Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Internet Search
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Parent Support Forums
General Parenting
Once again....these people have NO CLUE
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Marguerite" data-source="post: 379321" data-attributes="member: 1991"><p>You need to get your own attorney on board, at least for a consultation.</p><p></p><p>Why do they do this?</p><p></p><p>1) because they really don't know any better, than to be adversarial and resistant to change; and</p><p></p><p>2) they don't want to set a precedent. Sure, it would be easier and cheaper for them to just transfer this one kid, but then others coming afterward would say to them, "Hey, you transferred wee, why won't you give my kid the same treatment? We have the same paperwork."</p><p></p><p>We went through similar issues when trying to get easy child 2/difficult child 2 accelerated into school. We had been trying for months, to apply for special consideration. The answers we got were, "yes, she's bright. But those rough tests you had done were just an approximation that show she's at least in the top 10& of the population for IQ. That just isn't enough to justify changing these solid rules for Dept of Ed school entry that have never been broken. We would need to know she is REALLY bright, plus could actually cope. So - no school for her until she's old enough."</p><p></p><p>She was nearly old enough, but the cut-off was two weeks too early for her.</p><p></p><p>So we had her tested further. It took a lot longer, school had gone back before we could get the paperwork sorted. But furthertesting showed easy child 2/difficult child 2 was in the top 1% plus was also socially ready. Then the objections were, "But what if this opens the floodgates?"</p><p>I then pointed out, "If you had a class full of easy child 2/GFG2s who also came with a guarantee of social readiness, I'm sure teachers would be delighted, not horrified. But it is not likely - this is 1% of the likely intake we're talking about. Less, when you consider the age of this kid and how close to te cut-off she is. I doubt there will be more than one or two across the state each year."</p><p></p><p>And so it has proven to be. But every time I have heard a similar change suggested (and about that time, I was talking to the media about it, interviewed about it and kept hearing the same question) people keep asking, "But what if this opens the floodgates? Let one in, and there will be hordes to follow."</p><p></p><p>And you know what? There never are.</p><p></p><p>Marg</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Marguerite, post: 379321, member: 1991"] You need to get your own attorney on board, at least for a consultation. Why do they do this? 1) because they really don't know any better, than to be adversarial and resistant to change; and 2) they don't want to set a precedent. Sure, it would be easier and cheaper for them to just transfer this one kid, but then others coming afterward would say to them, "Hey, you transferred wee, why won't you give my kid the same treatment? We have the same paperwork." We went through similar issues when trying to get easy child 2/difficult child 2 accelerated into school. We had been trying for months, to apply for special consideration. The answers we got were, "yes, she's bright. But those rough tests you had done were just an approximation that show she's at least in the top 10& of the population for IQ. That just isn't enough to justify changing these solid rules for Dept of Ed school entry that have never been broken. We would need to know she is REALLY bright, plus could actually cope. So - no school for her until she's old enough." She was nearly old enough, but the cut-off was two weeks too early for her. So we had her tested further. It took a lot longer, school had gone back before we could get the paperwork sorted. But furthertesting showed easy child 2/difficult child 2 was in the top 1% plus was also socially ready. Then the objections were, "But what if this opens the floodgates?" I then pointed out, "If you had a class full of easy child 2/GFG2s who also came with a guarantee of social readiness, I'm sure teachers would be delighted, not horrified. But it is not likely - this is 1% of the likely intake we're talking about. Less, when you consider the age of this kid and how close to te cut-off she is. I doubt there will be more than one or two across the state each year." And so it has proven to be. But every time I have heard a similar change suggested (and about that time, I was talking to the media about it, interviewed about it and kept hearing the same question) people keep asking, "But what if this opens the floodgates? Let one in, and there will be hordes to follow." And you know what? There never are. Marg [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Parent Support Forums
General Parenting
Once again....these people have NO CLUE
Top