[Blindtlk] Oregon votes to close school for the blind

[Mike Freeman]

Steve:

With respect, you are wrong. In fact, according to statistics of the 
Washington State School for the Blind, when all costs are taken into 
account, there isn't much difference between costs of providing a FAPE 
for a blind student in public schools (assuming the program there is 
adequate) and that provided at the School for the Blind.

I will agree, however, that a school for the blind can no longer rely 
just upon residential students; the Washington School has an extensive 
outreach program to assist public school districts with their blind 
children and has made itself into an intensive blindness-skills 
education facility with the ideal outcome that blind students go there 
to obtain the skills (blindness, social, etc.) they need and then 
(assuming their own school district has adequate provisions) they go 
back to their home districts.

So the role of schools for the blind may be changing but schools for the 
blind themselves are still quite viable and necessary, especially when 
(as in Oregon) legislators are unwilling to fund the special ed and 
related services for blind children in their own districts adequately.

Mike Freeman

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve P. Deeley" <stevep.deeley at insightbb.com>
To: "Blind Talk Mailing List" <blindtlk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 8:54 AM
Subject: Re: [Blindtlk] Oregon votes to close school for the blind


You are maintaining a complete campus for  31 students.  There is 
something
known as cost efficiency.  I believe the days for schools for the blind 
are
just about over.  In the 1960's, the Kentucky School for the Blind had a
census of 150 or more.  Now, there are very few blind students on the
campus.  In the day, KSB had one of the most respected wrestling teams 
in
the state of Kentucky.  Those days seem to be gone, sadly.

Steve
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "T. Joseph Carter" <carter.tjoseph at gmail.com>
To: "Blind Talk Mailing List" <blindtlk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 8:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Blindtlk] Oregon votes to close school for the blind


> Full time students?  31.
>
> Served each year in some capacity?  About 400.
>
> Twenty years ago?  I don't know, it was a lot more—but Oregon has
> changed its laws in the interim to forbid placement at the school
> unless there is no other placement possible.
>
> The school is being closed for students that are only allowed to be
> there because there is no other placement possible.
>
> The first argument to close the school was that the buildings needed
> substantial maintenance, including seismic upgrades.  We countered
> this by pointing out that funding for this maintenance has been
> secured time and again, but the Oregon legislature has consistently
> redirected it over the past 20 years to efforts to close or relocate
> the school, rather than maintain it.  Consistently, as in every
> single time.  They dropped that argument.
>
> The next argument was that enrollment was down and the cost per
> student was extremely high.  They argued that Least Restrictive
> Environment forbade placement at the school.  It would save money,
> too!  We gave the correct definition of LRE and pointed out that
> counting costs for 400 and dividing them by 31 is outright deception.
> We also pointed out how much closing the school would cost elsewhere.
> They mostly dropped that argument.
>
> The following argument was an empassioned plea to save these poor
> children from a life of seclusion.  Those poor children came and told
> the legislature that they were not secluded, that they had no other
> chance at the same education anywhere else in Oregon, and that they
> needed this school.  Another argument down.
>
> Finally, the legislature abandoned any pretense of arguing that this
> was "for the sake of the children" because we'd proven it was not.
> They stopped pretending that it would save money, because it would
> not.
>
> The effort to close the school was put forward by Oregon Democrats,
> and they maintain a strong majority in the Oregon legislature.  So
> they crammed it through with little public comment, offering
> minimally required time for an amendment to be published before it
> was voted on (without public comment, of course), and then they
> pulled every shenanigan they could to try and escape public notice,
> since the public almost unanimously opposed this bill.
>
> Joseph
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 07:18:26AM -0400, Steve P. Deeley wrote:
>> How many blind children were currently enrolled in the school in 
>> 2008?
>> How many blind students did the school have 20 years ago?
>> Steve
>
> _______________________________________________
> blindtlk mailing list
> blindtlk at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindtlk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> blindtlk:
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindtlk_nfbnet.org/stevep.deeley%40insightbb.com
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.63/2169 - Release Date: 
06/11/09
05:53:00


_______________________________________________
blindtlk mailing list
blindtlk at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindtlk_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
blindtlk:
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindtlk_nfbnet.org/k7uij%40panix.com