IEP for a gifted child?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My special needs child with IEP has a FSIQ of 155 on the WISC. You have no idea what you are yammering about.

Not targeted at you, obviously. It was targeted at a more general audience who doesn't realize how much difference there is between kids. Yeah, I do know. My kid (12) has been labeled 2e due to OCD, anxiety disorder, and borderline Asperger's.

What is "borderline" Asperger's? My kid with the 155 IQ has Asperger's and I've never heard this...

DS is in elementary school at a charter. Not bored or any other issues even though his NT classmates are not geniuses.

That's great. Your child isn't every child.

just to add:

http://www.davidsongifted.org/db/Articles_id_10093.aspx

(Some things have changed since some of the research, but not all that much).

If you have research to the contrary, please post. I'm open to learn.

What's your point? Again, being "gifted" is not a disability classification under IDEA nor should it be. By arguing that "giftedness" should be, all you are doing is diluting the law and making IDEA appear ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

I don't think the argument should be around IDEA.

I think the correct argument is that FAPE should apply to ALL students, not just special needs students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My special needs child with IEP has a FSIQ of 155 on the WISC. You have no idea what you are yammering about.

Not targeted at you, obviously. It was targeted at a more general audience who doesn't realize how much difference there is between kids. Yeah, I do know. My kid (12) has been labeled 2e due to OCD, anxiety disorder, and borderline Asperger's.

What is "borderline" Asperger's? My kid with the 155 IQ has Asperger's and I've never heard this...

DS is in elementary school at a charter. Not bored or any other issues even though his NT classmates are not geniuses.

That's great. Your child isn't every child.

No, my child isn't every child... But I get tired of hearing how "gifted" children deserves IEPs. Giftedness is NOT a disability.

What exactly is the ethical or educational reason why gifted kids don't deserve even a fraction of the attention and resources that special ed kids get? In my mind, EVERY single kid should get an IEP to maximize his or her potential and contribution to society.

[Anonymous]

FAPE is a floor, not a ceiling. This has been litigated over and over. The school doesn't have to be ideal, or even good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What's your point? Again, being "gifted" is not a disability classification under IDEA nor should it be. By arguing that "giftedness" should be, all you are doing is diluting the law and making IDEA appear ridiculous.

Again, I never made that argument. So, what's the bitterness about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's your point? Again, being "gifted" is not a disability classification under IDEA nor should it be. By arguing that "giftedness" should be, all you are doing is diluting the law and making IDEA appear ridiculous.

Again, I never made that argument. So, what's the bitterness about?

No bitterness. What's the point about the link about giftedness? Nothing in the link says having a high IQ is a disability and that kids with high IQs have trouble "accessing the curriculum" or that they need protection from discrimination which is the whole point of IDEA and IEPs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FAPE is a floor, not a ceiling. This has been litigated over and over. The school doesn't have to be ideal, or even good.

How does that meet the standard of "appropriate" when it isn't appropriate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FAPE is a floor, not a ceiling. This has been litigated over and over. The school doesn't have to be ideal, or even good.

+1. FAPE comes from IDEA. People with disabilities are a "protected class" unlike people who have high IQs, are short, fat, underweight, Like to wear purple...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's your point? Again, being "gifted" is not a disability classification under IDEA nor should it be. By arguing that "giftedness" should be, all you are doing is diluting the law and making IDEA appear ridiculous.

Again, I never made that argument. So, what's the bitterness about?

No bitterness. What's the point about the link about giftedness? Nothing in the link says having a high IQ is a disability and that kids with high IQs have trouble "accessing the curriculum" or that they need protection from discrimination which is the whole point of IDEA and IEPs.

It's typically the bright geeky kids who are among those who get the most bullying and harassment in many schools. That's clearly discrimination based on nothing other than how they were born - it's no different than discrimination because of skin color or learning disability.

[Anonymous]

If your kid is so gifted, why can't he figure out what kind of educational supplements he needs for himself and then figure out either how to navigate the system to get those needs fulfilled?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FAPE is a floor, not a ceiling. This has been litigated over and over. The school doesn't have to be ideal, or even good.

+1. FAPE comes from IDEA. People with disabilities are a "protected class" unlike people who have high IQs, are short, fat, underweight, Like to wear purple...

Where in the law does it say FAPE can only be the floor? And it's sad that we even need laws like IDEA in the first place. Whatever happened to DOING THE RIGHT THING for kids? If the system only cares about the lowest common denominator, and even needs laws to force it to meet the lowest common denominator (and then makes it so that it only applies to a small select subset of kids) then that system SUCKS and says WE DON'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT KIDS.

I'll come right out and say it: Anyone who focuses on meeting FAPE as a function of the floor, anyone who doesn't think FAPE applies to ALL kids really doesn't care about kids and really has no business even being in the education business, IMHO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If your kid is so gifted, why can't he figure out what kind of educational supplements he needs for himself and then figure out either how to navigate the system to get those needs fulfilled?

Wow. You think gifted kids are born with some kind of magical education roadmap in hand? Are you thoroughly clueless, or what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your kid is so gifted, why can't he figure out what kind of educational supplements he needs for himself and then figure out either how to navigate the system to get those needs fulfilled?

Wow. You think gifted kids are born with some kind of magical education roadmap in hand? Are you thoroughly clueless, or what?

No. They are born with the skills to make the magical roadmap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's your point? Again, being "gifted" is not a disability classification under IDEA nor should it be. By arguing that "giftedness" should be, all you are doing is diluting the law and making IDEA appear ridiculous.

Again, I never made that argument. So, what's the bitterness about?

No bitterness. What's the point about the link about giftedness? Nothing in the link says having a high IQ is a disability and that kids with high IQs have trouble "accessing the curriculum" or that they need protection from discrimination which is the whole point of IDEA and IEPs.

It's typically the bright geeky kids who are among those who get the most bullying and harassment in many schools. That's clearly discrimination based on nothing other than how they were born - it's no different than discrimination because of skin color or learning disability.

"Bright geeky kids" are not a "protected class" and do not fall under IDEA and FAPE. Women, minorities and people with learning disabilities are a "protected class" and get protection under anti discrimination laws.

These laws have been litigated over and over: In short, bright geeky kids cannot sue for discrimination for the same reason white men can't. They aren't a "protected class" and if you have problems with that, take it up with the Supremes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your kid is so gifted, why can't he figure out what kind of educational supplements he needs for himself and then figure out either how to navigate the system to get those needs fulfilled?

Wow. You think gifted kids are born with some kind of magical education roadmap in hand? Are you thoroughly clueless, or what?

No. They are born with the skills to make the magical roadmap.

(new PP here) ...assuming we support them and let them bloom to their potential, instead of neglecting them so that people like you can siphon resources out the system.