Monday, January 08, 2007

What Obligation Does a State Have to Gifted Students?


In California a judge ruled that the state does not have to pay the college tuition of a gifted 13-year old student, says Education Week ($) in an article from the December 6th edition:
California is not required to pay for the tuition of an extremely gifted 13-year-old student who is enrolled in college, a state appeals court has ruled.

A three-judge panel of the 3rd District Court of Appeal, in Sacramento, unanimously dismissed an appeal by Leila J. Levi, the mother of Levy M. Clancy, who is now 16.

According to court papers, the boy began taking college courses at age 7, passed the state’s high school exit exam at 9, and started attending the University of California, Los Angeles, at 13.

Ms. Levi sued the state department of education in 2004, seeking to force it to pay for her son’s college tuition. She argued in her suit that he was entitled to a state-funded college education because the state’s compulsory-education law required him to attend school until age 16, but her son “cannot attend a traditional K-12 school because the schools operated by [the California Department of Education] and Clancy’s local district are ill-equipped and unsuitable for highly gifted children and will actually cause more harm to him than if he simply did not attend.”

She contended that the schools could not meet “his specific psychosocial and academic needs,” and that he had already completed a standard K-12 education.

In a Nov. 7 ruling, the appeals court held that the education department was not required under the state constitution or state statutes, or as a matter of public policy, to pay the costs of Mr. Clancy’s college education. The California Constitution’s guarantee of free schooling only encompasses grades K-12 and does not include the state’s colleges and universities, Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye wrote for the court.

The court also ruled that neither the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act nor other public-policy considerations could force the state to provide a college education. Extreme giftedness is not listed among the disabilities encompassed by the IDEA, so the child was neither covered by the law nor has “exceptional needs” as defined by the state’s education laws.

Nor could the judge find any provision of the federal No Child Left Behind Act, or California’s plan to implement that federal law, “that requires K-12 public education to meet every student’s particularized educational needs.”

Justice Cantil-Sakauye noted that the court was not addressing whether the state should attempt to meet the academic needs of every student in the K-12 system.

“We are aware there is significant debate in the field of education regarding the educational needs of gifted and highly gifted children,” but those matters are properly addressed by the legislature or the electorate, the judge said.


A couple of thoughts:

  • An article I read a couple of months ago brought up the idea of an IEP for every student, and this is a direction that I would love to see us go towards for those extremely gifted kids. If we’re going to acknowledge exceptionality on one end of the spectrum with specially designed instruction, why not the other end as well?
  • If you could IEP a gifted student, their least restrictive environment (LRE) may well be the local college campus, as for the boy above. That would be a sea change that could make a big difference for kids around the country.
  • On the brighter side, the judge did encourage the California legislature to develop a remedy for situations like this, which goes against the usual stereotype of the activist judge forcing schools to spend more money.


In the Picus and Odden report that Washington Learns ignored there’s a great section on what the state does to support gifted education. The funding mechanism is rather eye-opening:
Current code (RCW 28A.185) governs school districts' provision of appropriate programs for gifted and talented, or "highly capable" students. For each district with a gifted student program, the state provides $353 per student for 2 percent of total district enrollment, which equals about $7.06 for all students. The statuatory goal is to provide funding to 3 percent of total enrollment.

In a district my size, that works out to about $15,000.

4 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Picus and Odden also said:

Recommendation. In other states, we have recommended that the ELL formula provide an additional 1.0 FTE teacher positions for every 100 ELL students. We also make that our basic recommendation for Washington, especially given the additional resources we recommend for ELL students from low income background. The current Washington program provides about 1.35 FTE positions for every 100 ELL students. Since the ways of determining these numbers can be unique to each state, we would be comfortable if the Advisory Committee wished to retain the current Washington ratio of 1.35


Now, this should clearly rip the covers off the alchemy which is “adequacy litigation research.” Notice how when Washington spends MORE than they recommend, well, their recommendation may be set aside. Or should they recommend that the “overspending” be corrected to match the “evidence-based” spending results?

One other aspect of the hocus pocus therefore becomes clear: The connection between funds and results is never established in the report. Does spending on ELL staff at the 1:100 level generate perfect results in ELL programs? If so our ELL students would be demonstrating results that are 135% of perfection.

Setting Picus and Odden aside is prudent. Giving them hundreds of thousands for a mostly off-the-shelf research paper was not prudent.

3:00 PM  
Blogger Ms. Q said...

I too agree that if we recognize severe disabilities, we should also ramp up the efforts to guarantee that truly gifted students can reach their potential. I am glad the judge encouraged the legislature to fix it. Will we see it happen? Teachers need to make their voices stronger and louder so that they do.

6:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ridiculous. Students with actual disabilities have never been offered anything close to "reaching their potential". What a bunch of whining! Students with disabilities were denied ANY education until the 1970's... and are still routinely excluded much of the academic life guaranteed to others. Courts have ruled that students with disabilities are not entitled to Cadillacs... neither should the college bound 7 yo OR 12 yo. be provided a Cadillac. Washington does guarantee funding for "running start" in high school.... which is college tuition instead of high school.

5:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

豆豆聊天室 aio交友愛情館 2008真情寫真 2009真情寫真 aa片免費看 捷克論壇 微風論壇 大眾論壇 plus論壇 080視訊聊天室 情色視訊交友90739 美女交友-成人聊天室 色情小說 做愛成人圖片區 豆豆色情聊天室 080豆豆聊天室 小辣妹影音交友網 台中情人聊天室 桃園星願聊天室 高雄網友聊天室 新中台灣聊天室 中部網友聊天室 嘉義之光聊天室 基隆海岸聊天室 中壢網友聊天室 南台灣聊天室 南部聊坊聊天室 台南不夜城聊天室 南部網友聊天室 屏東網友聊天室 台南網友聊天室 屏東聊坊聊天室 雲林網友聊天室 大學生BBS聊天室 網路學院聊天室 屏東夜語聊天室 孤男寡女聊天室 一網情深聊天室 心靈饗宴聊天室 流星花園聊天室 食色男女色情聊天室 真愛宣言交友聊天室 情人皇朝聊天室 上班族成人聊天室 上班族f1影音視訊聊天室 哈雷視訊聊天室 080影音視訊聊天室 38不夜城聊天室 援交聊天室080 080哈啦聊天室 台北已婚聊天室 已婚廣場聊天室 夢幻家族聊天室 摸摸扣扣同學會聊天室 520情色聊天室 QQ成人交友聊天室 免費視訊網愛聊天室 愛情公寓免費聊天室 拉子性愛聊天室 柔情網友聊天室 哈啦影音交友網 哈啦影音視訊聊天室 櫻井莉亞三點全露寫真集 123上班族聊天室 尋夢園上班族聊天室 成人聊天室上班族 080上班族聊天室 6k聊天室 粉紅豆豆聊天室 080豆豆聊天網 新豆豆聊天室 080聊天室 免費音樂試聽 流行音樂試聽 免費aa片試看A片 免費a長片線上看 色情貼影片 免費a長片 本土成人貼圖站 大台灣情色網 台灣男人幫論壇 A圖網 嘟嘟成人電影網 火辣春夢貼圖網 情色貼圖俱樂部 台灣成人電影 絲襪美腿樂園 18美女貼圖區 柔情聊天網 707網愛聊天室聯盟 台北69色情貼圖區 38女孩情色網 台灣映像館 波波成人情色網站 美女成人貼圖區 無碼貼圖力量 色妹妹性愛貼圖區 日本女優貼圖網 日本美少女貼圖區 亞洲風暴情色貼圖網 哈啦聊天室 美少女自拍貼圖 辣妹成人情色網 台北女孩情色網 辣手貼圖情色網 AV無碼女優影片 男女情色寫真貼圖 a片天使俱樂部 萍水相逢遊戲區 平水相逢遊戲區 免費視訊交友90739 免費視訊聊天 辣妹視訊 - 影音聊天網 080視訊聊天室 日本美女肛交 美女工廠貼圖區 百分百貼圖區 亞洲成人電影情色網 台灣本土自拍貼圖網 麻辣貼圖情色網 好色客成人圖片貼圖區 711成人AV貼圖區 台灣美女貼圖區 筱萱成人論壇 咪咪情色貼圖區 momokoko同學會視訊 kk272視訊 情色文學小站 成人情色貼圖區 嘟嘟成人網 嘟嘟情人色網 - 貼圖區 免費色情a片下載 台灣情色論壇 成人影片分享 免費視訊聊天區 微風 成人 論壇 kiss文學區 taiwankiss文學區

5:18 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home