Mom demands college tuition for 14-year old son

WorldNetDaily: Case could pave way for school vouchers :
"Having the state pay for his tuition at UCLA is the only possible remedy, insists Ackerman, who notes that if the boy is not in school, he is regarded as truant.
"'You can't send him back to public school, because they don't have the means to educate a kid this gifted,' he told WND. 'The only way his intellectual needs can be met is if he goes to a high-level, four-year college.'"

This is the sort of legal case I really hate to see. WND is touting it as somehow paving the way for education vouchers in California, but I think this case would be hard to twist into a rationale for vouchers in other than the special circumstance here of a child who has qualified for college well before 18 and without going through the usual years of public instruction. On the other hand it threatens to open the floodgates to all sorts of parents to claim that their child needs something special - Olympic class gymnastics coaching or fine arts or music - that is not on offer in the public schools.

I don't know what argument the government will make in reply, but how about this: The public schools don't meet any other students' educational needs very well, why should this boy be treated differently? The most important functions served by secondary education are to keep young people off the streets during the day while their parents are working, to delay entry into the workforce and to foster a sense of dependence upon government. These functions the government is prepared to provide to this plaintiff in an age-appropriate social setting through the existing public school facilities. The government has already made a significant accommodation in this case by not sending truant officers to the university to arrest the boy for not being in middle school, even though his failure to attend causes the school district financial harm, nothing more should be required.