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.
You are being totally reactionary here and it is turning off your brain.
You are confusing what the law actually is versus what you would want it to be. The fact of the matter is that California's constitution guarantees a free public education. You may not like that, because it is socialistic, but it the law and the people of the state of California have to live with it.
I don't see why, a kid in college at that age would be a distraction. They lack the social and emotional maturity to thrive in environments at a school like UCLA.
It sounds to me like the kid does indeed have "special needs," and if the school system is required to take care of kids with special needs on one end of the Bell curve (the profoundly retarded) then I don't see why they should not be required to take care of kids on the other end of the curve. That said, I'm sure there is some limit already on the books as to how much they will pay to take care of kids who cannot be dealt with within the system. That is how much her kid should receive, no more.
As for the scholarship issue, I am surprised UCLA has not given him a free ride. However, I know from my own scholarship-hunting days (in the distant and misty past) that some schools won't give you a dime, while others are panting to get you there. So while UCLA may not want to pay for him, very likely another good school would ... but the problem might be that the other good school is out of state, for example. In that case, as a parent, what do you do? A 14-yo is too young to be allowed to live alone, no matter what his intellectual achievements. So do you uproot your entire family to go live in another state to meet the one child's needs?
I'm not an expert on education or taxes, so these are just my opinions. But I am a member of Mensa, and have heard many horror stories from other members about how awful their school experiences were, and how many of them dropped out and only came back to the educational experience later -- or worse, never came back. I know a brilliant man who works as a framer in a frame shop, because he is so screwed up from his odd childhood and lack of support for his education that he has never had enough confidence in himself to pursue something more worthy of his talents. I think it is a shame that we do not support our most talented members of society, so that they can fulfill their highest potential and give back the benefits to our society at large.
OK, when all public schools get abolished, then we can talk, but given the way the system is set up, his boy is legally entitled to an appropriate education.
If the public schools are ever abolished and we get to use our property taxes for school choice, my family will have a whopping $800 a year extra with which to educate our two children. Forgive me for not getting too excited about that prospect. LOL
And it's not a monopoly. We all have choices. You've made alternative choices, one of my children is in a non-traditional school setting. There ARE choices out there.
To adapt a historical motto to this situation, "Millions for Special Needs; Not one cent for Special Gifts!"
It is considered "democratic" to try to spend the "differently enabled" UP to normal; therefore, it is equally imperative to miser the "super-enabled" DOWN to normal, under the 'equal outcomes' doctrines inherent in the current educrat system.
For the most part, their schools did not meet their needs so we made sure we did.
Often that enrichment did not involve spending sums of money.......and as an aside, we did not have a computer back then.
Yeah and until those laws are changed people have to live by them. I don't like paying income tax but I do since unfortunately it is the law.
The public school system in this country is in shambles is demonstrates how socialism fails. We all get that and we all agree with you.
All we are saying is that under the current laws in that state, this mother seems to have a good case.
I'm not advocating more entitlement, I'm advocating for the education the state of CA has already promised millions of children. The state has already committed to paying for an appropriate education for children, through what, age 16, 18? I fell like the state should pony up and pay out what they already are legally bound to do.
You're looking at this as a university education, which I agree is optional. HOWEVER, this child is 14. The state says legally he HAS to be in some kind of school. What is the appropriate kind of school for a 14 year old who is off the charts brillant?
As for the attorney's fee, this has been discussed at length already, but her attorneys are from the Pro-Family Law center...the whole thing has pro-bono written all over it.
And no, I couldn't find a better school in my area for an extra $400 per child. Both my kids' schools are great. What your family has going on with taxes sounds like a lot more than just a high tax rate, it's an awfully expensive house, too, right?
Possibly. But there is prestige in 'landing' a child genius as a student, which translates into money.
You have the 9 grand, maybe she doesn't. Your child could presumably get an education at a public school at no cost to you, this child cannot. It's the same as if he were disabled, he's just over-abled (to coin a phrase). I think she's got a good case.
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.