Legal Issues In Gifted Education In Pennsylvania

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

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

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