IEP for a gifted child?

[Anonymous]

White men most certainly can sue if they're discriminated against on the basis of their race or sex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:White men most certainly can sue if they're discriminated against on the basis of their race or sex.

People can sue for anything... But anti discrimination laws don't apply to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Discrimination for no reason other than how you are born is still discrimination. If you only care about following the bare minimum of what the law requires, rather than doing the right thing or caring about protecting people, then you are a lousy example of a human being. Frankly I don't see why you even care about what is labeled "protected class" given you don't seem to care about protecting humans in general.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:White men most certainly can sue if they're discriminated against on the basis of their race or sex.

People can sue for anything... But anti discrimination laws don't apply to them.

So some scumbag attorney gets to sit there in court and lie and pretend discrimination isn't discrimination when it clearly is. Let me guess, you are one such scumbag attorney.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Discrimination for no reason other than how you are born is still discrimination. If you only care about following the bare minimum of what the law requires, rather than doing the right thing or caring about protecting people, then you are a lousy example of a human being. Frankly I don't see why you even care about what is labeled "protected class" given you don't seem to care about protecting humans in general.

And which "law" is that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:White men most certainly can sue if they're discriminated against on the basis of their race or sex.

People can sue for anything... But anti discrimination laws don't apply to them.

So some scumbag attorney gets to sit there in court and lie and pretend discrimination isn't discrimination when it clearly is. Let me guess, you are one such scumbag attorney.

Nope, I'm a parent with a child with a disability (and gifted) who knows what laws apply to my child and why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:White men most certainly can sue if they're discriminated against on the basis of their race or sex.

People can sue for anything... But anti discrimination laws don't apply to them.

Sorry, but you're wrong.

[Anonymous]

So sue DCPS for discrimination against the "gifted". Your prerogative.

[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.

Well, it was a very flawed assumption on my part that there was a place for a discussion about the middle ground. In DC, that clearly is not the case. No reason allowed here, I suppose -- you're either a bleeding heart liberal or bible thumping Neanderthal, I guess...

DCPS is either heaven or hell -- no reality may be injected into any discussion. It's a shame, really. I personally believe it helps to understand the bit of truth in each person's arguments. Then, it's easier to see a productive path forward.

[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?

He's not as gifted at trolling as you are.

[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.

Well, it was a very flawed assumption on my part that there was a place for a discussion about the middle ground. In DC, that clearly is not the case. No reason allowed here, I suppose -- you're either a bleeding heart liberal or bible thumping Neanderthal, I guess...

DCPS is either heaven or hell -- no reality may be injected into any discussion. It's a shame, really. I personally believe it helps to understand the bit of truth in each person's arguments. Then, it's easier to see a productive path forward.

Look, no one is persecuting you for wanting a rigorous G&T program in DC like every other large urban city. In fact, most parents on DCUM except a few outliers would love a real G&T program but realize it's DC's (racial) politics that is the primary reason that keeps it from happening.

However, using IDEA, a law designed to help children with disabilities, for what will primarily benefit white, high SES kids with high IQs is a little much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:White men most certainly can sue if they're discriminated against on the basis of their race or sex.

People can sue for anything... But anti discrimination laws don't apply to them.

So some scumbag attorney gets to sit there in court and lie and pretend discrimination isn't discrimination when it clearly is. Let me guess, you are one such scumbag attorney.

Nope, I'm a parent with a child with a disability (and gifted) who knows what laws apply to my child and why.

Well then I hope you aren't expecting any support for your child's giftedness because apparent that's beyond the "floor" in the law as posters here seem to want to insist is the only need that be met. If they don't think meeting G&T needs is "appropriate" for anyone else, what makes you think they will feel it is appropriate for your disabled child?

Or, if you feel your disabled child's G&T needs definitely should be met, then how does it make then sense why a non-disabled's child's G&T needs would NOT be met?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:White men most certainly can sue if they're discriminated against on the basis of their race or sex.

People can sue for anything... But anti discrimination laws don't apply to them.

So some scumbag attorney gets to sit there in court and lie and pretend discrimination isn't discrimination when it clearly is. Let me guess, you are one such scumbag attorney.

Nope, I'm a parent with a child with a disability (and gifted) who knows what laws apply to my child and why.

Well then I hope you aren't expecting any support for your child's giftedness because apparent that's beyond the "floor" in the law as posters here seem to want to insist is the only need that be met. If they don't think meeting G&T needs is "appropriate" for anyone else, what makes you think they will feel it is appropriate for your disabled child?

Or, if you feel your disabled child's G&T needs definitely should be met, then how does it make then sense why a non-disabled's child's G&T needs would NOT be met?

We've been very happy with the academics and supports and services for my disabled and gifted child at our charter. No complaints. If we felt the school was not meeting his needs, we'll change schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, it was a very flawed assumption on my part that there was a place for a discussion about the middle ground. In DC, that clearly is not the case. No reason allowed here, I suppose -- you're either a bleeding heart liberal or bible thumping Neanderthal, I guess...

DCPS is either heaven or hell -- no reality may be injected into any discussion. It's a shame, really. I personally believe it helps to understand the bit of truth in each person's arguments. Then, it's easier to see a productive path forward.

Look, no one is persecuting you for wanting a rigorous G&T program in DC like every other large urban city. In fact, most parents on DCUM except a few outliers would love a real G&T program but realize it's DC's (racial) politics that is the primary reason that keeps it from happening.

However, using IDEA, a law designed to help children with disabilities, for what will primarily benefit white, high SES kids with high IQs is a little much.

Yes, a lot of it is in racial politics, driven by a status quo of historic majority AA that views anything that might be perceived to be encouraging toward high-SES whites and gentrification as inherently bad for the AA community.

The sad irony however is that many of those high-SES whites moving into the area have plenty of other options and will just go around the system and find their own solution (via privates, et cetera), so it's ultimately the low-SES AA families with G&T children who are getting hurt the most and whose needs are not being met by all of this deeply misguided thinking from those who mistakenly think they are trying to keep it fair for the low-SES AA families in DC. They are cutting their own noses off to spite their faces.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:White men most certainly can sue if they're discriminated against on the basis of their race or sex.

People can sue for anything... But anti discrimination laws don't apply to them.

So some scumbag attorney gets to sit there in court and lie and pretend discrimination isn't discrimination when it clearly is. Let me guess, you are one such scumbag attorney.

Nope, I'm a parent with a child with a disability (and gifted) who knows what laws apply to my child and why.

Well then I hope you aren't expecting any support for your child's giftedness because apparent that's beyond the "floor" in the law as posters here seem to want to insist is the only need that be met. If they don't think meeting G&T needs is "appropriate" for anyone else, what makes you think they will feel it is appropriate for your disabled child?

Or, if you feel your disabled child's G&T needs definitely should be met, then how does it make then sense why a non-disabled's child's G&T needs would NOT be met?

We've been very happy with the academics and supports and services for my disabled and gifted child at our charter. No complaints. If we felt the school was not meeting his needs, we'll change schools.

Oh, charter. Well, that's entirely different, charters are far more likely to do more than "the floor". DCPS is where the problem lies.