And I have already states that willpower is irrelevant, since willpower cannot resist without going to prison legal mandates from federal judges if those mandates were to ever come.
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Wayne Bishop <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > 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. > > Wayne > > At 06:37 AM 2/16/2012, Paul Tanner wrote: >> >> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 12:01 AM, Haim <email@example.com> 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