Funding in school

[KholdStare]

Now, I couldn't really think of an appropriate name for this thread so if any moderator has one, please rename it.

My friend and I were discussing something and we got into a pretty intense debate. Now this is the scenario which is presented:

Basically the question is if you could control funding to a school, should the money be spent to educate 1 mentally retarded child or 2-3 normal children in an impoverished neighborhood?

[Graffik]

The money should be spent on 2-3 normal children. It's the numbers, and how much they can add back to society. 2-3 normal children will make far more income then a mentally 'challenged' child would. point blank

[MasterX25]

Yes, but there is human rights and all people are (supposed to be treated equal). Personally I would say give the mentally crippled a chance. We live in a world where the mentally crippled are turning into goddamn geniuses. Their brain is screwed up but they will excel at one area, eg. Einstein had a retarded brain problem where he could find the answer in a blink of an eye eg. e=mc2. You see on news often that how some mentally crippled are geniuses since they are so good at something, but then retarded since they suck at everything else. And mentally cripples tends to try harder than normal people. I say, give them a chance, if I was in their situation, I wanted to be treated them same.

[Graffik]

^ I somewhat agree with the points you have made there, however...

should the money be spent to educate 1 mentally retarded child or 2-3 normal children in an impoverished neighborhood?

Unfortunately, we are talking about an impoverished neighbourhood. So that means there most likely wouldn't be enough support for the children anyways. And, as we all know, impoverished communities do not always churn out the best of citizens. So in a case like this, forgetting the 2-3 students without a problem could lead to them becoming 'detacthed' from education, which is most likely to lead to a destructive life-style. However, if enough funding is able to be secured for them to have a satisfactory education in the least, while the cripple is being given a superb education, so be it. Just not on the cost of destroying the future for those children.

Yes, but there is human rights and all people are (supposed to be treated equal). Personally I would say give the mentally crippled a chance.

This is the point of view I'd like to take, but when Kholdstare mentioned 'instead of 2-3 students,' it made me think. If the money were spent on the cripple, it wouldn't mean all are created equal, it would be there are those who have more 'bright futures,' and thus they have more value. Afterall, the sacrifice would 2-3 for one. This approach however would be beneficiary to both parties if a comprimise could be reached. In that they all have a satisfactory education, pretaining to suit their needs specifically. [I'm basically saying satisfactory education for non-cripples for the 2-3 children, and satisfactory education for cripples for the mentally ill child.]

[Guy]

We should definitely spent money on impoverished children. I've known and heard stories about prodigies but were doomed in society only because they were poor. Education costs money, college costs money, and without them, even prodigies will have a hard time to get into colleges.

I feel sorry for mentally retarded children, but there really are smart people in impoverished neighborhood, and I believe they have more to invest in.

[Seff]

Basically the question is if you could control funding to a school, should the money be spent to educate 1 mentally retarded child or 2-3 normal children

I think the question itself also presents the answer.

The fact is; no matter how well the mentally retarded child is educated, he will still be mentally retarded. He will find it difficult if not impossible to get a job in future life - this is, of course, assuming that he will even understand and make use of the education being provided to him.
Despite the best education, it is highly improbable, if not impossible, that he will take it any further than high school.

On the other hand; you could educate not one but three normal children, who have a chance of a good future in front of them. They will be able to make the most of what is given to them.

It it had been "spend the money on one normal child or one retarded child", i would have said the normal child. Everybody should be treated eqaully, but if two people stand in front of you, one has a future, one does not, it is obvious you will support the kid with a future.