<p>Originaloog:</p>
<p>Do we know that the kid is living on campus and thus incurring r& b as well as transportation costs? He attended Santa Monica Community College earlier, so I assume he lives in the LA area. He may even be living at home. Would it be that much cheaper sending him to Calstatela? I'm wondering.</p>
<p>When I had to pull my son out of public school because of their failure to provide him with an appropriate education, I wanted to charge them for the cost of his private school education. Maybe if the state is hit with the cost of educating gifted students outside of the school system they'll figure out a way to provide them with an appropriate education for free in the existing schools. I'd love to have back the $100K+ I've spent on his education -- before he even gets to college! No one gave me a rebate on the tax dollars I spend on the school system that refused to do anything for him (other than letting him read in class when he was bored). Good luck to this mom.</p>
<p>The state appellate court in California has issued its decision. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C051722.PDF%5B/url%5D">http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C051722.PDF</a> </p>
<p>There is some possibility of review of this decision by the California Supreme Court or the United States Supreme Court, but for the moment the student must rely on other resources to continue his studies.</p>
<p>UCLA's $9k tuition cost can't be compared to the cost per kid in K-12 because the UCLA cost is subsidized by the state already. Add on the extra OOS cost for UCLA to get a better idea of actual cost, and it gets significantly more expensive than the K-12. </p>
<p>I don't know the laws but if it ends up being true that the state must pick up the tab, then I agree that the state should be able to offer which colleges they'll pay for him to attend. The least expensive way to go would be CC then CalState. </p>
<p>On the other hand, having a very young person that capable attend their Uni might be good for the Uni and therefore worth it since the kid may be destined for great things. Maybe it could be covered by a merit scholarship. I wonder what UCLA's take is on this particular case.</p>
<p>since the Terminator vetoed a bill which would have paid for such a college program, it is rather clear that the state's clear intent is fuhghedditaboutit.</p>
<p>In the truest sense of the word, this child is "Special Education." The exceptionally gifted fall under that umbrella. They need to use that argument in their suit and go to federal court. Do I agree with it? No. I beleive the state has the responsibility to supply free education through high school. Let mom take out loans, like the rest of the parents of kids going to college. At his and her age, she will have many more years to help him pay it back.</p>
<p>If the state were to 'routinely' pay for attendance at a Uni such as a UC for kids entering college before obtaining a HS diploma, it seems that it might encourage more families to home-school or private school at an accelerated rate so the kid could enter college at a younger age for free. Obviously not all kids are capable of this but I think many would be. The question is; would this be something that should be encouraged or discouraged?</p>
<p>If subsidizing people's education has social value, and that is the current view of policy-makers, it seems to me that the subsidized education should be that which is best matched to each learner.</p>
<p>But what about students who have dual enrolments in high school and community colleges? Isn't the state paying for what surely must be a more expensive education that goes beyond k-12? </p>
<p>If I read the ruling correctly, the state is responsible only for providing equal education through 12th grade. By that token, all those cc classes are not the responsibility of the district to fund. I can see why the state might not want to force district to cave in to parents demands regarding college choice, but I don't see how the ruling fits with the widespread dual enrolment practice in CA.</p>
<p>Interestingly, our district will provide full scholarships for students taking classes at the Extension School only if these classes are not available at the high school. If they are, the family must pay. For example, Intro Bio covers the same as AP-Bio, so a student wanting to take Intro Bio will have to pay not only the tuition but also the textbook. A student taking AP-Bio not only will not have to pay for the class but will also receive the book for free (same book, it turned out, costing over $100).</p>
<p>Another part of the ruling I did not understand. One argument advanced by the court is that the student is not being deprived of a proper education since he is already attending UCLA. Now suppose that the family were truly indigent and could not afford to pay the tuition (somewhat unlikely) and the student had no option but to attend a k-12 school for free despite having well exhausted the k-12 curriculum by the age of 7 or staying home. Would that student really be considered a truant if he were not enrolled in classes whether in k-1 or college? In other words, the fact that the student is attending UCLA already alllows the court to dodge the issue of whether a student who has exhausted the k-12 curriculum well before the age of 16 can be compelled to attend school and who should pay for that attendance.</p>
<p>I believe the "intent" of the laws are to mandate a minimum level of education available to all, to the 12th grade equivalent. Beyond that people should compete. If he is indeed profoundly gifted then he should be able to pull in a scholarship on his merits.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In the truest sense of the word, this child is "Special Education." The exceptionally gifted fall under that umbrella. They need to use that argument in their suit and go to federal court.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The family has tried (unsuccessfully) to do exactly that.</p>
<p>The central issue is that the only students legally entitled to "special education" are individuals with disabilities, because it is the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) that gives such children a right to a "free and appropriate education." (Before IDEA and similar state-level legislation, believe it or not, there were children with, e.g., cerebral palsy who languished at home without an education because their school districts thought it was too impractical or too expensive to educate them at all!)</p>
<p>However, at the federal level (and in most states), there is no entitlement to special education for gifted children.</p>
<p>The mother in this case has tried to argue that being "highly gifted" should be considered a disabilty eligible for special education under IDEA, but the courts have consistently ruled that being "highly gifted" is a disability that qualifies for special education under the terms of IDEA or applicable state laws.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But what about students who have dual enrolments in high school and community colleges? Isn't the state paying for what surely must be a more expensive education that goes beyond k-12?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In many states, the state does not pay for dual enrollment in high school/community college.</p>
<p>For example, in NY, high school students may dual enroll in community college courses, but they do so at their own expense.</p>
<p>I know NY students who take all their senior year classes at the community college, paying tuition for the privilege of doing so. They get both high school and college credit for these courses, but they cost their high school almost nothing (other than some guidance counselor time to coordinate arrangements). The high school receives state aid for the student because he is technically enrolled in the high school fulltime (since the college credits go on the high school transcript) but he may not be physically in the building at all.</p>
<p>Dual enrollment is an optional privilege, not an entitlement. Some states and/or some school districts may choose to pay for it, but there is nothing that requires them to do so.</p>
<p>And again, it's not at all clear to me that dual enrollment students attending fulltime college necessarily cost their districts more than if they attended a conventional high school. In many states, K-12 teachers and paraprofessionals are represented by unions. Conventional high schools must pay certified adults union-scale salaries to supervise students 30 hours per week and must also provide bus transportation. Class size may be limited by union contracts. </p>
<p>The community college can hire low cost instructors at adjunct pay rates without benefits, and certainly does not need to hire adults to be with a fulltime student 30 hours a week. In addition, students who attend cc may not be entitled to bus transportation.</p>
<p>I was thinking specifically about CA--where this story is situated--where dual enrolment is common. Someone explain how it works out financially?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I was thinking specifically about CA--where this story is situated--where dual enrolment is common. Someone explain how it works out financially?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Dual enrollment seems pretty common in just about every state, for those who take the initiative to pursue it.</p>
<p>What differs from state to state is the extent to which dual enrollment is subsidized. (I suspect the generosity of dual enrollment plans could have something to do with the strength of teachers' unions. Anything that encourages students to take some of their courses in college instead of in high school tends to reduce the number of good jobs with benefits available to members of teachers unions.)</p>
<p>In California, dual enrollment is available to high school students recommended by their guidance counselors. They do not pay tuition, but they do pay for books & supplies and some minor campus fees (e.g., parking sticker, campus ID card fee, etc.)</p>
<p>Homeschooling law in California treats homeschooling families as registered private schools, with all the rights pertaining to such schools. The parent is considered the principal and guidance counselor of such a school, and a parent's letter suffices to qualify the student for dual enrollment in California.</p>
<p>Here are details about how dual enrollment works in CA from a homeschooling parent widely known in homeschooling circles for her web advice pages which she has run for many years:</p>
<p>Note her discussion of dual enrollment vs. the CHSPE or GED option. </p>
<p>Once a student has taken the CHSPE or the GED, he can enroll in college but he is NOT considered a dual-enrolled student. </p>
<p>Passing the CHSPE is the substantial equivalent of a high school diploma and a student who opts to go in that direction (as Levi did) does not need the support of a letter from his guidance counselor, but is also NOT eligible for free tuition dual enrollment. (The reasoning for this: by taking the CHSPE, a student is stating that he wants to be considered as a high school graduate for the purposes of college matriculation, rather than a dually enrolled high school student simultaneously accruing credits toward high school graduation and college credit.)</p>
<p>EDIT: The CHSPE is an important legal distinction. A student who passes the CHSPE is declaring himself essentially to be an academic "free agent" entitled to enroll in college on the same terms as any other high school graduate, without needing support in the form of a letter from a guidance counselor specifically authorizing the particular courses to be taken that will also count for dual enrollment towards a high school diploma.</p>
<p>Thanks, Wisteria. I understand the background of this story and the ruling better now.</p>
<p>My next question (maybe answered in some of the links or posts earlier) would be:</p>
<p>When did the student take CHSPE and would he have been considered truant if he had not been attending school, at whatever level? </p>
<p>Suppose for example that he had taken CHSPE at 7 and his family did not have the funds to send him even to a community college and so kept him home. Would he have been a truant? What would have been the remedy?</p>
<p>Although not a lawyer myself, a laymen's reading of the truancy law shindicates that it does not even apply to someone who has passed the equivalency of a HS ed -- obviously, the child is NOT "subject to compulsory full-time education...", but marite raises an interesting question: what if the child had not taken the equivalency test? </p>
<p>"EC Section 48260 (a): Any pupil subject to compulsory full-time education or compulsory continuation education who is absent from school without a valid excuse three full days or tardy or absent more than any 30-minute period during the school day without a valid excuse on three occasions in one school year, or any combination thereof, is a truant and shall be reported to the attendance supervisor or the superintendent of the school district."</p>
<p>The CHSPE is unlike a regular high school diploma in two ways:</p>
<p>1) it leaves the student with the option of reenrolling in high school (in which case he could still file for dual enrollment status, with the support of a guidance counselor letter specifying courses to be taken that would count towards a high school diploma) In essence, the student has the option to say--"Please disregard my CHSPE. I have re-enrolled in high school, am working toward a conventional high school diploma, and wish to dual-enroll." The student has the option of doing this until he is age 18.</p>
<p>2) Students who take the CHSPE are still subject to compulsory attendance laws and must be enrolled in fulltime education until age 18 (or, with parental permission, age 16.)</p>
<p><a href="http://www.chspe.net/about/%5B/url%5D">http://www.chspe.net/about/</a></p>
<p>From the articles linked above, it appears that Levi took the CHSPE at age 9. The rules specify that a student must be age 16 or have completed 10th grade in order to take CHSPE. (Since he took the CHSPE at age 9, I assume that paperwork was submitted stating he had "completed 10th grade" at that point. California's very flexible homeschooling regulations make this a possibility. Essentially his mother could have filed an R4 affidavit which would legally make the family's homeschool a private school and she would have authority to designate the grade level of her student.)</p>
<p>So basically, a CHSPE gives students like Levi the option of enrolling as a free agent (without the bureaucratic endorsement from a guidance counselor certifying that the college classes will count towards a high school diploma) but it also leaves him with the option of reenrolling in high school and asking the guidance counselor to support a dual enrollment petition.</p>
<p>It appears that Levi and his mother chose the former route (enroll in college degree program as free agent after passing CHSPE, without any attempt to create dual-enrollment status.) Once enrolled, they petitioned the court to order the school district to pay the tuition.</p>
<p>There is no evidence mentioned in the court opinion that they attempted to go the dual-enrollment route, but it technically remains an option until he is 18, if he is willing to revert to high school status. (Note that there may be additional bureaucracy on the university end as well as on the high school end if he reverts to high school status.)</p>
<p>Here is an interesting document that presents information about dual enrollment policies in all 50 states:</p>
<p>Note that 38 out of the 50 states have explicit state policies about dual enrollment.</p>
<p>However, in the 12 remaining states, dual enrollment policy is left to the option of the high schools and colleges to work out on their own. (For example, NY is listed as a state that does not have a dual enrollment policy, but if you visit websites for colleges in NY, you can see that many have webpages explaining how high school students can enroll in courses at their college that will count for both high school and college credit.)</p>
<p>The costs to the public, district or state, should not be a reason to not pay for gifted college educations since that argument is not used for the other end of the special needs spectrum. Thanks for the above reference, in Wis only juniors and seniors are elegible (notice no age listed) and I know of people who have left town to take 12 + credits, room and board was not covered and they were not regular students (not sure how the Ivy college later attended by one of them as a freshman treated those credits since they were part of the high school record). I don't know who paid for a former Miss Wiconsin who did college very early. This issue shows how society doesn't understand/value gifted education; that the profoundly intelligent deserve an appropriate education as much as the severely retarded, regardless of ability of the parents to pay.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The costs to the public, district or state, should not be a reason to not pay for gifted college educations since that argument is not used for the other end of the special needs spectrum.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That argument is indeed used for the other end of the special needs spectrum. There are often cases in which parents of a special needs child advocates for a particular educational program that they think will best serve the student's educational needs, but the school district says the outside program chosen by the parent is too expensive and that a less expensive in-house program is "adequate and appropriate" to meet the child's need.</p>
<p>Children with disabilties are entitled to a "free and appropriate public education," but courts have ruled that children do not have the right to an "optimal" education for their needs, simply an "adequate" one.</p>
<p>For example, I had a neighbor whose son was diagnosed with severe autism and had no speech other than echolalia at age 7. He wanted him to attend a special program in a neighboring school district designed for the special challenges of children with autism. The district said no, his child should stay in the district's self-contained special ed classroom, which had a number of students with widely differing problems (Downs' syndrome, cerebral palsy, etc.) and which did not have any staff with experience working with autism or trained in applied behavior analysis.</p>
<p>My neighbor was a physician who had served as the district's volunteer physician on the committee on special education and even so, he and his wife were unable to get their child placed in a specialized program designed for children with autism.</p>
<p>He ended up giving up in frustration and moving to another state with an excellent special program for children with autism--fortunately, he was in a portable profession that allowed him to do this.</p>
<p>Many children with disabilities are trapped in very ineffective programs, especially if their parents do not have the wherewithal to hire lawyers or professional advocates to make their case.</p>