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.
She apparently has enough money to pay a lawyer.....
"So you're totally against vouchers?"
I wax and wane on them ... I get sick and tired of paying property taxes in NJ, the HIGHEST in the nation when we don't use the public school system. To give you an idea of what we pay ... it's well over 25K a year.
Taxpayers are already paying!!!!!! It doesn't matter the grade level.
"Taxpayers are already paying!!!!!! It doesn't matter the grade level."
So now you want to add this crap to it too?
Imagine how many self proclaimed proteges will come crawling out of the woodwork? Need I mention quotas when too many come out of the closet? It's wrong and this crap has to stop.
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..........
You missed that part. The lawers at the Pro Family firm are doing it Pro bono.
I remember we used to have a program called Master Workshop. This was special ed for the highly gifted. Now it's the reverse. So, WHO do we want running the country in 40 years?
So you aren't in favor of an educational voucher program of any sort? I'm just trying to make sure I understand your position.
It won't stop until the Dept of Ed is abolished, and the power given back to the states. Do you know that federal funding only accounts for about 6% of public ed? And the states follow the guidelines just for that? The NEA and the Dept have to go.
Our high school has now allowed the learning disabled student, along with an aide to splain it all....into the AP classes.
It's been a disaster but no one dare say it's a failed experiment.
It is for some people.
A parent at any age, should have some money.
True, but we don't know the situation in this case. What people should do and what people can do is not always the same thing.
If not, get a loan, grant or go for a scholarship for the kid.
This I agree with. Seems if this kid is so bright, he should be able to get a scholarship. In fact, I'd be surprised if colleges weren't 'courting' him.
Having said all that, I am in favor of developing a voucher program. We are all forced to pay taxes, but we shouldn't be forced to use that tax money in the public schools.
If the state makes these rules and also stipulates that the state must accomodate the special needs (however that's defined) of students in its programs, then the state should pay.
California educates all its young - hearing impaired, blind, mildly retarded, and should take care of the higher IQ children as well.
Why should one be picked out of the group negatively? We
should be catering to the brilliance to ensure the child is educated in the best way we can offer.
THe tax payers are already funding education for 14 year olds, regardless of how much money the parents have. Legally, whether you like it or not, the state HAS to pay for an appropriate education for someone that age, if the parents choose public school. If the kids were retarded, they would HAVE to fund his special ed. If he were blind, they'd HAVE to pay for specialized reading materials, etc. In this case, the child also has "special" needs...he's too smart for even the gifted programs at the area high schools. Why SHOULDN'T the state also have to pay for his specialized education? Tuition at UCLA is probably cheaper that what it costs to educate many special needs kids.
Then you realize that you are already subsidizing the NJ kids educations. So I'm a little baffled at the high level of disdain you seem to be laying out.
Duh! Of course I know that. I'm baffled at your confusion. I don't like paying property taxes for a public school we don't attend. I'd like to have the tax dollars WE PAY and use that for private school tuition. Hope that clears up the confusion.
At $25 grand a year in property taxes you must be doing (or have done) pretty well. So your property taxes go up a little. Surely you can afford it. After all, she should be able to come up with the $9 grand easily enough. Right?
Yes, we do quite well and I'm not ashamed of that however I'm not interested in paying for a dumbed down public school system. I'm not interested in paying for YOU or your kids if you live in New Jersey. If she was in this boys shoes, WE'D be paying for it - not groveling around looking for OTHERS to pay for it.
I don't know for sure but I would bet that the Pro Bono attorney, the lack of scholarships, grants, etc. are part of a plan to push Vouchers. And what better way to show the damaged system for what it is. Find a gifted kid with no prospects, miserably failed by the system, doomed to a mediocre life unless we change the system. Thus the lawsuit. Didn't they make a movie about this with Jody Foster a number of years ago?
I don't know ... they have disadvantaged kids being paid for by the system so ... .
I do have mixed feelings on vouchers ... I want the money we pay in taxes but I don't want the federal control of the education. As of now we are free of that within reason. Ideally, just don't tax us to fund a failed system - public schools.
Seems to me that if LAUSD can pay $12,000 for 12 or most likely more years, plus b4 and ater school care, plus free lunches and breakfasts, they could foot the bill for 4 years @ of $9,000 per year.
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.