ipl-logo

Legal Issues In Gifted Education In Pennsylvania

1189 Words5 Pages

This paper explores case law related to gifted education in Pennsylvania with a specific focus on legal issues in the areas of eligibility definitions and the appropriateness of gifted individual educational plans. Research reviewed focuses on students who are gifted alone and not those dually identified students who are also served under special education statutes. Pennsylvania is at the forefront of legal issues because it is a state with strong gifted education mandates, namely an individualized education plan and due process procedures.

Legal Issues in Gifted Education in Pennsylvania Gifted education in Pennsylvania is governed by Pennsylvania law as set forth at 22 Pa. Code §§ 16.1 – 16.65 also known as Chapter 16. Chapter …show more content…

Code §16.21). The district has the flexibility to design its own screening and evaluation process, but Chapter 16 provides guidelines to be used in the identification process. Someone who is mentally gifted, according to Chapter 16, has an IQ of 130 or higher or when they meet multiple criteria outlined in the Chapter or the Department Guidelines. Multiple criteria measures include a year or more above grade level achievement, an observed or measured rate of acquisition or retention that reflects gifted ability, demonstrated expertise in one or more academic areas as evidenced by excellence of products, portfolio, or research along with team judgment using criteria, early evidence of higher order thinking skills, creativity, leadership, intense academic interests, strong communication skills, world language aptitude, or technology expertise. Additionally, the school district must assure that gifted ability is not masked by gender or racial bias, socio-economic bias, learning disabilities, and English as a second language communication challenges. Currently Pennsylvania’s Chapter 16 regulating gifted education states that three things must happen in order for a gifted evaluation to be initiated. First, the parent or the …show more content…

Most recently, in J.M. vs. Bensalem School District (2014), the parents of an early elementary school student notified the school staff that they felt that their child was gifted and asked for a full evaluation. The district sent a “Permission to Screen” form to the parents and intended to complete a screening as opposed to a multidisciplinary evaluation. The parents refused to sign the “Permission to Screen” form because they had requested an evaluation. The parents requested the evaluation in writing and stated that they believed their child was gifted thus meeting two of the three criteria for triggering an evaluation. In this case, the hearing officer ruled that it was impossible for the parents to prove that the education was not appropriate given that the student was only in school for a short period of time. The hearing officer ruled that, because the parents reasonably suspected that the child was gifted, the evaluation should be completed. The Hearing Officer wrote “I also agree with the District that it should not be burdened with every single parental request made to evaluate a student. Instead, there is a clear implication in the regulation that there must be an element of reasonableness to the parental suspicions that a student may be gifted and not receiving an appropriate education under Chapter 4. For example, parents requesting

Show More
Related
1331 Words | 6 Pages

Ruby Lopez EDSE 5309-160 Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley Background: Dispositive Facts of the Case Amy Rowley, whom herself and both parents were deaf, was enrolled in a public school in the state of New York for the start of her education. Prior to her first year in public school, kindergarten, her parents met for an IEP development. The IEP provided Rowley with a sign-language interpreter who would be present with her in the classroom. After being in the classroom with the sign-language interpreter, it was reported that the interpreter’s services were not needed by Rowley. For the continuation of her kindergarten

Read More
793 Words | 4 Pages

The district court said that the district had failed in making a sufficient effort in educating Rachel in a regular classroom. The district court weighed in favor of placing her in a regular classroom because they felt as though she could benefit from it. Rachel had developed her social and communications skills as well as her self-confidence from placement in a regular class, while the District's evidence tended to show that Rachel was not learning from exposure to other children and that she was isolated from her classmates. The effect of Rachel's presence on the teacher and other children in the classroom weighed in favor of placing her in a regular classroom. The district court found that the District had not offered any persuasive or credible evidence to support their claim that educating Rachel in a regular classroom with appropriate services would be considerably more expensive than educating her in the District's proposed setting. .

Read More
646 Words | 3 Pages

[Title Here, up to 12 Words, on One to Two Lines] The case, Florence County School District IV v. Shannon Carter, is about a student who is entering the 9th grade and diagnosed with ADHD (attention deficit hyperactive disorder) and Dyslexia. Prior to entering high school Shannon Carter did not have an IEP or a 504 plan. Her parents began the process in high school to help their daughter learn to read, at this time Shannon was diagnosed as she was functionally illiterate. Shannon’s family was upset that the school was doing more to help their daughter be able to perform on grade level. Shannon’s parents began a due process because they felt that the school was not doing enough to assure she was reading on grade level by graduation.

Read More
816 Words | 4 Pages

This case between Ronald G. Sandison and Craig M. Stanley, verse Michigan High School Athletic Association centers around two high school students who believe they are being discriminated against because of their learning disability. Ronald Sandison and Craig Stanley both suffered from learning disabilities and were therefore two grades behind other students their age. Both of these students were placed in a special learning school, but by the time high school came around, they were in normal classes with everyone else. Stanley attended Grosse Pointe North High school and Sandison attended Rochester Adams High School. Sandison and Stanley both ran track and field their first three years of high school but were not allowed to run their senior year due to turning 19 before September 1st, 1994.

Read More
644 Words | 3 Pages

The district argued that the expenditures of supplying offerings in the study room would be too excessive. The district argued that the expenditures of supplying offerings in the study room would be too excessive. Number three of The Basic Special Education Process under IDEA 2004 says a group of qualified professionals and the parents look at the child’s evaluation results. Together, they decide if the child is a “child with a disability,” as defined by IDEA.

Read More
463 Words | 2 Pages

James parents would not consent to the test and attempted to sue the school for testing their sun without any evidence. However the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the school district. Since drug have been becoming a increasing problem in that area especially among athletes. 2.

Read More
806 Words | 4 Pages

(2000 ed. and Supp. IV). His parents, Jeff and Sandee Winkleman, worked together with the school system to develop and write and individualized education plan (IEP). They could not reach an agreement on the IEP and therefore requested a due process hearing per §1415(f)(1)(A) (2000 ed., Supp. IV).

Read More
1076 Words | 5 Pages

The school district was still not happy with the decision so they appealed their case to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said that in the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, a free appropriate public education consists of educational instruction that is planned to meet the unique needs of the child that has a disability, supported by such services as are necessary to permit the child "to benefit" from the instruction. Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Amy Rowley (458 U. S. 176). Retrieved from http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/ussupct.rowley.htm Free Appropriate Public Education does not require the

Read More
1313 Words | 6 Pages

The en banc court rejected the appeal, affirming the judgment of the trial court. The en banc court stated that corporal punishment was not forbidden by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, and that due process did not require students to receive notice or be given an opportunity to be

Read More
2126 Words | 9 Pages

At the time of this article the court had not made its decision yet, but the hope was that the court would rule in favor of the districts that filed the lawsuit. The most difficult part of this lawsuit is finding enough hard evidence that

Read More
502 Words | 3 Pages

T.A, 2009). The district was to set aside $1412 per month for T.A’s tuition because of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (Forest Grove School District v. T.A, 2009). This law states that all children enrolled in public schools have a right to special education services (Gargiulo, 2015). Being no services were provided to T.A at Forest Grove, his court case had to be taken to the United States district court for the district of Oregon. There they looked into Frank G. v. Board of Education of Hyde Park which was a previous case with a similar problem (Blumberg, 2010).

Read More
473 Words | 2 Pages

Petitioner, Triniti T. (“Student” or “Petitioner”) filed her initial request for due process hearing (“Beaumont I”) on February 24, 2014. In the request, Petitioner alleged that the District denied Student a free, appropriate public education (“FAPE”). A hearing was held on June 24-26, 2014 and a Decision following due process hearing (“Decision”) was issues on August 28, 2014. The Decision found that Petitioner had met her burden in proving that the District failed to provide Student with a FAPE in specific areas and the Petitioner was entitled various relief including, but not limited to specific prospective placement, services, assessments, training, devices/equipment for the remainder of the 2014-2015 school year; program development for the 2015-2016 school year, and reimbursement

Read More
346 Words | 2 Pages

San Diego City Beat: A chronicle “I hate cheerleaders” written by Edwin Becker published on April 28, 2004. The author expresses a certain hatred against cheerleading and thinks that cheerleading is not a sport for girls. He further explains why he has this rage about them, first of all, he was not able to date them in high school more likely there was no chance and second of all, he hated the whole cheerleading premise. Why? Because he was told to go “woo woo” when he was not in the mood for it.

Read More
900 Words | 4 Pages

Therefore, the issue pertaining to students with learning disabilities was thrown out in relation to this particular case. • The state Supreme Court, in addressing the ill fitting correlation drawn in Stamos’ citation of Bell v. Lone Oak Independent School District as an explanation of how students have a fundamental right to participate in extracurricular activities, stated that correlations between the fundamental right of marriage and this case could not be aligned. • The state Supreme Court also stated that due to the facts the rule did not infringe upon any fundamental rights nor did it create/burden a suspect class, that it did not violate the equal protection guarantees of the Texas Constitution. • Citing Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. at 577-78, 92 S. Ct. 2709

Read More
776 Words | 4 Pages

Three laws that have shaped and resolved the rights and services available to the students with disabilities will be discussed in this section. Section 504 of Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Individuals with Disabilities Act( IDEA )and The Americans Disabilities Act( ADA). The IDEA is the major federal statute providing educational rights to students with disabilities. Even so, two other statutes, Section 504 of the rehabilitation Act and ADA which was modified recently (ADA,2006,2008), also have implication for the disciplinary process when it involves students with disabilities ( Russo & Osborne, 2009). Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act is the first federal civil rights law protecting the rights of persons with disabilities.

Read More

More about Legal Issues In Gifted Education In Pennsylvania

Related Topics

Open Document