children learn will know that much of the most valuable 'learning' has nothing to do with formal instruction from a teacher. Children learn far more from interaction with their peers, working together investigating, communicating, planning and finding solutions to problems (they might call it 'playing'). The teacher is the facilitator, the quide.
Having children with different levels of 'ability, different skills, in those groups is of benefit to all.

Even the 'genius' (!!!) will need to be able to communicate with /explain ideas to others who may not have the same I.Q., and all will need to learn how to work with others and pool their talents and skills to solve problems.
And we all need to learn patience.

And it will not always be the one with the genius IQ who will contribute most.

[toughbutfair]

It would be very interesting to know how many successful entrepreneurs have a 'genius I.Q.'
The phrase 'our brightest and best (people)' is trotted out regularly, without any agreement on what is meant by 'brightest' and 'best' in terms of contribution to society.
Which form of 'brightness' is best and how do we measure it?

Children who are academically able should be capable of independent learning and do not need the constant attention of a teacher who will simply guide their learning, providing the material and challenge they need.

Children who have learning difficulties will need more individual /small group attention from a teacher.

Both groups can and do learn well side by side. Education is far more than academic instruction, and anyone who knows anything about how young children learn will know that much of the most valuable 'learning' has nothing to do with formal instruction from a teacher. Children learn far more from interaction with their peers, working together investigating, communicating, planning and finding solutions to problems (they might call it 'playing'). The teacher is the facilitator, the quide.
Having children with different levels of 'ability, different skills, in those groups is of benefit to all.

Even the 'genius' (!!!) will need to be able to communicate with /explain ideas to others who may not have the same I.Q., and all will need to learn how to work with others and pool their talents and skills to solve problems.
And we all need to learn patience.

And it will not always be the one with the genius IQ who will contribute most.

A very well thought out argument - well put.

[manimus]

the 1200 SNAs are going because the special needs kid they were employed to help has left the system. It used to be the case that SNAs were contracted to look after a specific kid and once the kid left the SNA was no longer required. This changed to the SNAs becoming positions tied to the school so once the special needs kid left the SNA was retained. Usually there were asked to do other jobs just to keep them busy.

In my experience, SNAs do not need busy work to fill their time. Population growth means more pupils in our schools, and the policy of integration means more special needs pupils in mainstream schools. So when an SNA is cut, pupils suffer.

the reason the teachers unions are not up in arms is because they don't advocate paying SNAs to assist children that aren't in that school anymore.

That's not correct. SNAs are not represented by the teachers' unions, because they're not teachers. They're represented by IMPACT.

do you accept that we have to pay money to get people to provide this service?

Do you accept the best way to get the money to pay such people is to have a good economy?

Do you accept the best way to get a good economy is to help our most gifted establish companies?

Your first two propositions are fine, if blindingly obvious, but things go downhill fast with number three. You argue that we should focus on gifted rather than special needs pupils, in order to generate enough money to focus on special needs pupils. Do you see the problem?

The State is required by our constitution to provide all our children with equal access to education. Children with special educational needs cannot access the education system without having those needs met. We decided to integrate such pupils into mainstream schools where possible, and the position of the SNA was born.

If you recognise the link between investment in education and economic success, what should worry you is the fact that our education system is seriously underfunded. We've spent between 1% and 2% less of our GDP than the OECD average consistently since the 1990s. By my reckoning, that amounted to about €1.5 billion in 2005. That's how much extra we would have had to spend on education just to get up to the OECD levels of investment.

If we spent what we should and could have, maybe more of the thousands and thousands of currently unemployed early school leavers would have stayed in school, gotten a proper edcation, and now be in a better position to help regenerate the Celtic Zombie.

I would make the argument that a good society is far more desirable than a good economy, and both together is best of all. Many complain these days that we have somehow lost more than money and jobs, that we have lost, or sold, our soul. Where is the spirit of patriotism, of duty, of fairness and equality? Why did we give in to greed and selfishness?

Well, if we showed our children that we value all members of society equally, and we treat them all equally, and that there is more to life than money, maybe those qualities would be returned to us.

[gatsbygirl20]

A parent is hardly going to take the cold/clinical logical decision. Of course your child is the most important thing to you but a leader has to make the decisions they consider the best for a country as a whole.

I fear that many posters here do not yet have children of their own. Once a child is born to you your certainties on all these issues will undergo radical interrogation. If your child is born with an impairment of any kind---even dyslexia---believe me, your "promote only the brightest and best" argument will change. You, as a tax-paying citizen will insist that your local school, where all your neighbour's kids went, accept your child. You will fight for every last resource. You will look around at a world which bails out bankers but refuses appropriate education for your child, and gasp in horror. You will see the world with new eyes

We all love the brightest and best. Teachers, no matter how inclusive they strive to be, love them too, as they reflect back the best of their teaching. Teaching an exceptionally bright child is like flying effortlessly through the air or dancing with grace and precision.

By the way, exceptionally bright children are also classed as having "special needs" and modern teacher training insists that the trainee teacher demonstrate strategies in the classroom to meet their needs and "fast track" them. I personally believe that these children should be fast-tracked in the interest of promoting excellence. We do need the brightest and best in our Universities and later on, enriching our jobs market

But the reality is, we as teachers must do our best, through up-skilling and help from SNAs etc to be a good teacher to all the children in front of us. As a parent, I do not need this explained to me.. I know how uniquely precious each one is---Ciara and Darragh and Chloe and Owen and Sophie---not numbers to me, not numbers to their parents. Real, precious, once-off miracles, regardless of their difficulties with Maths or their tendency to fly off the handle.


One caveat. Some parents, no matter how profound their child's impairment, insist on sending them to a mainstream school. As one poster pointed out, this suits the Dept of Ed and Science, as it saves a packet and leaves the problem to be sorted out by the mainstream teacher in the mainstream school. But the reality is, there are some children who should not be in mainstream schools. They would benefit from a specialist education in specialist unit, with all the on-going supports with jobs etc which such schools offer

But mainstreaming all children no matter what level of impairment they carry, is now all the rage, and schools---even before these savage cutbacks---were already beginning to buckle under the strain.

[uriah]

[QUOTE=gatsbygirl20;2420405]I

We all love the brightest and best. Teachers, no matter how inclusive they strive to be, love them too, as they reflect back the best of their teaching. Teaching an exceptionally bright child is like flying effortlessly through the air or dancing with grace and precision.

By the way, exceptionally bright children are also classed as having "special needs" and modern teacher training insists that the trainee teacher demonstrate strategies in the classroom to meet their needs and "fast track" them. I personally believe that these children should be fast-tracked in the interest of promoting excellence. We do need the brightest and best in our Universities and later on, enriching our jobs market

QUOTE]


I cannot agree. Some children who perceive themselves to be 'the brightest and the best' are often pains in the ass. If their parents also think they are 'the brightest and the best', that often makes matters worse. Far from feeling like one 'is flying through the air or dancing with great precision' (are you serious?) it can be more like dealing with obnoxious little sh2ts who think that, because they were lucky enough to be born with the capacity to learn certain things easily, the whole world owes them admiration and subservience, and they have the right to look down on those who were not so lucky in the academic stakes.
Promoting excellence?
Enriching our jobs market ?

I hate the phrase "the brightest and best" because, in my experience the way in which we measure these are limited and flawed and some of those classed as 'the brightest and best' are social misfits who are lacking in social skills and life skills. Our educational system fails them too because everybody thinks their academic ability / success is all they need and other, perhaps more important, parts of their development and education are neglected..

I ask the question again. How many of our most successful entrepreneurs were high achievers in academic terms? How many very successful entrepreneurs dropped out of formal education before completion?

Our society needs a holistic, inclusive education system in which all aspects of a person's developement are addressed and all talents are nurtured and appreciated.

[gatsbygirl20]

[quote=uriah;2420460]

I

We all love the brightest and best. Teachers, no matter how inclusive they strive to be, love them too, as they reflect back the best of their teaching. Teaching an exceptionally bright child is like flying effortlessly through the air or dancing with grace and precision.

By the way, exceptionally bright children are also classed as having "special needs" and modern teacher training insists that the trainee teacher demonstrate strategies in the classroom to meet their needs and "fast track" them. I personally believe that these children should be fast-tracked in the interest of promoting excellence. We do need the brightest and best in our Universities and later on, enriching our jobs market

QUOTE]


I cannot agree. Some children who perceive themselves to be 'the brightest and the best' are often pains in the ass. If their parents also think they are 'the brightest and the best', that often makes matters worse. Far from feeling like one 'is flying through the air or dancing with great precision' (are you serious?) it can be more like dealing with obnoxious little sh2ts who think that, because they were lucky enough to be born with the capacity to learn certain things easily, the whole world owes them admiration and subservience, and they have the right to look down on those who were not so lucky in the academic stakes.
Promoting excellence?
Enriching our jobs market ?

I hate the phrase "the brightest and best" because, in my experience the way in which we measure these are limited and flawed and some of those classed as 'the brightest and best' are social misfits who are lacking in social skills and life skills. Our educational system fails them too because everybody thinks their academic ability / success is all they need and other, perhaps more important, parts of their development and education are neglected..

I ask the question again. How many of our most successful entrepreneurs were high achievers in academic terms? How many very successful entrepreneurs dropped out of formal education before completion?

Our society needs a holistic, inclusive education system in which all aspects of a person's developement are addressed and all talents are nurtured and appreciated.

I am afraid I cannot share your antipathy to teaching academically bright children. Teaching children who are "obnoxious" or cheeky, well that is a different story! I find that they exist on all levels of academic ability. I totally agree with your last point that we must strive to be holistic and inclusive. But our inclusivity must also include the occasional academically gifted child. And we must try to be as tolerent of their slight behaviour ssues as we would with a special needs kid from the other end of the spectrum

Your question re successful entrepreneurs is an important one. I know for a fact that statistics have been quoted to me at in-service----but as usual I have no detail or link---that shows there is absolutely no connection between IQ, as it is currently measured, ---never mind academic ability,---- and success in business or entrepreneurship

I love teaching kids (first requirement in a teacher) but I also love my subject. And when you love your subject, inevitably you will enjoy teaching bright motivated kids. I teach in a disadvantaged school so motivated kids are thin on the ground. I do my best with the kids in front of me---newcomer kids, vulnerable kids, special needs kids, the odd academic kid

. My school does not, I think "fail" the weaker kids. We work tirelessly for them and find it very rewarding. We have innovative and imaginative programmes (which are now of course being cut back)

I understand your dislike of the cliched phrase "brightest and best". I was quoting another poster who used it. But, hey, lets not be afraid to say some kids are academically brighter than others, and challenge them accordingly. I think that is our job, too

[uriah]

[quote=gatsbygirl20;2420538]

I am afraid I cannot share your antipathy to teaching academically bright children. Teaching children who are "obnoxious" or cheeky, well that is a different story! I find that they exist on all levels of academic ability. I totally agree with your last point that we must strive to be holistic and inclusive. But our inclusivity must also include the occasional academically gifted child. And we must try to be as tolerent of their slight behaviour ssues as we would with a special needs kid from the other end of the spectrum

Your question re successful entrepreneurs is an important one. I know for a fact that statistics have been quoted to me at in-service----but as usual I have no detail or link---that shows there is absolutely no connection between IQ, as it is currently measured, ---never mind academic ability,---- and success in business or entrepreneurship

I love teaching kids (first requirement in a teacher) but I also love my subject. And when you love your subject, inevitably you will enjoy teaching bright motivated kids. I teach in a disadvantaged school so motivated kids are thin on the ground. I do my best with the kids in front of me---newcomer kids, vulnerable kids, special needs kids, the odd academic kid

. My school does not, I think "fail" the weaker kids. We work tirelessly for them and find it very rewarding. We have innovative and imaginative programmes (which are now of course being cut back)

I understand your dislike of the cliched phrase "brightest and best". I was quoting another poster who used it. But, hey, lets not be afraid to say some kids are academically brighter than others, and challenge them accordingly. I think that is our job, too

I did not say that I have an antipathy to teaching academically bright children.

I simply did not agree that

"Teaching an exceptionally bright child is like flying effortlessly through the air or dancing with grace and precision".

as not all 'exceptionally bright' pupils make a teacher feel as if s/he has consumed magic mushrooms.

[hopi watcher]

Yet again......

(1) Was everyone in the dept of education a monster upto the point when such assistants were introduced?

(2) Do you think the "talented"(for want of a better world) child would do even better if he/she had a special teacher for them? if you, but don't think that they should have one, then you are depriving them of their chance to reach their potential.

Thankfully, I have the ability of seeing your view and am gracious enough to say that you have a point, I cannot say you are wrong. Unfortunately, it doesn' appear that you have the ability to relate to people of a different opinion or to even debate issues - yet again more name calling. Tut tut Hoppi! I guess you didn't do debates before?

1) We didn't know any better. What's your excuse?
2) The point is a 'talented' person needs less assistance to reach their full potential. Again you spout on matters that you obviously know little about.

The points you are making are straight out of gutter. They seek to deny persons in need of additional assiatnce on the basis that it is wasteful to do so. Denying some one the capaccity to live a fuller life when we are in receipt of the knowledge and experience to do that marks you you as a budding eugenists, Human kind has had that conversation years ago and it appears that the 'most talented' among us got it wrong with devestating consequences.

[hopi watcher]

What about the talented ? Are they not people too ?

Are they not supposed to reach their full potential ?

Should they be left in classrooms with disruptive elements or should they be fast tracked ?

Huge amount of evidence saying that intelligent pupils get bored/resentful/demotivated if forced to slow down to suit others.

Not the point. Money should not be denied to those in need of special attention just to spend on what some one decides are the 'most talented'. If it is an either or situation, any civilsed rational human being would not opt to deny a person the chance to have a fuller life experience.