I did the math for you. It's not hard to calculate. Take last years allocation minus 62% and you get this years allocation. Looks like a cut to me.

 

Kind of hypocritical after you make a big to do about how you're going to fund special needs kids on a national stage. But then, she didn't know she would have one when she cut the budget.

FWIW, I am anxiously awaiting your response to my post, in which, with links to Governor's Budget Plan, I detail how much money she allocated to Special Needs Education.

Thanks for setting the record straight. This is pretty low quality mud that Obama's network of supporters is slinging. It does not seem to be sticking.

Aces, I respect and agree with much of what you post, but the fact that you connect everything directly to Obama discredits a lot of your arguments.

 

Normally, I wouldn't care, but I managed to provide an unbiased, fully documented response to DD's false propositions (took some time out of my morning), but your post is simply going to make mine look like a right-wing witch hunter.

 

If you want to connect Obama to everything, that's fine, but don't include my posts. Undoubtedly you will respond that you have not broken any rules, I am asking as a courtesy because I have no intention of reporting your post.

FWIW, I am anxiously awaiting your response to my post, in which, with links to Governor's Budget Plan, I detail how much money she allocated to Special Needs Education.

 

Did you look at the 2009 Budget Amendments, line 10.

 

It shows 23.3 in RED INK for K-12 support / Special Schools, which includes the SESA. That states that no adjustment has been made.

Aces, I respect and agree with much of what you post, but the fact that you connect everything directly to Obama discredits a lot of your arguments.

 

Normally, I wouldn't care, but I managed to provide an unbiased, fully documented response to DD's false propositions (took some time out of my morning), but your post is simply going to make mine look like a right-wing witch hunter.

 

If you want to connect Obama to everything, that's fine, but don't include my posts. Undoubtedly you will respond that you have not broken any rules, I am asking as a courtesy because I have no intention of reporting your post.

These assertions are not coming from McCain supporters and many of the smears have originated on the Daily Kos web site, which consists mainly of Obama's supporters and they are not all wild-eyed liberals posting from their mom's basement.

 

When the owner of a left wing web site hosts a Democratic presidential debate, then I think that it is fair to associate the lies originating from the site with Obama. Likewise, MoveOn.org and the other websites funded by George Soros to support Obama's candidacy should properly be associated with him. Ditto for Arianna Huffington and her site. The participants and owners of those websites constitute a key Obama constituency.

 

While I respect your opinion, there is nothing wrong with attributing the well orchestrated smears made during a political campaign to a candidate who refuses to condemn them. And by condemning the smears, I do not mean issuing a vague condemnation that does not acknowledge the responsible party or organization by name. When John McCain has condemned what he thought were unfair attacks on Barack Obama he has done so in a direct manner and identified the responsible party by name. Obama should be man enough to do the same.

 

IMO, the mudslinging in the current campaign is a side effect of the McCain-Feingold act. The "reform" fueled the proliferation of non-profit advocacy groups and it is the reason that I oppose all limits on domestic campaign contributions.

 

If you recall, I criticized McCain for lying about Romney's record on Iraq and for not showing Ron Paul any respect or common courtesy during the Republican debates. I frequent Republican blog sites and I have never seen the kind of deliberate lies about Obama originating there that I see about Palin and McCain when I visit the left wing sites.

 

The conclusions that I have reached about Obama are my own but my criticism of his questionable associations have all been supported with facts published in mainstream news sources. I would never consider reading a rumor on a blog and then posting it here with or especially without attribution.

 

I will continue to lay the blame for the tone of the campaign at the feet of the party responsible. If you have any complaints about my posts in the future that are not issue-based and do not want to report them, please PM me. Thanks.

Okay, you've got a special need child that reads on a 1st grade level and they're in a regular ed classroom reading Julius Caesar. Please tell me how this is going to help them. You're not allowed to fail them and they know that, so who do you think does their work for them.

The concept of "special needs" children is far broader than just slow learners or those with behavioral problems. It takes in the whole gambit of disabilities.

Did you look at the 2009 Budget Amendments, line 10.

 

It shows 23.3 in RED INK for K-12 support / Special Schools, which includes the SESA. That states that no adjustment has been made.

I was hoping you'd say that. I wanted to see how much research you had really done.

 

In my first post, I outlined how Sarah Palin had increased the budget for Special Needs Education. However, after I posted, I did a bit more research.

 

I was very confused as to what "Annual adjustment to FY09 calculation for Special Education Service Agency (SESA) per AS 14.30.650." really meant. So I looked it up.

 

See here:

AS 14.30.650.

 

AS 14.30.650. Funding.

 

Detail: :

 

Each fiscal year the department shall allocate to the agency not less than $15.75 times the number of students in the state in average daily membership in the preceding fiscal year as determined under AS 14.17.600. Money to carry out the provisions of this section may be appropriated annually by the legislature. If amounts are insufficient to meet the allocation authorized under this section for a fiscal year, the allocation shall be reduced pro rata. The amount allocated to the agency shall be reduced each fiscal year by the amount contributed by the department to the Teachers' Retirement System (AS 14.25) or the Public Employees' Retirement System (AS 39.35) on behalf of employees of the agency.

 

Sarah Palin did not cut funding to the SESA by 23.2%, or by any percentage. What that table is showing is an annual adjustment. It is following Alaskan law. See the bolded above. Due to the number of students in the system, the funds had to be reduced. SARAH PALIN HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT.

 

THE HUFFINGTON POST WRITER FROM WHOM YOU GOT THIS IDEA, IS TRYING TO MANIPULATE US. SHE IS TAKING ADVANTAGE OF US, AND USING GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY TO PUSH HER OWN AGENDA AND LIES.

Very well done, cch.

I was hoping you'd say that. I wanted to see how much research you had really done.

 

In my first post, I outlined how Sarah Palin had increased the budget for Special Needs Education. However, after I posted, I did a bit more research.

 

I was very confused as to what "Annual adjustment to FY09 calculation for Special Education Service Agency (SESA) per AS 14.30.650." really meant. So I looked it up.

 

See here:

 

 

Sarah Palin did not cut funding to the SESA by 23.2%, or by any percentage. What that table is showing is an annual adjustment. It is following Alaskan law. See the bolded above. Due to the number of students in the system, the funds had to be reduced. SARAH PALIN HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT.

 

THE HUFFINGTON POST WRITER FROM WHOM YOU GOT THIS IDEA, IS TRYING TO MANIPULATE US. SHE IS TAKING ADVANTAGE OF US, AND USING GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY TO PUSH HER OWN AGENDA AND LIES.

 

I get your point that their structure is based on a specific fee per student in need of special needs, that the number of students dropped, so the allocation dropped. However, was the fee reduce? Was the fee increased?

Are students being main streamed and no longer classified as special needs kids? There are lots of ways to play with numbers.

I was hoping you'd say that. I wanted to see how much research you had really done.

 

In my first post, I outlined how Sarah Palin had increased the budget for Special Needs Education. However, after I posted, I did a bit more research.

 

I was very confused as to what "Annual adjustment to FY09 calculation for Special Education Service Agency (SESA) per AS 14.30.650." really meant. So I looked it up.

 

See here:

 

 

Sarah Palin did not cut funding to the SESA by 23.2%, or by any percentage. What that table is showing is an annual adjustment. It is following Alaskan law. See the bolded above. Due to the number of students in the system, the funds had to be reduced. SARAH PALIN HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT.

 

THE HUFFINGTON POST WRITER FROM WHOM YOU GOT THIS IDEA, IS TRYING TO MANIPULATE US. SHE IS TAKING ADVANTAGE OF US, AND USING GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY TO PUSH HER OWN AGENDA AND LIES.

 

Great research cch5432!

I get your point that their structure is based on a specific fee per student in need of special needs, that the number of students dropped, so the allocation dropped. However, was the fee reduce? Was the fee increased?

Are students being main streamed and no longer classified as special needs kids? There are lots of ways to play with numbers.

 

DD, did you have these questions prior to cchs5432 giving you the facts about what he found out, or are you only now asking these questions because you just assumed that the HUFFINGTON POST did it's leg work first?

 

Outstanding job cch5432 I am proud of you...

I get your point that their structure is based on a specific fee per student in need of special needs, that the number of students dropped, so the allocation dropped. However, was the fee reduce? Was the fee increased?

Are students being main streamed and no longer classified as special needs kids? There are lots of ways to play with numbers.

:thumb: You are absolutedly correct on that point.

:thumb: You are absolutedly correct on that point.

 

So we can all agree that there was a reduction in the funding of special needs programs. It's just a question of how they got there.

So we can all agree that there was a reduction in the funding of special needs programs. It's just a question of how they got there.

No we can agree that you can play with numbers in a lot of different ways (the section that I marked in bold), which is what the Huffington Post did. I suggest finding a more reliable source, such as the National Enquirer or even US Magazine. :lol:

No we can agree that you can play with numbers in a lot of different ways (the section that I marked in bold), which is what the Huffington Post did. I suggest finding a more reliable source, such as the National Enquirer or even US Magazine. :lol:

 

I just put my subscription in for US Magazine, Haven't got it yet.

It's in my recyle bin on Tuesday's. Don't read it. Feel free to take it

Edited September 6, 200818 yr by GaViking