Since deciding on the topic of special needs education, I’ve started looking into the funding issues and how it affects those involved. The problem, as mentioned in previous blogs, is that the Individuals with Disabilities Act requires the federal government to contribute 40% of the average funding needed for each student, but have failed to come close thus far. This obviously impacts the special needs students themselves, but also goes much further than this. Others such as teachers, aides, families, and even the local communities feel the consequences of this. The IDEA must be fully funded in order to combat all these problems.

 

 

       For the teachers, the lack of funding creates a multifaceted situation. First and foremost, insufficient funding means teachers are not receiving the salaries they deserve. For many school districts, this means unfilled positions in a classroom that obviously needs additional attention. In the last ten years alone, there has been a 17% decrease in special education teachers and aides, with the student to teacher ratio now at 17:1. Furthermore, no money means the teachers can not buy the resources necessary for their classrooms. Special needs students often require technological assistance and different methods to succeed in the class. The teachers will not be able to make as great of a difference in the lives of their students without these.

 

       The problems with the IDEA federal funding means the majority of the money must come from the states. This forces the states to implement more taxes to obtain the money, something most will not be in favor of. When money is supposed to come from the national government, but instead the local communities must come up with the funding, it is bound to cause greater issues.

 

       One of the most important impacts is the way this issue affects the parents and guardians of the special needs students. Since the classrooms do not have the resources necessary for their children, the parents and families must pay for the specific costs. Things like personal technology and devices to help with movement will not be paid for by federal or state funding. The parents must find a way to pay for these to keep their students from falling even more behind their peers. In most cases, this causes an even greater financial burden. The life of a special needs parent, although rewarding, is also tough due to the additional money they have to pay for treatments and therapy. They already have enough to deal with without having to pay for something unnecessary.

       The lack of federal funding for special education classes is impacting so many more people than just the students within the classroom. It is drastically affecting the lives of many connected to the students. It is essential that this problem is fixed to change the lives of these people. A working solution must be found as soon as possible and the IDEA Full Funding Act may be the way to go.

 

  www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2018/12/05/shortage-of-specia-educators-adds-to-classroom.html 

 www.cec.sped.org/~/media/Files/Policy/BudgetCutsSurveyReleaseCEC.pdf

Currently, I love my topic of the NBA’s one and done rule and I am sure that I could make a great issue brief about it. However, with the new and highly anticipated rule change occurring soon in the NBA, I’m not sure writing 10 pages about this issue will still be relevant. I’m going to do some research into some possible different topics that I might enjoy and that’s what this blog post is dedicated to.

Another topic I have a lot of interest in, aside from sports, is education. Specifically, special needs education is something I would love to learn more about. At my high school, the special needs education was fantastic. I was closely involved with their class in a club called Peer Mentor Buddy Club and I saw first-hand how great their teachers, aides, classrooms, and resources were. The students benefitted so much from the assistance they received through their education. Despite all the advancements made with the special-needs students, however, some still wondered whether giving such a small population of the school a highly specialized albeit costly education was benefitting the greater good of the high school.

No one really came out and said this to the school board as no one wishes to offend or belittle this community, yet the topics of conversation continued to be raised behind closed doors. I am not sure of the specifics of how much money goes into special education at my high school. We may not even have enough, I would not know. However, with all the advanced technology and additional teachers and aides required, I wouldn’t be opposed to at least acknowledging this complicated opinion.

I understand that many schools are not as privileged to have good services for the special needs students and some may even have the opposing problem- not enough funding.

After some research into federal funding, I found that the federal government has mandated special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Act. With this, the states are required to provide students special education as a condition of receiving federal funding. Also, the IDEA authorized Congress to contribute 40% of the monetary expenses for each pupil with special needs, but to this point the total funding from Congress for special education has only been up to 15%.

With programs being cut left and right in schools, the money simply is not there to increase the funding for special education, but apparently it is needed. Organizations and union members continuously lobby for change to the nation’s policy makers, but little has been done.

In addition to the problem at some public schools, a large majority of private and religious schools are qualifying for federally funded special educations services, but only one percent of these schools were actually receiving them.

This topic is currently a complicated issue. I am excited to continue to look into the disparities in schooling for special education and the effects it has on both the special needs and regular students.

 

 

 

https://www.understandingspecialeducation.com/special-education-funding.html

https://pioneerinstitute.org/featured/study-ma-private-religious-school-students-denied-federally-funded-special-education-services/

This week, the argument surrounding the one and done rule just became a bit more heated.

On this Wednesday, February 20^th, one of the top players and who many assume will be the first pick in the NBA draft, got injured during his game versus North Carolina. After the first 30 seconds of a nationally televised game, Zion Williamson turned to make a cut, his shoe burst open, and he sprained his knee.

For most players, this would simply be seen as a “day to day” injury, but for someone as famous as Zion Williamson, the news spread across the country and it spurned into a new category of the one and done argument. With a constant risk of injury in the NCAA, should players have to endure one year?

After seeing Zion injured, various players and analysts from the NBA spoke up on their opinions about this ruling. One player, Isaiah Thomas, tweeted “Let these kids go straight out of HS!!! Too much on the line to be messing with college if you got a legit chance to turn pro. One injury can change somebody’s career.” With the almost inevitable future of going pro for Zion, this injury could have ruined his chances. And if not Zion, possibly others that are forced to attend college for one year before turning pro.

However, I guess this event involving possibly the best prospect since Lebron James, officially became the breaking point for the NBA.

Just today, the NBA released that they plan to lower the draft age to 18 years old, rather than 19, effectively allowing players to enter the league right after high school. The league has sent a proposal to the National Basketball Players Association and the players’ union discussed the possible change at a meeting earlier this week.

People within the association hope this will be implemented by the 2022 draft. Although this news was not released publicly, individuals close to the association confirmed it.

To the players, this is obviously a positive change in events. Players have been in support of shifting the rule to allow players to enter the draft directly after high school since the rule was created in 2005.

Those within the league’s association state that the incident with Zion did not have anything to do with their ruling and that the timing was more of a coincidence. However, it’s hard not to believe that the effects of this did not at least cross their minds when discussing. The fact that these players are subject to possible injuries while participating in one year of college basketball has been a huge argument against the one and done rule for years. A name that could be the new face of the NBA being the one this time is a huge motivation to change.

Despite the drastic change in ruling, the specifics behind are it are still a bit cloudy. Those that believe in the one and done rule, or even more years of schooling, are not behind it, and it could cause even more argument in the future.

 https://www.businessinsider.com/zion-williamson-injury-nba-draft-college-rules-2019-2

https://www.oregonlive.com/sports/2019/02/nba-plans-to-eliminate-the-one-and-done-rule-lower-draft-age-to-18.html

As I previously introduced, the one and done rule in the NBA is one that causes arguments among coaches within the NBA and NCAA, the directors of the leagues, sports commentators, and even the common basketball fans. But how do the players feel about it?

USA Today interviewed various players from both sides of the story, one and done players as well as those who went to the NBA straight after high school. While their outcomes were all unique, they seemed to come to a common ground on one thing. According to NBA players, the time at which someone declares for the NBA draft is highly situational dependent and should be decided by the players’ best interests, not limited by the rules of the league.

In the article “Pros reflect on their one and done experience”, players such as Kyrie Irving, Kevin Durant, and Mike Conley speak about how attending college for one year before transitioning to the NBA was the ideal choice for them. They believe it helped them mature and allowed them to build a lifelong connection to their respective universities. For Irving, although he only participated in 11 games at Duke due to injury, he says that “Coach K is still my mentor” and that he will be a Blue Devil for life. He expressed the importance of the support his coaching staff gave him, even though he had the talent to be leaving after one year, contributing to his successes with the one and done situation.

Another player in this situation, Mike Conley, truly matured with one year at Ohio State, leading them to a NCAA Title game. Although he was only there for a year, he still went back each summer until he completed his degree while playing in the NBA.

Irving told USA Today that “Our parents would like us to go to four-year schools for four years, but to have the opportunity to live out your dream that you’ve been working your whole life for, I feel like it should be left to the kid and live with the result”.

To Kobe Bryant, a player who went straight to the NBA after high school, “The best decision (I ever made) was coming straight to the NBA and skipping college.” This pathway for him was the perfect one as he entered the NBA and excelled immediately, but he recognizes this isn’t the best situation for everyone.

Similar to players like Irving and Conley, Kobe believes that every player’s circumstance is unique because each has traits and qualities that can alter their outcome. It depends on the player’s motivation and mentors they have, not the fact that the NBA has ruled that they must attend a year of college. He thinks that players can be fully ready to enter the NBA after just four years of high school, while others may not even be ready after four years of college. It is up to the individual whether they will succeed or not.

Ultimately for both types of players, the individual should be given the choice of when to enter the NBA and live with the rewards and consequences. They do not believe it should be up to the league, but rather each player’s personal decision.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/lakers/2016/02/13/kobe-bryant-lakers-nba-all-star-weekend-high-school-retiring/80345238/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/2014/02/17/one-and-done-players-reflect-kyrie-irving-michael-beasley/5341509/

 

The one and done rule in the NBA states that before being eligible to enter the NBA draft, the athlete must be one year removed from high school or at least 19 years old. This ruling was decided in 2005 by the NBA commissioner, along with the Player’s Union and first implemented in the 2006 season. Prior to this rule change, 42 players were able to be drafted directly after high school into the NBA. This includes some of the most prolific players of all time: Kobe Bryant, Lebron James, Tracy McGrady, and Kevin Garnett.

The intention of the one and done rule was to encourage young players to obtain a college education before trying out the NBA and ensure they had time to mature before declaring for the draft. However, it also meant that these top tier athletes would never actually complete a meaningful college education.

Since the one and done rule was initiated, many products of the system have gone on to have successful NBA careers. 83 players have since entered the NBA after one year of college and this includes 11 All Stars, 6 Rookies of the Year, and 4 NBA Champions. This list is made up of players such as Kyrie Irving, Kevin Durant, and Anthony Davis.

However, at the same time, this system has done more harm than good for many eager young players. For a lot of players, they had a highly successful high school career, garnering a large amount of attention due to their talents, only to have a subpar freshmen year of college and not end up making it big in the NBA.

It is evident that the one and done rule has produced inconclusive evidence when it comes to the successes of the players involved.

Not to any surprise, this inconsistency has created a large amount of controversy in the basketball world, with many believing the NBA’s one and done rule should be modified or even done away with altogether.

The major arguments of the players include the possible risk of injury while playing in college for just one year and for some, they see their families continuing to struggle financially while they could be bringing in millions of dollars as an NBA player. For those who are already physically and mentally mature enough for the league, they believe they have nothing to gain and everything to lose by playing in college for one year.

Other opponents of the system fear that playing for one year, without obtaining a full college education, can be detrimental for the players who end up not being cut out for the NBA. After players declare for the draft, they are ineligible to return to college; however, for those who may not make it onto a team’s final roster, they have nowhere else to turn. Those who already were often struggling financially have no solution.

Obviously, there are still proponents of the ruling. However, they are few and far in between. The major issue right now is how to alter this rule, so it can be beneficial for the athletes themselves as well as the NCAA and NBA.

 In the upcoming posts, I’ll discuss my thoughts on both sides and reveal some of the possible alternatives to the ruling that is currently creating so much controversy.

 

 

https://sport.one/what-does-one-and-done-mean-in-the-nba/

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1723163-why-the-nbas-one-and-done-rule-is-causing-more-harm-than-good