Yet another teacher has left BASIS and parents are in the dark

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to put your mind at ease, pp: The courts have defined through case law what "appropriate" means in FAPE under IDEA. It certainly does not mean that a SN child with cognitive delays be accommodated at an accelerated STEM focused school. The school is not "appropriate" even if it is public and free.

Also, the limited resources excuse or "we can't afford it" is not an adequate defense for failing to implement a child's IEP.

I don't think people understand Basis where it comes to acceleration. Nobody is being forced to be accelerated at Basis. Acceleration, i.e. things like placement into Algebra I in 5th or 6th grade, or into the LEAP program, is offered as a function of diagnostic exams to place students at a level appropriate to their mastery, but is only done at the discretion and by the choice of the families. If the diagnostic says they are ready for Algebra I in 5th grade, that doesn't mean they have to do it. They could also follow the regular course sequence as well and take Algebra I in 7th grade. And, if a student did try jumping ahead into the accelerated track, they could always drop back to the regular sequence if it's too much to take on.

Also, there are probably thousands of public schools in districts all over the country which are STEM focused and which have acceleration and similar types of features - what Basis does is really not all that new or unusual. As such, I seriously doubt that IDEA precludes this in public schools.

I'm no attorney but in my reading of materials around IDEA, I noted that one of the clear provisions of IDEA is that FAPE requires that the quality of educational services provided to students with disabilities be equal to those provided to non-disabled students - so, if a family's intention is serious modification to the student's coursework to downgrade it to a level they feel is appropriate to the student's capability, then I would think the family's own expectation of the curriculum and workload is in fact no longer of equivalent quality as compared to what the other students are doing, would go against IDEA's stated definition of FAPE. As such, any desired modifications asked of a school really can't downgrade the curriculum and expectations without violating IDEA as well. If the school is expecting the student to meet an equivalent level of rigor as the rest of the students, then they are actually upholding IDEA and definitional FAPE requirement of equality to other students.

Schools modify curriculums all the time. iDEA is so students can access the curriculum. When people say modify the curriculum it may in some cases mean using an entirely different curriculum for that specific child. If that is what the child needs then the school has to provide it. I don't know what Basis does but we have been in a grade where our child was pulled for language to use a completely different curriculum at his level. He Wa the only child out of 75+ who used that specific curriculum. This happens all the time in IEP situations. I am sure Basis can handle that. They may not want to (seems with an investigation they really don't want to) but it would mean there are children who pass their grade using a different, perhaps less rigorous, curriculum. I don't know what tey do in their other schools but they must have figured that out by now?

I am going to send my kid to Oyster and see if they will teach using French immersion.

Oyster is a specialized program. Yu Ying is a specialized program. Lee Montessori is a specialized program. BASIS is not a specialized program. If they wanted to be specialized they could have done so in the charter application process. They can't decide to be specialized once their charter has been approved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to put your mind at ease, pp: The courts have defined through case law what "appropriate" means in FAPE under IDEA. It certainly does not mean that a SN child with cognitive delays be accommodated at an accelerated STEM focused school. The school is not "appropriate" even if it is public and free.

Also, the limited resources excuse or "we can't afford it" is not an adequate defense for failing to implement a child's IEP.

I don't think people understand Basis where it comes to acceleration. Nobody is being forced to be accelerated at Basis. Acceleration, i.e. things like placement into Algebra I in 5th or 6th grade, or into the LEAP program, is offered as a function of diagnostic exams to place students at a level appropriate to their mastery, but is only done at the discretion and by the choice of the families. If the diagnostic says they are ready for Algebra I in 5th grade, that doesn't mean they have to do it. They could also follow the regular course sequence as well and take Algebra I in 7th grade. And, if a student did try jumping ahead into the accelerated track, they could always drop back to the regular sequence if it's too much to take on.

Also, there are probably thousands of public schools in districts all over the country which are STEM focused and which have acceleration and similar types of features - what Basis does is really not all that new or unusual. As such, I seriously doubt that IDEA precludes this in public schools.

I'm no attorney but in my reading of materials around IDEA, I noted that one of the clear provisions of IDEA is that FAPE requires that the quality of educational services provided to students with disabilities be equal to those provided to non-disabled students - so, if a family's intention is serious modification to the student's coursework to downgrade it to a level they feel is appropriate to the student's capability, then I would think the family's own expectation of the curriculum and workload is in fact no longer of equivalent quality as compared to what the other students are doing, would go against IDEA's stated definition of FAPE. As such, any desired modifications asked of a school really can't downgrade the curriculum and expectations without violating IDEA as well. If the school is expecting the student to meet an equivalent level of rigor as the rest of the students, then they are actually upholding IDEA and definitional FAPE requirement of equality to other students.

Schools modify curriculums all the time. iDEA is so students can access the curriculum. When people say modify the curriculum it may in some cases mean using an entirely different curriculum for that specific child. If that is what the child needs then the school has to provide it. I don't know what Basis does but we have been in a grade where our child was pulled for language to use a completely different curriculum at his level. He Wa the only child out of 75+ who used that specific curriculum. This happens all the time in IEP situations. I am sure Basis can handle that. They may not want to (seems with an investigation they really don't want to) but it would mean there are children who pass their grade using a different, perhaps less rigorous, curriculum. I don't know what tey do in their other schools but they must have figured that out by now?

I am going to send my kid to Oyster and see if they will teach using French immersion.

Oyster is a specialized program. Yu Ying is a specialized program. Lee Montessori is a specialized program. BASIS is not a specialized program. If they wanted to be specialized they could have done so in the charter application process. They can't decide to be specialized once their charter has been approved.

There isn't any distinction between those charters and BASIS, and they can only do what BASIS can.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to put your mind at ease, pp: The courts have defined through case law what "appropriate" means in FAPE under IDEA. It certainly does not mean that a SN child with cognitive delays be accommodated at an accelerated STEM focused school. The school is not "appropriate" even if it is public and free.

Also, the limited resources excuse or "we can't afford it" is not an adequate defense for failing to implement a child's IEP.

I don't think people understand Basis where it comes to acceleration. Nobody is being forced to be accelerated at Basis. Acceleration, i.e. things like placement into Algebra I in 5th or 6th grade, or into the LEAP program, is offered as a function of diagnostic exams to place students at a level appropriate to their mastery, but is only done at the discretion and by the choice of the families. If the diagnostic says they are ready for Algebra I in 5th grade, that doesn't mean they have to do it. They could also follow the regular course sequence as well and take Algebra I in 7th grade. And, if a student did try jumping ahead into the accelerated track, they could always drop back to the regular sequence if it's too much to take on.

Also, there are probably thousands of public schools in districts all over the country which are STEM focused and which have acceleration and similar types of features - what Basis does is really not all that new or unusual. As such, I seriously doubt that IDEA precludes this in public schools.

I'm no attorney but in my reading of materials around IDEA, I noted that one of the clear provisions of IDEA is that FAPE requires that the quality of educational services provided to students with disabilities be equal to those provided to non-disabled students - so, if a family's intention is serious modification to the student's coursework to downgrade it to a level they feel is appropriate to the student's capability, then I would think the family's own expectation of the curriculum and workload is in fact no longer of equivalent quality as compared to what the other students are doing, would go against IDEA's stated definition of FAPE. As such, any desired modifications asked of a school really can't downgrade the curriculum and expectations without violating IDEA as well. If the school is expecting the student to meet an equivalent level of rigor as the rest of the students, then they are actually upholding IDEA and definitional FAPE requirement of equality to other students.

Schools modify curriculums all the time. iDEA is so students can access the curriculum. When people say modify the curriculum it may in some cases mean using an entirely different curriculum for that specific child. If that is what the child needs then the school has to provide it. I don't know what Basis does but we have been in a grade where our child was pulled for language to use a completely different curriculum at his level. He Wa the only child out of 75+ who used that specific curriculum. This happens all the time in IEP situations. I am sure Basis can handle that. They may not want to (seems with an investigation they really don't want to) but it would mean there are children who pass their grade using a different, perhaps less rigorous, curriculum. I don't know what tey do in their other schools but they must have figured that out by now?

I am going to send my kid to Oyster and see if they will teach using French immersion.

Oyster is a specialized program. Yu Ying is a specialized program. Lee Montessori is a specialized program. BASIS is not a specialized program. If they wanted to be specialized they could have done so in the charter application process. They can't decide to be specialized once their charter has been approved.

There isn't any distinction between those charters and BASIS, and they can only do what BASIS can.

Same poster here, submitted too early. Oyster is different but you liking the other schools better than BASIS does not give them additional options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to put your mind at ease, pp: The courts have defined through case law what "appropriate" means in FAPE under IDEA. It certainly does not mean that a SN child with cognitive delays be accommodated at an accelerated STEM focused school. The school is not "appropriate" even if it is public and free.

Also, the limited resources excuse or "we can't afford it" is not an adequate defense for failing to implement a child's IEP.

I don't think people understand Basis where it comes to acceleration. Nobody is being forced to be accelerated at Basis. Acceleration, i.e. things like placement into Algebra I in 5th or 6th grade, or into the LEAP program, is offered as a function of diagnostic exams to place students at a level appropriate to their mastery, but is only done at the discretion and by the choice of the families. If the diagnostic says they are ready for Algebra I in 5th grade, that doesn't mean they have to do it. They could also follow the regular course sequence as well and take Algebra I in 7th grade. And, if a student did try jumping ahead into the accelerated track, they could always drop back to the regular sequence if it's too much to take on.

Also, there are probably thousands of public schools in districts all over the country which are STEM focused and which have acceleration and similar types of features - what Basis does is really not all that new or unusual. As such, I seriously doubt that IDEA precludes this in public schools.

I'm no attorney but in my reading of materials around IDEA, I noted that one of the clear provisions of IDEA is that FAPE requires that the quality of educational services provided to students with disabilities be equal to those provided to non-disabled students - so, if a family's intention is serious modification to the student's coursework to downgrade it to a level they feel is appropriate to the student's capability, then I would think the family's own expectation of the curriculum and workload is in fact no longer of equivalent quality as compared to what the other students are doing, would go against IDEA's stated definition of FAPE. As such, any desired modifications asked of a school really can't downgrade the curriculum and expectations without violating IDEA as well. If the school is expecting the student to meet an equivalent level of rigor as the rest of the students, then they are actually upholding IDEA and definitional FAPE requirement of equality to other students.

Schools modify curriculums all the time. iDEA is so students can access the curriculum. When people say modify the curriculum it may in some cases mean using an entirely different curriculum for that specific child. If that is what the child needs then the school has to provide it. I don't know what Basis does but we have been in a grade where our child was pulled for language to use a completely different curriculum at his level. He Wa the only child out of 75+ who used that specific curriculum. This happens all the time in IEP situations. I am sure Basis can handle that. They may not want to (seems with an investigation they really don't want to) but it would mean there are children who pass their grade using a different, perhaps less rigorous, curriculum. I don't know what tey do in their other schools but they must have figured that out by now?

If they have a totally different curriculum, then they are no longer "accessing the curriculum" per IDEA because it's not the same curriculum and it fails the language in IDEA of "equal" - basicallywhat you have created is a separate school within a school, and that is inconsistent with IDEA language and the definition in FAPE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to put your mind at ease, pp: The courts have defined through case law what "appropriate" means in FAPE under IDEA. It certainly does not mean that a SN child with cognitive delays be accommodated at an accelerated STEM focused school. The school is not "appropriate" even if it is public and free.

Also, the limited resources excuse or "we can't afford it" is not an adequate defense for failing to implement a child's IEP.

I don't think people understand Basis where it comes to acceleration. Nobody is being forced to be accelerated at Basis. Acceleration, i.e. things like placement into Algebra I in 5th or 6th grade, or into the LEAP program, is offered as a function of diagnostic exams to place students at a level appropriate to their mastery, but is only done at the discretion and by the choice of the families. If the diagnostic says they are ready for Algebra I in 5th grade, that doesn't mean they have to do it. They could also follow the regular course sequence as well and take Algebra I in 7th grade. And, if a student did try jumping ahead into the accelerated track, they could always drop back to the regular sequence if it's too much to take on.

Also, there are probably thousands of public schools in districts all over the country which are STEM focused and which have acceleration and similar types of features - what Basis does is really not all that new or unusual. As such, I seriously doubt that IDEA precludes this in public schools.

I'm no attorney but in my reading of materials around IDEA, I noted that one of the clear provisions of IDEA is that FAPE requires that the quality of educational services provided to students with disabilities be equal to those provided to non-disabled students - so, if a family's intention is serious modification to the student's coursework to downgrade it to a level they feel is appropriate to the student's capability, then I would think the family's own expectation of the curriculum and workload is in fact no longer of equivalent quality as compared to what the other students are doing, would go against IDEA's stated definition of FAPE. As such, any desired modifications asked of a school really can't downgrade the curriculum and expectations without violating IDEA as well. If the school is expecting the student to meet an equivalent level of rigor as the rest of the students, then they are actually upholding IDEA and definitional FAPE requirement of equality to other students.

Schools modify curriculums all the time. iDEA is so students can access the curriculum. When people say modify the curriculum it may in some cases mean using an entirely different curriculum for that specific child. If that is what the child needs then the school has to provide it. I don't know what Basis does but we have been in a grade where our child was pulled for language to use a completely different curriculum at his level. He Wa the only child out of 75+ who used that specific curriculum. This happens all the time in IEP situations. I am sure Basis can handle that. They may not want to (seems with an investigation they really don't want to) but it would mean there are children who pass their grade using a different, perhaps less rigorous, curriculum. I don't know what tey do in their other schools but they must have figured that out by now?

I am going to send my kid to Oyster and see if they will teach using French immersion.

Oyster is a specialized program. Yu Ying is a specialized program. Lee Montessori is a specialized program. BASIS is not a specialized program. If they wanted to be specialized they could have done so in the charter application process. They can't decide to be specialized once their charter has been approved.

There isn't any distinction between those charters and BASIS, and they can only do what BASIS can.

Same poster here, submitted too early. Oyster is different but you liking the other schools better than BASIS does not give them additional options.

Basis is constrained by their charter. Just like Yu Ying can't add kids after 2nd grade due to their charter. I don't like any of them better than the other-- but it sounds like you do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to put your mind at ease, pp: The courts have defined through case law what "appropriate" means in FAPE under IDEA. It certainly does not mean that a SN child with cognitive delays be accommodated at an accelerated STEM focused school. The school is not "appropriate" even if it is public and free.

Also, the limited resources excuse or "we can't afford it" is not an adequate defense for failing to implement a child's IEP.

I don't think people understand Basis where it comes to acceleration. Nobody is being forced to be accelerated at Basis. Acceleration, i.e. things like placement into Algebra I in 5th or 6th grade, or into the LEAP program, is offered as a function of diagnostic exams to place students at a level appropriate to their mastery, but is only done at the discretion and by the choice of the families. If the diagnostic says they are ready for Algebra I in 5th grade, that doesn't mean they have to do it. They could also follow the regular course sequence as well and take Algebra I in 7th grade. And, if a student did try jumping ahead into the accelerated track, they could always drop back to the regular sequence if it's too much to take on.

Also, there are probably thousands of public schools in districts all over the country which are STEM focused and which have acceleration and similar types of features - what Basis does is really not all that new or unusual. As such, I seriously doubt that IDEA precludes this in public schools.

I'm no attorney but in my reading of materials around IDEA, I noted that one of the clear provisions of IDEA is that FAPE requires that the quality of educational services provided to students with disabilities be equal to those provided to non-disabled students - so, if a family's intention is serious modification to the student's coursework to downgrade it to a level they feel is appropriate to the student's capability, then I would think the family's own expectation of the curriculum and workload is in fact no longer of equivalent quality as compared to what the other students are doing, would go against IDEA's stated definition of FAPE. As such, any desired modifications asked of a school really can't downgrade the curriculum and expectations without violating IDEA as well. If the school is expecting the student to meet an equivalent level of rigor as the rest of the students, then they are actually upholding IDEA and definitional FAPE requirement of equality to other students.

Schools modify curriculums all the time. iDEA is so students can access the curriculum. When people say modify the curriculum it may in some cases mean using an entirely different curriculum for that specific child. If that is what the child needs then the school has to provide it. I don't know what Basis does but we have been in a grade where our child was pulled for language to use a completely different curriculum at his level. He Wa the only child out of 75+ who used that specific curriculum. This happens all the time in IEP situations. I am sure Basis can handle that. They may not want to (seems with an investigation they really don't want to) but it would mean there are children who pass their grade using a different, perhaps less rigorous, curriculum. I don't know what tey do in their other schools but they must have figured that out by now?

If they have a totally different curriculum, then they are no longer "accessing the curriculum" per IDEA because it's not the same curriculum and it fails the language in IDEA of "equal" - basicallywhat you have created is a separate school within a school, and that is inconsistent with IDEA language and the definition in FAPE.

Wrong wrong wrong. They don't all have to access the SAME curriculum. Are you new to this?

[Anonymous]

It's damned if you do and damned if you don't isn't it?Remember the hue and cry when someone complained that Yu Ying has a non-immersion track for their students who are not at grade level in English.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's damned if you do and damned if you don't isn't it?Remember the hue and cry when someone complained that Yu Ying has a non-immersion track for their students who are not at grade level in English.

Which begs the question, why do some parents keep their kids at a school that on its face is a BAD fit?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to put your mind at ease, pp: The courts have defined through case law what "appropriate" means in FAPE under IDEA. It certainly does not mean that a SN child with cognitive delays be accommodated at an accelerated STEM focused school. The school is not "appropriate" even if it is public and free.

Also, the limited resources excuse or "we can't afford it" is not an adequate defense for failing to implement a child's IEP.

I don't think people understand Basis where it comes to acceleration. Nobody is being forced to be accelerated at Basis. Acceleration, i.e. things like placement into Algebra I in 5th or 6th grade, or into the LEAP program, is offered as a function of diagnostic exams to place students at a level appropriate to their mastery, but is only done at the discretion and by the choice of the families. If the diagnostic says they are ready for Algebra I in 5th grade, that doesn't mean they have to do it. They could also follow the regular course sequence as well and take Algebra I in 7th grade. And, if a student did try jumping ahead into the accelerated track, they could always drop back to the regular sequence if it's too much to take on.

Also, there are probably thousands of public schools in districts all over the country which are STEM focused and which have acceleration and similar types of features - what Basis does is really not all that new or unusual. As such, I seriously doubt that IDEA precludes this in public schools.

I'm no attorney but in my reading of materials around IDEA, I noted that one of the clear provisions of IDEA is that FAPE requires that the quality of educational services provided to students with disabilities be equal to those provided to non-disabled students - so, if a family's intention is serious modification to the student's coursework to downgrade it to a level they feel is appropriate to the student's capability, then I would think the family's own expectation of the curriculum and workload is in fact no longer of equivalent quality as compared to what the other students are doing, would go against IDEA's stated definition of FAPE. As such, any desired modifications asked of a school really can't downgrade the curriculum and expectations without violating IDEA as well. If the school is expecting the student to meet an equivalent level of rigor as the rest of the students, then they are actually upholding IDEA and definitional FAPE requirement of equality to other students.

Schools modify curriculums all the time. iDEA is so students can access the curriculum. When people say modify the curriculum it may in some cases mean using an entirely different curriculum for that specific child. If that is what the child needs then the school has to provide it. I don't know what Basis does but we have been in a grade where our child was pulled for language to use a completely different curriculum at his level. He Wa the only child out of 75+ who used that specific curriculum. This happens all the time in IEP situations. I am sure Basis can handle that. They may not want to (seems with an investigation they really don't want to) but it would mean there are children who pass their grade using a different, perhaps less rigorous, curriculum. I don't know what tey do in their other schools but they must have figured that out by now?

If they have a totally different curriculum, then they are no longer "accessing the curriculum" per IDEA because it's not the same curriculum and it fails the language in IDEA of "equal" - basicallywhat you have created is a separate school within a school, and that is inconsistent with IDEA language and the definition in FAPE.

Wrong wrong wrong. They don't all have to access the SAME curriculum. Are you new to this?

Why choose a charter that's all about curriculum when you aren't interested in their curriculum and want a totally different curriculum? That's totally bizarre and illogical.

[Anonymous]

Nobody is forcing anyone to go to schools like Yu Ying or Basis. There are dozens of schools to pick from, why pick the one that's not a good fit?

It's just plain stupid and irresponsible on every level to choose a school that's totally orthogonal and in conflict with your child's needs. Parents really only have themselves to blame when these things happen.

[Anonymous]

In DCPS, social promotion is mandatory by law except in a few grades. I don't think that is the law for charters. And it cannot be for BASIS.

BASIS was granted a charter that included provisions that ALL students had to take comprehensive exams at the end of the year from 6th-8th grade. If they fail them at the end of the year, they retake them in the fall. If they fail again, they have a choice: repeat the year or leave the school. That means mandatory social promotion for anyone is out. Including ELL students.

PLEASE tell me that an IEP can only require that students take the comprehensive exams in a DIFFERENT way - like with more time, small room, minimal distractions, etc. DON'T tell me that IDEA requires that IEP students at BASIS be given DIFFERENT comprehensive exams.

For the DCCAS they give IEP students scribes, they give extra time, they give small rooms, minimal distractions. They do not give a different DCCAS.

Why should the rules for the BASIS comps, where the outcome for failure is permitted by the charter granted to them, as applied to IEP students, not be the same?

Same tests, taken under different circumstances. Not different tests. That would make their charter re comps meaningless.

[Anonymous]

Agree, PP - I have no problem with IEPs for more time to take exams, and I think Basis does that all the time - but I would think that to expect or ask for different tests would go against their charter. And, if someone had a significantly different curriculum, they would be unprepared and in conflict with the comps, so that would essentially be going against their charter as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's damned if you do and damned if you don't isn't it?Remember the hue and cry when someone complained that Yu Ying has a non-immersion track for their students who are not at grade level in English.

That's right - it ends up not being fair to the rest of the students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to put your mind at ease, pp: The courts have defined through case law what "appropriate" means in FAPE under IDEA. It certainly does not mean that a SN child with cognitive delays be accommodated at an accelerated STEM focused school. The school is not "appropriate" even if it is public and free.

Also, the limited resources excuse or "we can't afford it" is not an adequate defense for failing to implement a child's IEP.

I don't think people understand Basis where it comes to acceleration. Nobody is being forced to be accelerated at Basis. Acceleration, i.e. things like placement into Algebra I in 5th or 6th grade, or into the LEAP program, is offered as a function of diagnostic exams to place students at a level appropriate to their mastery, but is only done at the discretion and by the choice of the families. If the diagnostic says they are ready for Algebra I in 5th grade, that doesn't mean they have to do it. They could also follow the regular course sequence as well and take Algebra I in 7th grade. And, if a student did try jumping ahead into the accelerated track, they could always drop back to the regular sequence if it's too much to take on.

Also, there are probably thousands of public schools in districts all over the country which are STEM focused and which have acceleration and similar types of features - what Basis does is really not all that new or unusual. As such, I seriously doubt that IDEA precludes this in public schools.

I'm no attorney but in my reading of materials around IDEA, I noted that one of the clear provisions of IDEA is that FAPE requires that the quality of educational services provided to students with disabilities be equal to those provided to non-disabled students - so, if a family's intention is serious modification to the student's coursework to downgrade it to a level they feel is appropriate to the student's capability, then I would think the family's own expectation of the curriculum and workload is in fact no longer of equivalent quality as compared to what the other students are doing, would go against IDEA's stated definition of FAPE. As such, any desired modifications asked of a school really can't downgrade the curriculum and expectations without violating IDEA as well. If the school is expecting the student to meet an equivalent level of rigor as the rest of the students, then they are actually upholding IDEA and definitional FAPE requirement of equality to other students.

Schools modify curriculums all the time. iDEA is so students can access the curriculum. When people say modify the curriculum it may in some cases mean using an entirely different curriculum for that specific child. If that is what the child needs then the school has to provide it. I don't know what Basis does but we have been in a grade where our child was pulled for language to use a completely different curriculum at his level. He Wa the only child out of 75+ who used that specific curriculum. This happens all the time in IEP situations. I am sure Basis can handle that. They may not want to (seems with an investigation they really don't want to) but it would mean there are children who pass their grade using a different, perhaps less rigorous, curriculum. I don't know what tey do in their other schools but they must have figured that out by now?

I am going to send my kid to Oyster and see if they will teach using French immersion.

Oyster is a specialized program. Yu Ying is a specialized program. Lee Montessori is a specialized program. BASIS is not a specialized program. If they wanted to be specialized they could have done so in the charter application process. They can't decide to be specialized once their charter has been approved.

There isn't any distinction between those charters and BASIS, and they can only do what BASIS can.

Same poster here, submitted too early. Oyster is different but you liking the other schools better than BASIS does not give them additional options.

Basis is constrained by their charter. Just like Yu Ying can't add kids after 2nd grade due to their charter. I don't like any of them better than the other-- but it sounds like you do.

That is exactly what I meant. No charter can cherry-pick, which was exactly my point.

[Anonymous]

No, charters can't. Too bad they are the only ones left to do right for the kids when their parents are too stupid to.