The Consensus is …

I sent my new blog out to a few writers and people in the gifted community for their opinions (I know that I stated I do not care), because I know these people and honor their opinions.

I am Political Because of My Parents

The consensus, all in all, was that I am political, but I am reflecting my experiences and opinions, and I am on-track for what needs to be stated. No news about me being political (it is my parents’ influence since they had us march with Cesar Chavez, march against the Viet Nam War, and took in foster children (and I have taught public school my adult life)), but I was a little worried about freaking out someone in the community, but I have no worry according to the comments I received.

Fanaticism and Fanatics in Every Community

Every thing I do draws some criticism, but usually from the fanatics in the gifted and public communities. No one ever talks about the HTG fanatics, but trust me they are there, we all know them, and most people back channel talk about their fanaticism in sound bites, nothing extensive to me at least because I do not respond. Trust me they write A LOT on our boards, they usually say really crazy things and publicly talk about other people’s children by name, or act like they are faint over some comment, when their comments have been even more extreme. This is true in every setting, I am sure. So, it will be interesting to see how those comments reveal themselves.

Now I feel a little more comfortable to just write from the heart.

Disclosing

I have a lot of material that I have acquired over the years that a lot of people have sent me representing different organizations, and individually, saying really crazy things. The Supreme Court case is really about vouchers in public colleges and universities (that a child’s ADA follows the child to their public school (old Brown v. concept with a 21st century application)), but I guess if you have a special interest, or a button to push in this arena, the case could do just that in some way.

In the end if these are special needs, how will these people look? I really believe these are special needs, so whatever the decision, I am entitled to my personal opinion, and as a long time educator, my professional opinion.

I first phoned organizations like the National Education Association (NEA), California Association for the Gifted (CAG) (they would not help, but a few years later after lots of legislative work put out a highly gifted issue), (National Association for the Gifted (NAG), world, states (Ohio was fabulous), and a hundred more starting in the early 1990’s, but no one would help (and each one has a funky story). It is interesting when these organizations would not provide leadership that they are so quick to cast a stone at the vacuum and absence of their own lack of leadership. If they wanted to see a legislative or legal outcome a certain direction then they should have provided leadership that direction, not criticism.

Let us take the NEA for example, (just one of many, but one of my favorite), makes me compare gifted education and the sorts of things that were said about Brown v. between 1954 and 1964. Michael D. Simpson’s (NEA Assistant General Counsel) comments have that same feel (see below: electronic correspondence 09-2004). Loren Grossman says about this sort of thing that:

——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Is the time right for supporting the civil rights of the highly/profoundly gifted?
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 17:39:22 -0700
From: Loren R. Grossman
To: <LeilaLevi@HighlyGifted.org>

Leila,

I have been contemplating your question about the likelihood of whether or not the US Supreme Court will grant your petition for writ of certiorari (cert) in Levi’s case when they reconvene for the fall term this next month. We have joked that the only way the old conservative supremes will take on this case is if one of them has a grandchild who is both highly/profoundly gifted and not being appropriately served, due to the lack of protection under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. I found it beyond ironic that the letter you received in 2004 from general counsel to the National Educational Association (NEA) Michael Simpson stated that:
“As you may know, NEA has long opposed private school vouchers for reasons too numerous to reiterate here. For present purposes, suffice to say that NEA would oppose any effort to obtain court-ordered vouchers through litigation. For this reason, NEA will not be able to provide any assistance in your pending lawsuit. I hope this responds adequately to your recent inquiries.”

Contrast the American Federation of Teachers’ (AFT’s) response to the NEA’s response to making racial integration the law of the land, where John Ligtenberg acting as AFT Counsel (Illinois) & Selma M. Borchardt (Of Counsel, Washington, DC) filed an additional Amicus Curiae brief in the Brown v. Board of Ed case in 1953, stating:
“The American Federation Of Teachers feels that desegregation on the American scene is successfully proceeding in various ways-by voluntary community action, by legislative acts, by judicial review, by military and religious authority and by individual initiative. In all of these cases the question of appropriate method, timing and who should take the initiative, arises. We believe that the public scholl [sic] being one of the molders for our citizens of tomorrow should take the lead; we believe the time is now-we believe we have the ‘know-how’-we believe the most logical authority is the Supreme Court” (pages 22-23). Retrieved September 23, 2007, from
http://www.reuther.wayne.edu/Brown/brownbrief.pdf

What a difference 50 years makes! Loren
(electronic correspondence received 09-2007).

——– Original Message ——–
Subject: RE: The Case
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 15:30:29 -0400
From: Simpson, Michael [NEA]
To: <LeilaLevi@HighlyGifted.org>

September 16, 2004

Dear Ms. Levi — This is a follow-up to the telephone conversation you and I had two weeks ago, as well as a response to your telephone call to NEA’s Government Relations Department on August 31st. I have reviewed the documents about your lawsuit posted on the Hoagies’ Gifted web site, which you referred me to, along with several newspaper articles. As I understand it, your son is quite gifted and enrolled at UCLA when he was 13. The state refused to pay his college tuition because he already had graduated from high school, and the state claims that it is not obliged to provide a free public education beyond that level. Legislation that would have created such an obligation was vetoed by the governor in 2002, apparently because he felt that it would be too costly.

You have now sued the California Department of Education (CDE) claiming that the state’s failure to pay for your son’s college education violates the California Constitution (see below). You are represented by Richard D. Ackerman, of the firm of Lively & Ackerman. After filing your lawsuit, Mr. Ackerman issued a press statement proclaiming, “This case could open the door to a whole new breed of vouchers that would be designed to protect children that simply cannot be served by the ‘one size fits all’ approach that the CDE and federal government have forced upon California families.” Mr. Ackerman apparently believes that, if you win your lawsuit, then every California parent who is displeased with the quality of education that his/her child is receiving in a California public school could sue the state (or local school district) and demand a voucher for use in a private school. I do not necessarily disagree with his legal assessment of the possible outcome of your lawsuit. While it is not possible to predict the actual impact that a ruling in your favor might have on public education, Mr. Ackerman’s prediction is not too far-fetched. Indeed, another right wing law firm has filed similar lawsuits asking courts to award private school vouchers for the alleged failure of the public schools to comply with their constitutional obligations to provide an adequate education. While you may not personally agree with Mr. Ackerman’s ultimate goals in this litigation (I do not know), it is at least possible that a court ruling in your favor could do real harm to public education.

As you may know, NEA has long opposed private school vouchers for reasons too numerous to reiterate here. For present purposes, suffice to say that NEA would oppose any effort to obtain court-ordered vouchers through litigation.

For this reason, NEA will not be able to provide any assistance in your pending lawsuit. I hope this responds adequately to your recent inquiries.

Michael D. Simpson
NEA Assistant General Counsel

References:
Article IX, § 1 California Constitution
A general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence being essential to the preservation of the rights and liberties of the people, the Legislature shall encourage by all suitable means the promotion of intellectual, scientific, moral, and agricultural improvement.

Article IX, § 5 California Constitution
The Legislature shall provide for a system of common schools by which a free school shall be kept up and supported in each district at least six months in every year, after the first year in which a school has been established (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_9).

Also read the decision in Hartzell v. Connell (1984) 35 C.3d 899, which concludes that mandatory education must be free to all California children. A district may not charge fees for any academically related activities (http://webhost.bridgew.edu/mread/Documents/Hartzell.doc).

I have phoned looking for professional help and support, but maybe donations from this blog are a more realistic approach. Special needs families are more willing to help a little bit at a time, over time. Everyone can help a little bit every month and I hope they do.

Harsh Realities: The Financial Impact on My Family

Working for Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), and under a really funky high school administration that has driven the school’s rating from a raising 4+ to a 2 (and still slipping), has had a financial impact on my family. Anyone who follows the news knows that LAUSD is no longer paying their employees (since January of 2007) and since I have a grievance filed, suffice it to say, I cannot discuss it beyond this point.

And why did United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA) take so long to not take action about the employees not being paid for almost a year? Let us hope that Linda Guthrie is our next union president.

Or maybe a lot of people will come out and support my gallery opening (http://www.dcafineart.com/) on Sunday, October the 14th, from noon to 5:00pm, at 3107 Pico Blvd, Santa Monica, CA, and buy a piece of art to help me make a living and support my work.

The Adolescent Results

Levi is no longer in school, he now has a job, I had to take a leave from my doctorate degree, and life has changed dramatically. Being a 16–year old male, and this harsh new reality, Levi will no longer speak to me. He wanted me to sign for a $26,000 education loan but I was too afraid, and he is no longer speaking to me.

I have maxed out my credit cards, drained my savings, and I am hoping the Supreme Court hears this case.

Light in the Mine Shaft

Jane is now helping me with my websites (I do not have time working full–time, the show, and this case) and she believes people care and will donate.

My Art Opening

See you at my gallery opening (http://www.dcafineart.com/) on Sunday, October the 14th, from noon to 5:00pm, at 3107 Pico Blvd, Santa Monica, CA, or in the news if the case goes forward. Check out my art work at LeilaLevi.com .

Categories: civil rights, Politics, National Education Association, Leila's Art, Brown v., leadership, education, advocacy, gifted, supreme court ~ Tags: advocacy, Brown v., civil rights, education, gifted, leadership, Leilas Art, National Education Association, Politics, supreme court ~ Trackback