Has Haim has already implied (or maybe stated outright), it takes no more money, just the will to do it. Actually, and more importantly, the will NOT to do it.
At 06:37 AM 2/16/2012, Paul Tanner wrote: >On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 12:01 AM, Haim <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > Robert Hansen Posted: Feb 15, 2012 10:14 PM > > > >> I have to admit, Paul is right. > > > > He is not even close to right. He has put the legal cart > before the judicial horse and come to a meaningless conclusion. > > > > Paul's initial claim, that special education is expensive > because the schools are legally mandated, is certainly correct, but > the legal mandates did not start with aggrieved parents suing in > court, as he states. No one can start a legal action simply > because he feels aggrieved. > > > > A legal action must first have some basis in law. First there > was a law on special education, then aggrieved parents could sue, > based on that law. As with all laws, over time case law shaped > statute, but there had to be some initial basis in statute for the > initial actions. > > > > In other words, the sped cart first got rolling when somebody > lobbied state governments for sped law. Take a guess who that > "somebody" was. (Oh, go on, guess.) > > > > If all it takes to get the legal cart rolling is an aggrieved > parent to sue the schools in court, then why has the same thing not > already happened wrt TAG education? I can tell you, as a matter of > fact, that lots of parents have tried to do just that. They failed > because they have no basis in law. In fact, general education law > is written so that the schools have pretty much a free hand to run > themselves as they see fit. Law suits on behalf of TAG children > have failed uniformly and comprehensively, for that > reason. Because "there is no controlling legal authority", ie, > because there is no TAG equivalent to sped law, the schools are the > final arbiters of what is proper accommodation of TAG children. > > > > Unless you have some statutory basis, you cannot just sue a > principal or a superintendent into running his school the way you > see fit. Can you imagine the chaos, if that were possible? Just > forget it; it is not possible and never has been. > > > > Sped laws were enacted because the Education Mafia wanted > them. Either they did the initial lobbying or they joined the > initial lobbyists (possibly some parents). > > > > Consider the other case. There is a lot of activity around the > issues of TAG education. Paul himself cited the Davidson > Institute, which is only one of many groups active in TAG > education. However, the Education Mafia do not want the TAG > equivalent of sped, so even though lots of people (including the > NEA, the AFT, and ed school professors) testify before congress all > the time on the subject of TAG education, there is no TAG > equivalent to sped law. > > > > No statutes, no court cases. End of story. > > > > Why? Why do the Education Mafia want sped law and not TAG > law? Do I really have to spell this out? Oh, OK. > > > > Sped kids need services. Who is providing these > services? Why, it is the Education Mafia, at great expense to the > public purse. The key to understanding this is that taking the > schools to court, for sped services, is not like you being taken to > court because you drove your car into your neighbors house, one drunken night. > > > > School districts have budgets. If you demand a service for > which the school does not have the money, they are bound to say > "no", however much they really want to provide the service. The > point of taking the school to court is that you are really taking > the state to court. On the basis of sped law, the judge then > forces the state to cough up the extra money. Brilliant, no? It > is not that the Education Mafia are so brilliant, but they have had > a lot of time to work things out. > > > > TAG education would not work like this. If the schools were > legally mandated to provide services to the satisfaction of TAG > children and their parents, it would mean less money for the > Education Mafia, not more. Furthermore, true TAG education would > play Hell with The Prime Directive (Reduce The Gap!). True TAG > education is everything the Education Mafia abhors. Oddly, we have > no TAG education laws. > > > > Paul's final observation, that the schools themselves want to > avoid doing anything for TAG children lest they get the legal cart > rolling by their actions, is completely at odds with the observable > evidence. General education law is written so that the schools can > do pretty much whatever they want to do. That is why some schools > accommodate TAG children (sometimes rather well) while most schools > do not. That is why a school that used to accommodate TAG children > might cease doing so with the advent of a new principal or a new > superintendent. > > > > TAG education comes and goes all the time. Sped education is > forever. That is the way the law works. And if you want it to > work differently, start flexing your political lobbying muscles > (and good luck with that). > > > > Haim > > Shovel ready? What shovel ready? > >The above is false for a very simple reason: > >The above is true only if what conservatives call "legislating from >the bench" in civil law does not exist. > >But it does exist. > >That is, Haim argues as if there has never been any such thing in >civil law as very creative lawyers arguing very creatively by trying >to apply some statute somewhere that has never been applied that way >before in front of one or more very creative judges that happen to end >up agreeing with said very creative lawyer. And he argues as if there >has never been any such thing even though as everyone should know, >there has been such a thing very, very often and where conservatives >like him derisively call this sort of thing "legislating from the >bench". > >(And of course there is this saying, "If at first you don't succeed, >try, try again." This applies to this sort of creative application of >statute in civil law absolutely - there are many examples where there >are many failures in court until finally some lawyer somewhere gets >some judge to agree. And then another. And so on. Just think of all >those failed lawsuits against the tobacco companies. That didn't stop >lawyers from trying again and again, while using more and more >research as it kept piling up, trying to become more and more >creative, until it finally worked.) > >In fact, the laying of the groundwork for such a creative use of law >with respect to gifted children seems to be in progress, and seems to >have started many years ago, in that more and more research keeps >piling up as to the negative consequences of not fully meeting the >needs of gifted children, research that said creative lawyers could >try to use: > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gifted_education > >Quote: > >"The notion that gifted children are "at-risk" was publicly declared >in the Marland Report in 1972: >Gifted and Talented children are, in fact, deprived and can suffer >psychological damage and permanent impairment of their abilities to >function well which is equal to or greater than the similar >deprivation suffered by any other population with special needs served >by the Office of Education. (pp. xi-xii) > >Three decades later, a similar statement was made by researchers in the field: >National efforts to increase the availability of a variety of >appropriate instructional and out-of-school provisions must be a high >priority since research indicates that many of the emotional or social >difficulties gifted students experience disappear when their >educational climates are adapted to their level and pace of learning." >[emphasis added]" > >In other words, there are claiming that gifted kids are just as >special as any other kid deemed worthy of special consideration in >special education, and it seems that they are laying the groundwork >for the legal claim that gifted education should be legally defined as >a subset of special education, based on creative applications of >existing law with respect to who gets to be defined as special and >therefore legally entitled to the extra attention and money. That is, >note specifically the part containing the phrase "special needs" in >the above. > >And see this: > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gifted_At-Risk