To fill a gap in the literature, this article provides a comprehensive, concise, and current overview of the case law—specifically, published hearing/review officer and court decisions—concerning gifted education for K-12 students. This case law represents two distinct groups: “gifted alone,” designating students whose legal status is based solely on their gifted status, and “gifted plus,” designating students who not only are gifted, but also have special legal status typically in terms of disability (i.e., “twice exceptional”) or race. The outcomes of the case law in both categories have generally favored the defendant school districts. The absence in many states of strong and specific legislation or regulations for gifted-alone students and the lack of judicial sensitivity to the complexity of the gifted-plus category likely contribute to the overall district-friendly trend of the case law to date.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abington Sch. Dist., 21 IDELR 508 (Pa. SEA 1994).
2.
Bennett v. City Sch. Dist. of New Rochelle, 497 N.Y.S.2d 72, (App. Div. 1985).
3.
Bittick, P. S. (1995). Equality and excellence: Equal education opportunity for gifted and talented children. South Texas Law Review, 36, 119-152.
4.
Bd. of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. for the City of New York, 28 IDELR 1093 (N.Y. SEA 1998).
5.
Broadley v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Meriden, 639 A.2d 502 (Conn. 1994).
6.
Brown, C. (1997). Legal issues and gifted education: Gifted identification as a constitutional issue. Roeper Review, 19, 157-160.
7.
Brownsville Area Sch. Dist. v. Student X, 729 A.2d 198 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1999).
Centennial Sch. Dist. v. Pennsylvania Dep’t of Educ., 539 A.2d 785 (Pa. 1988).
10.
Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted. (2001). State of the states: Gifted and talented education report, 1999-2000. Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children.
11.
D.B. v. Craven County Bd. of Educ., 32 IDELR ¶ 86 (4th Cir. 2000).
Ford, D., Russo, C., & Harris, J. (1995). Legal perspectives in gifted education: Meeting the educational needs of the gifted—a legal imperative. Roeper Review, 17, 224-228.
14.
Foster, A., Gallagher, J., & Coleman, R. (1994). Model legislation: Gifted and talented. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Gifted Education Policy Studies Program. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED372590)
15.
Hempfield Sch. Dist. v. Tyler M., 38 IDELR ¶ 68 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2003).
16.
Herring, M. (1991). Model federal statute for the education of talented and gifted children. Chicago Kent Law Review, 67, 1035-1076.
17.
Hope v. Cortines, 69 F.3d 687 (2d Cir. 1995).
18.
Huldah A. v. Easton Area Sch. Dist., 601 A.2d 860 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1992).
19.
Jacksonville Branch, NAACP v. Duval County Sch. Bd., 883 F.3d 945 (11th Cir. 1999).
20.
Karnes, F. A., & Marquardt, R. (1995). Gifted education and the courts: Teacher certification and employment decisions. Roeper Review, 17, 229-231.
21.
Karnes, F. A., & Marquardt, R. (1997). The fragmented framework of legal protection for the gifted. Peabody Journal of Education, 72, 166-179.
22.
Karnes, F. A., & Marquardt, R. (2000). Gifted children and legal issues: An update. Scottsdale, AZ: Gifted Psychology Press.
23.
Karnes, F. A., Troxclair, D., & Marquardt, R. (1997). The Office of Civil Rights and the gifted: An update. Roeper Review, 19, 162-165.
24.
Karnes, F. A., Troxclair, D., & Marquardt, R. (1998). Legal aspects of gifted education: Due process in gifted education. Roeper Review, 20, 297-301.
25.
Ketterman, L. (2001). Does the IDEA exclude gifted and talented children with emotional disabilities? An analysis of J.D. v. Pawlet. St. Mary’s Law Journal, 32, 913-938.
26.
Landrum, M. S., Katsiyannis., A., & DeWaard, J. (1998). A national survey of current legislative and policy trends in gifted education: Life after the National Excellence report. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 21, 352-371.
27.
Loridas, R. V. (1980). Equal educational opportunity for the gifted and talented. Detroit College of Law Review, 1980, 958-1033.
28.
Manning, B. (1977). Hyperlexis: Our national disease. Northwestern University Law Review, 71, 767-782.
29.
Marquardt, R., & Karnes, F. A. (1996). The courts and gifted education revisited. West’s Education Law Reporter, 113, 539-545.
30.
Murray, G. W. (1995). Special education for gifted children: Answering the “right” question. Quinnipiac Law Review, 15, 103-147.
31.
National Research Council. (2002). Minority students in special education and gifted education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
32.
New Brighton Area Sch. Dist. v. Matthew Z., 26 IDELR 717 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1997).
33.
Padula, R. G. (1997). The plight of Connecticut’s brightest students: Broadley v. Meriden Board of Education. Connecticut Law Review, 29, 1319-1364.
34.
Roane County Sch. Sys. v. Ned A., 22 IDELR 574 (E.D. Tenn. 1995).
35.
Russo, C. (2001). Unequal educational opportunities for gifted students. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 29, 727-758.
36.
Russo, C., Harris, J., & Ford, D. (1996). Gifted education and the law: A right, privilege, or superfluous?Roeper Review, 18, 179-182.
37.
Saucon Valley Sch. Dist. v. Robert O., 785 A.2d 1069 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2001).
38.
Scott S. v. Pennsylvania Dep’t of Educ., 512 A.2d 790 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1986).
39.
Stephens, K. R. (2000). Gifted education and the law. Gifted Child Today, 23(1), 30-37.
40.
Stephens, K. R., & Karnes, F. A. (2000). State definitions for the gifted and talented revisited. Exceptional Children, 66, 219-238.
41.
Student Roe v. Pennsylvania, 638 F. Supp. 929 (E.D. Pa. 1986), aff’d mem., 813 F.2d 398 (3d Cir. 1987).
42.
Wright v. Ector County Indep. Sch. Dist., 867 S.W.2d 863 (Tex. Ct. App. 1993).
43.
Zirkel, P. (1997). The “explosion” in education litigation: An update. West’s Education Law Reporter, 53, 341-351.
44.
Zirkel, P. (2003). The law on gifted education. Storrs: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.
45.
Zirkel, P. (2004). Section 504, the ADA and the schools. Horsham, PA: LRP.
46.
Zirkel, P., & D’Angelo, A. (2002). Special education case law: An empirical trends analysis. West’s Education Law Reporter, 161, 731-753.
47.
Zirkel, P., & Stevens, P. (1987). The law concerning public education of gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 10, 305-322.
