Legal Update of Gifted Education

Abstract

This update of the legislation/regulations and case law specific to pre-K-12 gifted students since a cluster of publications in 2004-2005 primarily focuses on the "gifted alone" category, with only secondary attention to twice-exceptional and other students in the "gifted plus" category. For the gifted-alone category, the legislation and regulations during the most recent 11 years continue to be at the state level, rather than federal level, with a net change amounting to moderate strengthening, primarily in terms of the group, rather than Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)-type, model. The corresponding case law remains very limited in both frequency and pro-plaintiff outcomes, with most of the cases arising in Pennsylvania. The gifted-plus category accounts for far more litigation, fueled by the intersecting federal civil rights laws that are pivotal in these cases. Yet, their outcomes, for a variety of issues that extend well beyond eligibility and free appropriate public education, have also reflected a pro-district skew.

Inequities of Enrollment in Gifted Education: A Statewide Application of the 20% Equity Allowance Formula

“…Throughout history, it has often been case law that directs our attention to specific issues and concerns in educational policies and practices (Zirkel, 2016). With a history of case law influencing policy, and Texas already mandating equitable access reflective of the total district population, this is more than a theoretical discussion.…”

“…Though debates surrounding these issues remain (Hodges, Tay, Maeda, & Gentry, 2018), we have made promising steps in the area of more inclusive identification procedures (Plucker & Callahan, 2014). For instance, some researchers have sought to clarify questions in the field such as identification, assessment, and the current state of equity in gifted education (i.e., Cao et al, 2017; Ford, Grantham, & Whiting, 2008; Goings & Ford, 2018; Hodges et al, 2018; Olszewski-Kubilius & Corwith, 2018; Zirkel, 2016), whereas others have challenged withstanding traditional beliefs and practices in gifted education by emphasizing more inclusive identification and participation in gifted education programs (Peters, McCoach, McBee, & Matthews, 2014; Plucker & Callahan, 2014).…”

“…Consideration of the McFadden and Lohr court opinions and the increase of litigation in the matters of gifted students (Russo, 2001) warrants the investigation of the 20% equity allowance formula as a potential guideline for measuring and flagging inequitable enrollment in advanced academic programs. Additionally, this study aims to fill a gap in the literature regarding the limited nature of gifted education law previously pointed out by Zirkel (2016). As such, the purpose of this study was to explore inequitable enrollment in GT services through the lens of Ford’s (2013b) 20% equity formula, apply the 20% rule to school districts in Texas, and evaluate school district characteristics associated with inequitable enrollment.…”