Advertisement

Applicable Federal and State Policy, Law, and Legal Considerations in Gifted Education

  • Kristen R. Stephens

“National attention to the recognition and development of gifted persons is intermittent, unevenly distributed, and inadequate in amount” (p. 1). This statement comes directly from a report issued by the White House Task Force on the Education of Gifted Persons under Lyndon B. Johnson’s presidency in 1968; however, these words still hold true nearly 40 years later.

Once gifted children enter school, their parents soon realize the lack of accommodations that are available to address their children’s unique educational needs. With no federal protection under the law and with permissive legislation in many states, gifted children are not afforded the same safeguards as those children protected under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA).

This chapter will take a historical look at federal legislation impacting gifted child education and discuss the current status of gifted education across the states. The legal processes that parents can utilize in seeking appropriate identification and services for their gifted children will follow along with the role of the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) in resolving disputes pertaining to gifted students. Future policy issues in gifted education will also be explored.

Keywords

School District Gifted Student Talented Student Legal Consideration Gifted Education 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ahearn, E. (2002, April). Due process hearings: 2001 update. Retrieved on July 31, 2006, from http://www.projectforum.org/docs/due_process_hearings_2001.pdf
  2. Bar-Lev, N. B., Neustadt, S., & Marshall, P. (2002). Considering mediation for special education disputes: A school administrator’s perspective. [Brochure]. Eugene, OR: Consortium for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education. (ERIC Reproduction Document Service No. ED471809).Google Scholar
  3. Besnoy, K. (2005, Winter). Using public relations strategies to advocate for gifted programming in your school. Gifted Child Today, 28, 32–37, 65.Google Scholar
  4. Cohen, L. M. (1996). Mapping the domains of ignorance and knowledge in gifted education. Roeper Review, 18, 183–189.Google Scholar
  5. Delisle, J. R. (1999, November/December). A millennial hourglass: Gifted child education’s sands of time. Gifted Child Today, 22, 26–32.Google Scholar
  6. Donovan, M. S., & Cross, C. T. (Eds.). (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  7. Education Amendments of 1974, 20 U.S.C. § 1706 et seq. (1974).Google Scholar
  8. Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, 20 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq. (1975).Google Scholar
  9. Eilers, A. M. (2004). Below the accountability radar screen: What does state policy say about school counseling? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(3). Retrieved July 27, 2006, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v12n3/.
  10. Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq. (1965).Google Scholar
  11. Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the Twenty-First century. New York: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux.Google Scholar
  12. Gallagher, J. J. (2002). Society’s role in educating gifted students: The role of public policy [Monograph]. Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED476370).Google Scholar
  13. Gallagher, J. J. (2004). No Child Left Behind and gifted education. Roeper Review, 26, 121–123.Google Scholar
  14. Gifted and Talented Children’s Education Act of 1978, 20 U.S.C. § 3311 (1978).Google Scholar
  15. Gilman, B. J. (2006, Spring). Testing your gifted child: A springboard for effective advocacy. Duke Gifted Letter, 6, 1–2, 11.Google Scholar
  16. Gottfredson, L. (2006, Spring). Unmasking the egalitarian fiction. Duke Gifted Letter, 6, 10.Google Scholar
  17. Haensly, P. A. (1999, November/December). My view of the “Top 10” events that have influenced the field of gifted education during the past century. Gifted Child Today, 22, 33–37.Google Scholar
  18. Harrington, J., Harrington, C., & Karns, E. (1991). The Marland Report: Twenty years later. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 15, 31–43.Google Scholar
  19. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (1997).Google Scholar
  20. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004).Google Scholar
  21. Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act of 1988, 20 U.S.C. § 3061 et seq. (1988).Google Scholar
  22. Karnes, F. A., Lewis, J. D., & Stephens, K. R. (1999, January/February). Parents and teachers working together for advocacy through public relations. Gifted Child Today, 22, 14–18.Google Scholar
  23. Karnes, F. A., & Marquardt, R. G. (1991). Gifted children and the law: Mediation, due process, and court cases. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential.Google Scholar
  24. Karnes, F. A., & Marquardt, R. G. (1994). Gifted education and discrimination: The role of the Office for Civil Rights. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 18, 87–94.Google Scholar
  25. Karnes, F. A., & Marquardt, R. G. (1997). Know your legal rights in gifted education. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED415590).Google Scholar
  26. Karnes, F. A., & Riley, T. (1991, November/December). Public relations strategies in gifted education. Gifted Child Today, 14, 35–37.Google Scholar
  27. Karnes, F. A., Stephens, K. R., & McCard, E. (2008). Legal issues in gifted education. In F. A. Karnes & K. R. Stephens (Eds.), Achieving excellence: Educating the gifted and talented. Columbus, OH: Pearson Merrill/Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  28. Karnes, F. A., Troxclair, D. A., & Marquardt, R. G. (1998). Due process in gifted education. Roeper Review, 20, 297–301.Google Scholar
  29. Klotz, M. B., & Nealis, L. (2005). The new IDEA: A summary of significant reforms. Retrieved July 31, 2006, from http://nasponline.org/advocacy/IDEAfinalsummary.pdf
  30. Marland, S. P. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented. Report to Congress by the U.S. Commissioner of Education. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  31. National Association for Gifted Children. (2005a). NAGC’s comments to the U.S. Department of Education on IDEA. Retrieved July 31, 2006, from http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=578
  32. National Association for Gifted Children. (2005b). The state of the states report. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  33. National Association of State Directors of Special Education. (1998). State mediation systems: A NASDSE report. Retrieved July 18, 2006, from http://www.directionservice.org/cadre/qta-1a.cfm#
  34. National Defense Education Act of 1958, Pub. L. No. 85–864, Stat. 1580 (1958).Google Scholar
  35. National Science Foundation Act of 1950, 42 U.S.C. § 1869 et seq. (1950).Google Scholar
  36. National Science Foundation. (2005). NSF at a glance. Retrieved July 27, 2006, from http://www.nsf.gov/about/glance.jsp
  37. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. 70 § 6301 et seq. (2002).Google Scholar
  38. Office for Civil Rights. (2000). Annual report to Congress. Retrieved August 9, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/AnnRpt2000/edlite-index.html
  39. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, 42 U.S.C. § 3842 et seq. (1981).Google Scholar
  40. Opuda, M. J. (1999). A comparison of parents who initiated due process hearings and complaints in Maine (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1999). Dissertation Abstracts International, 60, 1081.Google Scholar
  41. Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2004). Gifted guidelines. Harrisburg, PA: Author. Retrieved August 3, 2006, from http://www.pagiftededucation.info/pdf/GiftedGuidelines.pdf
  42. Resnick, D. P., & Goodman, M. (1994). American culture and the gifted. In P. O’Connell-Ross (Ed.), National excellence: A case for developing America’s talent. An anthology of readings (pp. 109–121). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED372585).Google Scholar
  43. Roberts, J. L. (1999, November/December). The top 10 events creating gifted education for the new century. Gifted Child Today, 22, 53–55.Google Scholar
  44. Russo, C. J., & Ford, D. Y. (1993). The educational rights of gifted students: Lost in the legal shuffle? Roeper Review, 16, 67–71.Google Scholar
  45. Sisk, D. (2008). Federal history of gifted education. In F. A. Karnes & K. R. Stephens (Eds.), Achieving excellence: Educating the gifted and talented. Columbus, OH: Pearson Merrill/Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  46. Stephens, K. R. (2000, January/February). Gifted education and the law. Gifted Child Today, 23, 30–37.Google Scholar
  47. Stephens, K. R. (2006a, Spring). The editor’s view. Duke Gifted Letter, 6, 3.Google Scholar
  48. Stephens, K. R. (2006b, Fall). The editor’s view. Duke Gifted Letter, 7, 4.Google Scholar
  49. Sternberg, R. J. (1996). The sound of silence: A nation responds to its gifted. Roeper Review, 18, 168–172.Google Scholar
  50. Stewart, E. D. (1999, November/December). An American century of roots and signposts in gifted and talented education. Gifted Child Today, 22, 56–57.Google Scholar
  51. Swiatek, M. A. (2002). A decade of longitudinal research on academic acceleration through the study of mathematically precocious youth. Roeper Review, 24, 141–144.Google Scholar
  52. Tannenbaum, A. (1988). The gifted movement: Forward or on a treadmill [Monograph]. West Lafayette, IN: Gifted Education Resource Institute. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED315949).Google Scholar
  53. The White House. (2006). American Competitiveness Initiative: Overview. Retrieved August 9, 2006, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2006/aci/#section2
  54. Treffinger, D. J., & Sortore, M. R. (1994). Programming for giftedness: A contemporary view (Vol. I). Sarasota, FL: Center for Creative Learning.Google Scholar
  55. Troxclair, D., & Karnes, F. A. (1997, May/June). Public relations: Advocating for gifted students. Gifted Child Today, 20, 38–41, 50.Google Scholar
  56. U.S. Department of Education. (1993). National excellence: A case for developing America’s talent. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  57. U.S. Department of Education. (2003). Fact sheet on the major provisions of the conference report to H.R. 1, the No Child Left Behind Act. Retrieved July 28, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/factsheet.html
  58. VanTassel-Baska, J. (2000, April). Curriculum policy development for secondary gifted programs: A prescription for reform coherence. NASSP Bulletin, 84, 14–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. White House Task Force on the Education of Gifted Persons. (1968). Talent development: An investment in the nation’s future. A report to the President. Available through the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library.Google Scholar
  60. Zirkel, P. A. (2004). The case law on gifted education: A new look. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 309–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zirkel, P. A. (2005). The law on gifted education (rev. ed.) [Research Monograph 05178R]. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kristen R. Stephens

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations