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.
OR he could stay in HS and be diagnosed ADHD because he is BORED OUT OF HIS EVERLOVIN' MIND.
Couldn't the university offer the kid a scholarship?
Basically, that is any child with an IQ above 8.
Whoa, back up a minute. I'm sure his high school, as most all other high schools in the nation, has AP and college credit classes at a reduced rate. Those brighter than average students' parents have to foot the bill for those classes so this boy's mama should do the same. It's her choice to send him to college full time, not the taxpayers'. Kick the case out and make her pay all court costs.
Bureaucracies like mediocrity. This will be a tough one, especially with PC so fashionable among the intelligensia today.
Maybe she was in a long-term relationship and the guy up and left her.
This isn't about the mother, it's about the kid. If L.A. can give each kid $12,000 a year to basically sit around and do nothing or skip school and hang out with gangbangers, then surely they can give the kid the money to attend UCLA.
Taxpayers are already footing the bill for this anyway.
Would you rather have the kid get bored or dumbed-down in a high school or get a better return of taxpayer money by putting him in UCLA?
funny you should say that, because that is EXACTLY what happened to my son....took the analysis of 2 psychologists to determine he was highly intellegent, nat ADHD....still, try and remove that tag once it has been placed on your child..........
Tricky situation here. Forget the age. It's the level. We are guaranteed socialized education through the 12th grade. If he wins this lawsuit, does that mean that anybody who skips a grade or two, and is just pretty smart can get two years free of college until they hit 18?
Actually nine grand is not unreasonable- I'm betting the school board spends at least that much per high school student.
How did he not get a scholarship? Wouldn't a kid who started college at 9 be a poster child? There has to be some scholarship money around if he is so exceptional.
An alternative could be that he is brilliant and lazy. If he is 14 now, it was five years from the time he started junior college until he went to UCLA. What was he doing for 5 years? Taking 2 classes per semester?
College for the most part is basically free anyway.
Until you can convince the ruling class to get out of education, you might as well make proficient use of taxpayer monies allocated to it.
There's always home school and independent study. Seems like no college wants him enough to offer a scholarship.
Whaaa, my kids are bright so why doesn't the state send them to college for free? Oh, never mind, they're not illegal.
There has to be more to this story. A college would have taken him at 9 if he was one of those math/science wiz types who gets straight A+ in everything they try. My guess is that there are problems here. No scholarship is frankly bizarre. He would be a prize to any University if there are no problems going on.
Oh, come on, that's a lot of money! Just because you have an extra $9000 a year, doesn't mean everyone does. Who ever DREAMS their children would need money for college at that age?
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.