On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Haim <email@example.com> wrote: > Paul A. Tanner, III Posted: Feb 16, 2012 9:37 AM > >> The above is false for a very simple reason: > > What are we talking about? Are we talking about the world as it is or about the world as you wish it were? I suppose the latter, in which case I will make a couple of brief points then I will step aside and let you carry on with whoever cares to explore your fantasies. > > First, you have just made an existence argument. For what? If I am the parent of a TAG child, exactly what can I force to the schools to do for me? Looking around, we find, > > - ------------------------ > http://gcq.sagepub.com/content/48/4/309.abstract > To fill a gap in the literature, this article provides a comprehensive, concise, and current overview of the case law?specifically, published hearing/review officer and court decisions?concerning gifted education for K-12 students. This case law represents two distinct groups: ?gifted alone,? designating students whose legal status is based solely on their gifted status, and ?gifted plus,? designating students who not only are gifted, but also have special legal status typically in terms of disability (i.e., ?twice exceptional?) or race. The outcomes of the case law in both categories have generally favored the defendant school districts. The absence in many states of strong and specific legislation or regulations for gifted-alone students and the lack of judicial sensitivity to the complexity of the gifted-plus category likely contribute to the overall district-friendly trend of the case law to date. > - ------------------------------ > > and the interesting recent case of Levi Clancy, who lost his court action, > > http://www.sierrasun.com/article/20100527/NEWS/100529918 > The Education code allows school boards to "elect" to provide gifted and talented pupil programs but they are not mandated by California law. > - ------------------------------ > > Feel free to look up other such cases in other states. There ain't many. > > Also, there is a history to the Clancey case. Before they tried to force the State of CA to pay for the minor's college education, they sued under the Civil Rights laws, > http://www.wnd.com/2004/02/23213/ > > They lost that one, too. > > So, here is a homework assignment. Why do you suppose there is a "gap in the literature"? Why do you think there are few TAG-related court cases? > > But, let's get down to brass tack. You write, > >>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 > > From which we learn that you are not the only one building castles in the sky. Let me show you why, by quoting from NY State special education law, > > - ------------------ > http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/LAWSSEAF.cgi?QUERYTYPE=LAWS+&QUERYDATA=$$EDN4401$$@TXEDN04401+&LIST=LAW+&BROWSER=EXPLORER+&TOKEN=04001433+&TARGET=VIEW > "Special education" means specially designed instruction which includes special services or programs as delineated in subdivision two of this section, and transportation, provided at no cost to the parents to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability. A "child with a handicapping condition" means a child with a disability. > - ------------------- > > In other words, I am truly touched that you think TAG kids are special, too, but "special education" is defined in law, so you can take a hike. > > There is plenty more where that came from, all amounting to the same thing: TAG kids are SOL.* > > You can browse NY State law here, > http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/MENUGETF.cgi?COMMONQUERY=LAWS+&TARGET=VIEW > > The general categories are listed alphabetically, so you have only to look up "Education law", which starts here, > http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/LAWSSEAF.cgi?QUERYTYPE=LAWS+&QUERYDATA=@LLEDN+&LIST=LAW+&BROWSER=EXPLORER+&TOKEN=27381683+&TARGET=VIEW > > Articles 89 and 90 are what immediately concern us. In fact, comparing Article 89 (Children With Handicapping Conditions) to Article 90 (Gifted Education) I think will be a highly illuminating exercise. > > I will bet dollars to donuts that the laws in your state, whoever you are and whatever your state, are virtually indistinguishable from NY State law, in this matter. We have already seen just such is the case in California. > > Haim > Shovel ready? What shovel ready? > - -------------------- > * With apologies to the moderator, readers who are not familiar with this acronym may want to look it up in the "Urban Dictionary", > http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=S.O.L.
we are talking about the world as it actually is, federal law, which trumps state law.
Therefore everything you say above with respect to state law is fundamentally irrelevant.
Read again the citations I gave if you don't understand that this is about federal law and the possibilities in the future in terms of federal case law. These citations are talking about what is in federal statute.
These researchers and advocates for gifted are setting the table for future attempts by these advocates for the gifted, these attempts that would take place in federal courts, not state courts. I'm just pointing all this out to you.
And you can cite any federal law all you want to try to bolster your claim that it is impossible that any federal judge could ever possibly do in the future what so many of them in the past have done for so many years, what you call "legislating from the bench" on this issue - but since they in fact done this on so many issues for so many years, you would not be in the real world with this claim of impossibility.
I'm simply saying that it is possible, and that those who advocate for the gifted are setting the table for that possibility, that's all.