I would be in the camp taking “most” to mean significantly more than 50%. As in “nearly all” . 70 to 90% depending…
I am going to guess the OP is from New Jersey (and probably my high school). Just a hunch.
We don’t have hard stats for the US overall, but since most of these issues are STATE issues, a lot of us are just talking past each other.
“Half,” the “majority,” “most.” There are statistical definitions, journalistic definitions, and local vernacular, and they aren’t always in agreement.
But all this hair-splitting is starting to veer really off topic–WHATEVER that is, exactly!
Nothing is “free” but I do think the idea of having HS students register last and then be able to take classes as long as there is available space sounds like an interesting idea. I wonder how this program is working for California? Is this something that kids are using? Are there unforeseen consequences for students or colleges?
I like the idea of using resources that are already available. I do NOT like the idea of raising taxes to create more opportunities for the kids at the “top”. As a parent of two high achievers, and as a special education teacher, I can tell you that those high achievers already get lots of choices and opportunities. My special education students require much more to achieve and have far fewer options.
OP, I would focus on encouraging my child to take advantage of all the opportunities at his school, online school and wherever else your family deems affordable and appropriate. Sometimes, kids who excel in one area may be relatively weak in another and could really benefit from challenging himself in that area.
“Special” ed kids get a hugely disproportionate amount of funding compared to the usefulness to society generated. Years ago Wisconsin changed wording because gifted students’ parents were claiming their kids are “exceptional” as well and deserve funding to meet their special needs. We can get this thread off on a whole new track with this. I have seen some ridiculous expenditures for severely mentally/physically disabled kids at taxpayers’ expense. There are two ends to that Bell curve. How much do we owe the 1 or so percent on either end in public funding? Despite my kid being at one end of the curve I believe we owe kids a HS education- AP courses count as they have been standardized replacements for Honors classes. We do not owe a student a college education just because s/he has not yet turned 18. And I repeat that getting A’s is not equivalent to being gifted. A’s do not always correlate with the same knowledge base (I won’t say gained because some students learn very little to get an A because they already know much of the material/have the skills).
I would say the concept of rewarding A’s with free college courses has not been supported in this thread.
"I do NOT like the idea of raising taxes to create more opportunities for the kids at the “top”
– and there you have it. The reason California community colleges are so good, and work so well for high schoolers and everybody else, is that people are willing to pay. Those who live in tax-averse states end up having fewer options. Funny how that works.
Gifted education does fall under special Ed in my state. And you don’t get in by getting A’s.
Citation?
Why is special ed even being discussed? It is not up to you to decide what a disabled person is “worth” spending on. We pay as a society for this via taxes bc it could be any one of us…luck of the draw that you got or were a healthy kid…
“Usefulness to society generated” Yea… that line totally creeped me out.
@wis75, I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but let’s just say that it’s good that Special Ed is off topic to the thread. I am as creeped out as katliamom; it is the basest analysis to know the price of everything but the value of nothing.
^Harsh, but it’s not out of line to question the cost/benefit analysis of any expenditure, however heart-string-pulling. Just saying.
OK. We’ll question it when it’s your kid or you. Back to topic pls. This can go south quickly, and is already creepy.
@nmc2015 To answer your original question: As one example, our school district allows high school students (juniors and seniors) to take “dual enrolment” classes beyond about 15 - 20 AP offerings (varies by high school). The “dual enrolment” comes in four possible forms: a) classes taught by endorsed teachers/instructors at the high school, b) at the local community college campus, c) at one four-year university, d) at the other (large research) four-year university. The DE classes have to be arranged through the guidance counselor and the student has to have a certain GPA (lower for the CC and one university, higher for the research university). I am not sure if the number is capped but I know students who take up to three DE classes, two at school and one on campus. The school district has an arrangement for the tuition and the classes are at NO COST to the student. For the classes on campus, the professor has to approve and space has to be available.
Also, foreign school systems are a lot less flexible, especially when they track. I was tracked three times: into college-track high school at age 10 or 11; after 6th grade into Classic languages vs. math/sciences; and then again after 11th grade into a major/minor set-up for A-levels. Within each tracking there was NO CHOICE whatsoever. One had to take the prescribed curriculum.
Furthermore, during a freshmen orientation session for parents a few years ago, the most experienced guidance counselor advised parents to have their students always choose AP over DE because APs are nationally normed and comparable while DE highly depends on the instructor and is not well-liked by all colleges. Even in-state colleges would only grudgingly give credit for a DE class but behind one’s back doubt the validity of the grade/content/quality of instruction.
Although the discussion of cost/benefit analysis re: special ed is indeed creepy- let me just point out that in the families I know (and in my own extended family) the expenditures on special ed WERE a positive ROI. A young adult who might spend his entire life on welfare- unable to work- is productively employed at a nursing home as a recreational assistant. He is in line to be promoted next year (has never missed a day of work- shows up early to be sure to clock in on time) and is both terrific at his job and loved by the patients and his colleagues. With the next promotion he’ll be able to afford an apartment (with a friend) and will be financially independent. He can read (thank you, special ed), do basic math (thank you special ed), does not drive but navigates public transportation very effectively (thank you all those interventions and occupational therapy) and can do his own grocery shopping and cook. He still doesn’t separate the darks from the lights when doing laundry according to his mom, but neither does my husband and he was never diagnosed with a developmental disability (AFAIK). 
Etc. I won’t bore you with the details. But spending on K-12 so a kid with special needs ends up self-supporting, paying taxes, and “giving back” seems to me to be a pretty good cost/benefit payout.
Carry on…
blossom =D>