Posted on 10/24/2006 9:05:52 AM PDT by ZGuy
In a case being argued today before California's First District Court of Appeal in Sacramento, the Court could rule that school vouchers can be mandated for highly gifted children whose needs cannot be served by the standard K-12 sytem. Any decision would be governing throughout the State of California and could resonate throughout the nation. The California Department of Education is opposing a 14-year-old prodigy's bid to receive government funds so he can continue his schooling at a state university -- the only suitable education for the student's highly specialized needs, his mother argues.
The education department confirms that the lawsuit, brought by the mother of University of California at Los Angeles student Levi Clancy, hinges on the constitutionality of vouchers, making it the first case of its kind in the nation, says Clancy's attorney Richard Ackerman of the Pro-Family Law Center which is arguing the pro bono case for the family today.
As WorldNetDaily earlier reported, Clancy, who was reading high school-level books in two languages at age 5, enrolled at Santa Monica Community College at 7 and, earlier this year, entered UCLA.
His mother Leila Levi, a single parent, says she cannot afford the more than $9,000 it costs to attend UCLA each year and filed a lawsuit in February of 2004 in Sacramento Superior Court. She argues her son is of mandatory attendance age, and the California constitution requires he be provided a free education.
Having the state pay for his tuition at UCLA is the only possible remedy, insists Ackerman, who notes that if the boy is not in school, he is regarded as truant. Psychological professionals who have examined Clancy in the past concluded that, "Levi requires extremely advanced work. . . . radical acceleration is likely to benefit him. ... College course work should continue to be a part of Levi's [overall] program."
"You can't send him back to public school, because they don't have the means to educate a kid this gifted," he told WND. "The only way his intellectual needs can be met is if he goes to a high-level, four-year college."
Court papers filed by the California Department of Education acknowledged Clancy's mother is "attempting to obtain the functional equivalent of a voucher for her son's university-level education," but insists the agency does not owe a "constitutional duty" to the child in this case.
Ackerman argues any failure to provide a suitable education is a violation of the federal Equal Protection Clause.
The Sacramento trial court that first heard the case indicated in its now appealed ruling that the plaintiffs would just have to face the potential that the child prodigy would have to drop out of UCLA and see what happens because he does not have "special needs" under the law.
"The one size fits all approach to education is failing the plaintiff in this case," Ackerman says. "At some point in time, we are going to have to realize that it is intellectual torture to require a highly gifted child to maintain compulsory attendance in a failing system that doesn't even work for average students."
Ackerman asserts that at "a bare minimum, the CDE ought to be required to fund Levi's education to the same monetary level as provided on a per-student basis for every other child in the public schools, which happens to be between six and seven thousand dollars a head. LAUSD receives approximately $12,000.00 a year in Average Daily Attendance funds -- UCLA costs less than $9000.00. California taxpayers actually get a break by sending this kid to UCLA."
Regardless of who wins the Sacramento case, it likely will end up being appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, Ackerman believes. As can be seen from www.highlygifted.org, this is a case that could affect tens of thousands of children across the nation.
"This case has the potential to overhaul a failing educational system, and may open the doors to a truly suitable education for each child within the public school system," he said.
I'm in the same boat with my youngest.
NJ pays $25,000 or more per student with learning disabilities to attend special schools. Is there any logical reason on earth not to allow children with special gifts to attend schools where their educational needs are met?
"Oh, come on, that's a lot of money! Just because you have an extra $9000 a year, doesn't mean everyone does. Who ever DREAMS their children would need money for college at that age?"
9K a year is a lot of money? Are you joking? It is not.
ANY child is going to need a lot more than that for college!
A parent at any age, should have some money. If not, get a loan, grant or go for a scholarship for the kid. It's really NOT that complicated. Instead of having your hand out, why not THINK and help yourself. Good grief!
All I'm saying is that taxpayers are footing the bill regardless. Better to send the kid to UCLA than to a crappy public high school.
If, indeed, this kid is as bright as the article indicates, he at least has the potential to contribute significantly to society. And public high schools just won't cut it.
My nephew, a very bright young man, got so fed up and frustrated with public high school, he dropped out at sixteen. After getting a GED he bummed around for a while, until he decided to go to college (at around 20). Now he's a mechanical engineer (and a good one). His mother, a single parent) could not afford college.
Ridiculous. Yes, college costs money, but most people don't think they are going to have to start paying tuition until their children are 17 or 18. I'm sorry, but if you don't think $9K a year is a lot of money, you are out of touch with the reality most Americans face.
She's got an interesting case. The state says a child must be in school until 16. A child is entitle to a state paid for education (whether you like that or not, that's the current reality) Her child's needs cannot be met by any type of public high school I've ever seen. So to get the kid a good education, he needs to 1) be in college or go to some highly specialized private school that caters to prodigies. The former certainly sounds like the cheaper option.
The mom's math is b.s. 9k is the tuition, and does NOT include the property tax/other tax money that gets directly handed to the UC colleges every year. If you think UCLA costs only $9,000 per year per student, you are sadly mistaken.
In other words, she's comparing apples and oranges and pretending they are equivalent.
She apparently has enough money to pay a lawyer.....and I can't imagine that he couldn't find some kind of grant or scholarship assitance.
If the child was mildly retarded but educable, the state would offer too assist financially.
Where does it say all parents (parent) of a high IQ child must pay their own way. IQ does not relate to financial prosperity.
Someone should set up a scholarship fund for the young man - just as people do for children with deadly cancers or in need of special medical care, or special schooling (ie: blind and hearing impaired).
I think there is more to the story than is being reported.
So you're totally against vouchers?
Do not take it...........fight this with every fiber of your being....we did fight, but not as if my childs future depended on it ( we thought the schools would be happy to have a gifted child, and we were WRONG ) and my child ( who tested for mensa membership, and did not qualify, but fell into the 96th percentile ) has wasted his educational years in the public domain. They lied to us, used my son for his MEAP test scores ( a principal at his elementary school told me this is those exact words ). If your child is gifted, GET THEM THE HELL OUT OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS!!!!! hindsight is 100% accurate, and this is my warning. The public schools are well equipped to handle children with learning disabilites, but they WILL NOT deal with the gifted....
We did get that off of his record, but he has suffered irreperable damage thanks to the public schools. If you have a gifted child, GET THEM THE HELL OUT OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS..........
"At some point in time, we are going to have to realize that it is intellectual torture to require a highly gifted child to maintain compulsory attendance in a failing system that doesn't even work for average students."
So, taxpayers need to fund her child because she can't come up with the money? It's now the problem of the state?
It's not about her child, not really ... it's about someone else paying for the education of her child. THAT is not MY problem. Nor do I wish to start funding MORE people in college. 9K is NOT a lot of money - YOU are not in the real world.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.