To be fair, when you look up his info, he does have a history of working for some peaceful and seemingly righteous causes. I don't necessarily feel the hate from him as much as feel that this particular action is misdirected, ignorant, and in very poor taste and that he does have some racist views he may not even realize he has. He hails from Mississippi and, ironically, he often signs things as "Michael Rabb (Rabbi)", which seems very misleading considering his stance on the Jewish state.

There seems to be an assumption that the intent of this demonstration is to engage the local Jewish community on this topic. This may be stating the obvious, but, if engagement were really the intent, there are much more effective and respectful ways to do this than to protest outside a temple during what is considered the most important observance in Judaism.

The logic (or lack of) in demonstrating at a temple that does not actively endorse a formal stance on Israeli politics is akin to protesting at a local Catholic church during mass because you are opposed to actions of the Pope and believe that those attending in observance of the religion he is central to must also support all of his actions. Even if this were true of Catholicism (and I don't believe it is), it is not the case with Judaism - though most tend to feel a "natural" affinity for the Jewish state from a spiritual and historical perspective, support by American Jews for Israeli politics and America's stance on Israel is far from blind or universal.

Demanding we drop all support of Israel by rallying at this temple is more than a little ridiculous and the misdirection and inappropriateness of it will likely overshadow any legitimate criticisms of Israel. Mr. Rabb is not showing a desire to engage but to confront in an inappropriate, ineffective and highly disrespectful manner.

It is also deeply disappointing that the Daily Camera choose to advertise such an event - it was inappropriate and tactless for the details of this demonstration to be printed with the letter. Shame on you and on those who show up to disrupt a community engaged in peaceful prayer.

I don't think he's saying that he knows the facts because he's Jewish, but he's pointing out that there's a distinction made between all Jews AND all Americans, which smacks of anti-semitism. Why not just ask this of all Americans, which includes Jews?

This is an erroneous quote - please check your resources before spreading the hate.

One such group is Boulder Gifted Parent Support: www.bouldergps.org

Most parents of gifted children don't like the word, "gifted" - due to the elitist and privileged perceptions it invokes, which you exemplify here. However it is a necessary evil because this is the term that is recognized formally at the federal level and throughout the system - so, unfortunately, being labeled as gifted is more likely to get the child the accommodations they should be able to get without the label. Since we don't get the services without the label, we must often label the kids in order to get the services.

"Special ed" is similar in that one must be labeled as this in order to receive a certain level of services. However, it implies that there are disadvantages associated with this condition, whereas "gifted" does not adequately convey this. Searching for a term or word that better conveys the issues that these children face has been long-standing quest in the gt community.

I agree. The steps are simple really and would benefit all students academically, socially and emotionally, assuming there is confidentiality and flexibility (of course, affordability is a consideration):
- assessment: Is a student achieving to their potential, and if not, why (cognitive, achievement and physical assessment). This will bring to light potential learning disabilities and identify peaks, valleys, learning styles.
- ability-grouping: putting students in classes that are at their level of achievement and pace (and ideally, learning-style.)

Why would you feel these parents should object to a photographer being there? We've had news crews at our school to cover various topics - parents and children often talk with them. Do you think that there should be shame or secrecy around kids with such issues?

And do you honestly think that all of these parents are all just sooo proud of their children for having innate and unearned abilities that are difficult to deal with? And that their child can get through school without learning how to work or put in effort? Being accepting and open about their children having such issues is not the same as being a braggart and self-superior. And, what if they are asses about it - so what? It may be annoying but it doesn't take away from the genuine need....Why does meeting one group's needs have to be to the detriment of another's? It doesn't. Maybe you should worry about your children meeting their potential and being happy, and let us worry about ours.

Yours are the ramblings of someone with an inferiority complex - it sounds like you would have us all go underground with our kids so that you can feel better about yourself...how selfish.

We are a household that is very low income with gifted and twice exceptional children. Our oldest is now in a charter which meets his needs fairly well (or at least much better than the neighborhood one did), and although we can't really afford the transportation costs and time that we spend in getting him there, it's less costly than having him remain in his neighborhood school while we try to meet these needs at home.

I do believe, from my experience, that it's usually the "squeaky wheel that gets the oil" in the system as it is now...and, I think that more people at a lower income level (where situations in which two parents are working or single-parent households are more likely) are less likely to be squeaky, which does lead to inequity in accommodations for those from higher income families versus the lower income families.

However, I feel that this systemic issue reinforces the need for ability-based grouping being put into place as a concrete practice. If it were to be consistently put into practice, then all of the kids in need of differentiated education would have their needs met, regardless of their economic level, and regardless of how "squeaky" they are. In this way I believe that such practices would actually all but eliminate elitism because services would be given to those who need them in a consistent and measurable way.

These kids often do need extra support and resources to have their needs met, just as those on the "other end" of the spectrum do, but receiving this support does not mean they'll have extra opportunities - it works towards giving them with the same opportunity that others have in receiving an adequate education.

It's important (IMO) that when talking about tracking, you realize that there are differences between the practices of ability-grouping and tracking (whether the district recognizes this is another question). Here's an article that summarizes the differences - it's older so some references may be dated, but the points still hold true: http://www.madisonunited.org/reality.htm

If ability-grouping were to be applied in it's true sense, rather than as a tool for tracking, I think it should ideally be done in all neighborhood schools for all students...a less-inclusive but somewhat effective alternative would be a "school within a school" scenario, as JEFFCO has (they bus their kids who qualify for this program to the gt school). However, if the schools aren't taking such measures, for whatever reasons, it isn't right to prevent those in need from accessing services that will help them to normalize their experience and progress at an adequate pace - and, ultimately, to fit in academically, socially and emotionally.

The gifted school did not go out of business because it was charging too much (though it was). It went out of business primarily due to mismanagement and, subsequently, needs not being met, so it's very doubtful these people want to recreate that.

Though I was not affiliated with the gifted school I know several people who went there and have a good understanding of what's going on, and I believe that they ideally want something very different than RMS - they want a place where their kids fit in and their needs are met, and where the business side of it is well-managed. And although some people who were involved in that school are involved in this charter, there are also a lot of people from public schools who are working on this and eager for this option.

Calling it a conversion from a private to public is the strongest thing the district could legally find as justification for turning it down, because "We are anti-charter, period." would not have been a good enough reason. Even calling it a conversion is a stretch and would likely have been overturned if the charter had appealed it.