Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Gifted Education & The Law - Coggle Diagram

- - - - New impetus in schools, classrooms, and districts on struggling students removed resources and attention from gifted students
  - - - Focus on science and math for Space Race
        
        Title V School Proposition explicitly allocated funds toward identifying gifted students through standardized aptitude tests, and funding for guidance and counseling
  - - - Recognized the deterioration of gifted and talented education and argued for the necessity of federal funding and mandates to support gifted children
        
        In response, the Office of Gifted and Talented is established by the US Government, which was later disbanded
    - - Emphasized the declining quality of American education and fears about Americans' inability to compete globally
        
        Gifted students, in particular, were not performing to their fullest ability
    - - Describes the lower performance levels of gifted students in the US compared to gifted students in similar countries
  - - - Replacing NCLB, and reauthorizing the ESEA of 1965, the ESSA demonstrated increased consideration for students from disadvantaged backgrounds
        
        Reauthorized Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act in 2015
        
        Title II Part A recognizes the difficulty in identifying and providing appropriate services in gifted education for students in poverty and/or of color
    - - Gifted advocates were optimistic that titles I-V could be used to support gifted education, but that did not materialize.
        
        New focus on "at-risk" students removed attention from gifted students
- - - - Strengthened regulations related to teacher training, acceleration practices including early access, mandates for identification, modifications to identification process, and required programming
        
        Colorado, Delaware, Indiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington
      - With the exception of California and Utah (removed all mandated identification and programming) and Hawaii
  - - - OCR issues "Dear Colleague" letter warning against disability-based discrimination in accelerated classes/programs, 2007
- - - - FAPE not considered for 2e students under IDEA in states that do not mandate identification.
        
        Hermosa Beach City Elementary School District, CA, 2014
    - - OCR rulings related to desegregation orders sometimes include lack of minority students in gifted programming
      - Gifted Eligibility
        
        District of Columbia Public Schools, D.C., 2007
        County Board of Education v. C.K., TN, 2009
        M.Z. v. Bethlehem Area School District, P.A., 2013 Williamson
    - - Not directly related to gifted case law--could impact 2e students--were this standard, the *Endrew standard, applied to a 2e case, it could indicate that for these students' FAPE to be met, that they would have to receive gifted services :red_flag:
        
        Could result in mandating the provision of gifted services in all states, because gifted programming could be required as part of FAPE for 2e students--would significantly impact gifted education at the local, state, and national level :
  - - - Levi v. O'Connell, CA, 2006
        R.B. v. Department of Education, NY, 2014
        Ridley School District, PA, 2014
        Palisades School District, PA, 2015
    - - West Chester Area School District, PA, 2006
        B.C. v. Penn Manor School District, PA, 2006
        E.N. v. M. School District, PA, 2007
        Woodvale Elementary-Lafayette Parish Public Schools, LA, 2009
        D.Z. v. Bethlehem Area School District, PA, 2010
        Abington School District v. B.G., PA, 2010
        D.C. v. Kennett Consolidated School District, PA, 2011
        West Perry School District, PA, 2014
  - - - Jefferson Independent School District & United States v. Texas Education Agency, AK, 2011, Black Students
        McFadden v. Illinois School District U-46, IL, 2013, Hispanic/Latinx Students
        Andrews and United States v. Monroe City School Board, LA, 2010, Black Students Gallup-McKinley County Schools OCR Review*, NM, 2017, Native American Students
        
        Most cases ruled in favor of students and greater access for underrepresented groups
        
        Recent cases overwhelmingly proved that identification practices and programming for gifted students of color were inequitable and discriminatory.
- - - - For 2e students, whom the case law is most robust, parents still end up doing the majority of advocating for these students
    - - Skills for effective advocacy rely on critical analysis of state policy
  - - - Nebraska, Nevada, and Oklahoma reference acceleration in their definitions of giftedness.
        
        Many states do not have policies which specify acceleration
        
        A state's gifted services or programming should be characterized as acceleration
    - - Permittance varies by state
        
        Early Access is prohibited in states across the south and within many rural populations
        
        The majority of states allow school districts to determine early access policies
        
        Typically, stringent screening for early access is required in both states that allow the practice in all districts, as well as those that allow districts to decide
      - "least disruptive form of acceleration, both academically and socially"
    - - Dual enrollment is encouraged nationally under ESSA, but implemented and legislated at the state level
        
        Most states have specific policies- Alaska, New Hampshire, and New York do not
        
        Significant policy variance between states
        
        Policies that create barriers include: age eligibility, credit limitations, funding, notification and support for families
      - Research regarding the academic and financial benefits of dual enrollment is consistent
  - - - States also determine credentialing requirements for teachers of the gifted
        
        State definitions of giftedness are also varied, making for difficult comparisons
        
        Common themes across state definitions include, ability, potential, demonstrated achievement or performance-- some states reflect this in multiple domains or types of giftedness
        
        Gifted students "need" services
        
        "Need" as inherent to giftedness
        
        See South Carolina
        
        "Need" for gifted services is one criterion of many
        
        See Georgia
        
        Few states see "need" as null, or as critical to student potential.
        
        Affective Programming
        
        Colorado Law: Exceptional Children's Educational Act (ECEA) of 2015
        
        Social and emotional programming to assist with understanding themselves as gifted learners, implications of their abilities, talents, and potential for accomplishment & assist in developing or refining interpersonal skills
        
        1 more item...
        
        Supporting Emotional Needs of Gifted (SENG) established in 1980 in response to suicide of a gifted adolescent
        
        Asynchrony can cause maladaptive adolescent coping; see NRC/GT (2004)
        
        Advanced Learning Plans
        
        NAGC: Knowledge of the impact of giftedness and diversity on cognitive, psychosocial, and social-emotional development enables educators of students with gifts and talents to design environments that encourage academic growth, personal and social competence, responsibility, and the development of leadership skills.
        
        NAGC White Paper Position Statement
        
        A handful of states include specific cutoff scores in their definitions, as well as specific age ranges
    - - The initial struggle in providing programming for 2e students lies in the frequent "masking" of abilities that can make identification of giftedness or a disability incredibly challenging
      - Programming must be individualized because each 2e students' effective interventions will be different
      - Acceleration practices should be considered for 2e students