Steven, I apologize for my terse post as it is obvious I goofed in making my point.

Entitlement was the wrong word. I believe that any program which caters to a few will be plagued with corruption issues. Funding via a back door policy sets the stage. There�s enough of that ongoing today.

Certainly I understand that your feeling is that there is a critical need to meet the needs of advanced students. I could not agree more. What I don�t agree with is the method. Addressing one (tiny) segment of the educational system is simply going to create an outcry that could destroy that option for a long time.

Quote
PoppaRex, your "it just stinks of entitlement and payoff" comment suggests to me that, in your opinion, the state's only obligation to the child who is required to be schooled is to provide a standard mediocre curriculum that is designed to suit the needs of a 50th Percentile student, and that no child deserves special consideration of any sort under any circumstance either above or below that 50th Percentile standard.

How did you jump to that conclusion? I believe exactly the opposite, that �No Child Left Behind� needs to be transformed into �Every child to his ability�. I think your proposal does not address the critical early years where children need to be identified as to their potential and allowed to track accordingly. Of course there�s the problem of how one identifies the potential of a child and how stringent does that become. Hopefully it is flexible enough to recognize that potential changes due to circumstance and development, that a child does not become pigeon-holed at day one and is forever stuck with some prophesy.

Quote
that child should be entitled to enroll in a public university at taxpayer's expense until the twelve years of free public schooling for that child is entirely spent. That is what should be the state's obligation because that is what is fair and equitable to all students, including the genius students whose needs are presently being overlooked or ignored.

Have you read your own proposal? I believe you are talking about something beyond the states responsibility to fund K-12. You are talking about a separately funded system. I believe there is very little money provided to fund the other end of the spectrum (at least such is my experience in Massachusetts). School systems are required to pay for special needs education from the same batch of funds that the rest of the children are schooled from. How is providing a special fund equitable? Don�t jump to the conclusion that because I don�t agree with your method that I think the current system is fine.

I am a little wishy-washy on the emotional pleas and personal insight you provide, because they have no bearing on the program you propose. I suggest that you refrain from making assumptions about my abilities or what I and my family have been through. I am no stranger to the emotional pain genius brings and I assure you I can tug on your heartstrings so hard you�ll drop with a full coronary.

You propose I get real? The reality is until the lower grades are structured in a way that exceptional children are provided the resources they need to flourish, I believe most kids in your program will be those of parents who can afford the $24,000 tuition at a private school for gifted children (and who want to ship them off to such a place). I have a 10 year old son who likely is gifted. Unlike my daughters, I will have him tested as he is heavy into science and math and I need to open as many doors as I can. I hate the thought of him growing to hate school as I did (Note School <> learning).

I think we want to get to the same place. I just think you are jumping to the end while I see a need to start at the beginning.

Rob