[MikePlacid]

> teachers are overworked to squeeze out performance for the 90%, and cases like hers are the ones that fall through the cracks.

However, the opposite is true, at least in California. Special needs students receive exceptional attention, often double that given to others. Each has a tailored written plan, unique to their needs, along with a detailed report reviewed by a team of specialists at the end of every trimester, significantly adding to the workload.

Meanwhile, exceptionally bright students receive no extra focus whatsoever.

[dragonwriter]

The plans you are referring to (which from the fairly loose description could be either IEPs or 504s) are a matter of conpliance with federal law, specifically (for IEPs) the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 and (for 504s) the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, not something particular to California. And plenty of students who have either are, in fact, exceptionally bright, because both have standards that are not simply the absence of brightness.

[trial3]

> “special needs students receive exceptional attention, often double”

this zero-sum understanding of what IEPs are makes me sad, and i feel bad for your kid’s’ teachers

> “Meanwhile, exceptionally bright students receive no extra focus whatsoever”

perhaps consider a child with a parent who considers them exceptionally bright _is_ receiving “extra focus” just… outside of the classroom

[MikePlacid]

I simply clarified the current state of affairs without saying a single negative word about it. Still, you rushed to defend it. It appears (just my guess) that you recognize flaws in the situation and feel compelled to justify it to yourself, don’t you?

As an engineer, I see both the advantages and drawbacks in what I described. The benefit is greater comfort and improved socialization for those who need it. The downside—and perhaps a critical one—is that a country neglecting its brightest students with no state support risks falling behind globally. That might not matter if we had no international rivals. But do we truly lack them?

[trial3]

> I simply clarified the current state of affairs without saying a single negative word about it.

It's awfully grandiose to present your experiences as a parent as the "current state of affairs" and a summary of all of California's approach to school psychology.

> Still, you rushed to defend it. It appears (just my guess) that you recognize flaws in the situation and feel compelled to justify it to yourself, don’t you?

I haven't defended it - I stated that the worldview you described makes me sad, and that I feel bad for the faculty and staff (treading water in this system that I agree is broken!) that I fear you are making it worse for. Do you psychoanalyze them with extreme confidence, also?

> As an engineer,

This was already very clear.

> that a country neglecting its brightest students

Ah - you've conveniently moved the goalposts: until now you were talking about teachers not providing "extra focus" or "exceptional" attention to the "exceptionally bright" students, and now it's "neglect." But the assertion here is that the bright students are still receiving the _required_ amount of attention, but someone else is receiving "extra," which is neglect (somehow). We're back at zero-sumness! This is what bums me out!

> That might not matter if we had no international rivals. But do we truly lack them?

what are you even talking about man how did you get here