State Court Case Law
Courts interpret rules and regulations when disputes arise. The interpretations may be useful in answering questions raised by educators, parents, administrators and others. The following summaries include court decisions pertinent to gifted education. These were selected based on their continued impact on gifted education in Pennsylvania. However, because this document was completed at a point in time, the relevance of the decisions may need updating by the practitioner, and thus will serve as a starting point to review what courts have said about gifted education.
Central York School District v. Department of Education, 399 A. 2d 167 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979). The District appealed an Order from the Secretary of Education requiring it to provide special education programming to a gifted student. The District contended that its duty to provide programming for gifted students is contingent upon the Commonwealth's obligation to reimburse the District for the cost of the program. The Commonwealth Court disagreed and determined that gifted and talented students are included within the definition of "exceptional children" in section 13 -1371 of the School Code as children of school age who deviate from average to such an extent that they require special education facilities or services. Furthermore, a District's duty to provide appropriate educational services for gifted is not contingent upon receipt of subsidies from the PA Department of Education. Instead, a District's legal duty to establish educational programming for gifted students is mandatory and a condition to its right to receive reimbursement from the Commonwealth.
Lisa H. v. State Board of Education, , 447 A.2d 669 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988) (1982),
aff'd, 467 A.2d 1127 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983). Two elementary students were evaluated but not selected to participate in the District's gifted program. The mother of the students brought an action claiming that the gifted program in Pennsylvania was unconstitutional because it infringed upon a fundamental property right to a free public educational program appropriate to her children's needs. The Commonwealth Court disagreed and determined that the Pennsylvania Constitution does not confer an individual right upon each student to a particular level or quality of education; instead, it imposed a duty upon the legislature to provide for maintenance of a thorough and efficient system of public schools throughout the Commonwealth. Additionally, education is not a fundamental right in Pennsylvania but rather a statutory right and therefore no violation of equal protection is involved in operation of the state's gifted program or in denial of similar programs to plaintiffs who were not alleged to be gifted.
Scott S. v. Department of Education, 512 A.2d 790 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986). The student was a gifted child who by his sophomore year completed the school district's final and most advanced math course. The district developed an Individualized Education Plan that provided for enrollment in various honor courses, but did not include a mathematics course. Parents enrolled their son in a University calculus program and requested that either the District reimburse the cost of that class or provide the same class. The Secretary reversed a hearing officer determination that recommended modification of the Individualized Education Plan proposal to include a classroom-taught calculus course. On appeal, the Commonwealth Court affirmed the Secretary and concluded that the District's proposal that did not include a mathematics class was appropriate thereby concluding that a school district's responsibility to provide gifted education is not without limits.
Centennial School District v. Department of Education, 539 A.2d 785 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989). Centennial School District implemented an "enrichment" program for gifted students that added certain materials to the regular curriculum but did not provide accelerated instruction in particular academic areas. After a due process hearing, the Hearing Officer concluded that
the Student should receive specialized instruction in math and reading in addition to inclusion in the district provided enrichment program. The Secretary of Education affirmed the Hearing Officer and determined that although PDE approved the district's enrichment program for gifted students that did not relieve the district of a duty to provide this student with an appropriate academic education. The Commonwealth Court affirmed the Secretary's ruling. On appeal, the PA Supreme Court sought to determine whether the Secretary and Commonwealth Court exceeded the mandate of the Public School Code in requiring the district to provide a gifted student with an individualized program of instruction that goes beyond an "enrichment" program. In affirming, the Supreme Court determined that although a district is required to produce an individualized education program for gifted and talented children this responsibility is not without limits. A school district need not offer instruction that maximizes a student's ability to benefit from an individualized program. Finally, a district may not be required to become a Harvard or a Princeton to all who have IQ's over 130.
Woodland Hills School District v. Department of Education, 516 A.2d 875 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986). The District operated a program for the gifted in which it bused students from their home schools to a single location for one-half day of instruction per week. Dually enrolled, non-public students also participated in this program and were bused to the program site by the district.
Beginning with the 1983-84 school years, the district began offering programs for the gifted in each of the various home schools. Because the new arrangement eliminated the district's need to bus its own students, the district discontinued bus service for the dually enrolled, non-public, gifted students, relying on Section 1361 of the Public School Code. After it was directed to reinstate midday transportation to the nonpublic school students, the district and PDE both sought summary declaratory judgment to determine their obligations to provide midday transportation. The Commonwealth Court held that nonpublic elementary school students are included in Section 1374 of the Code because they are mentally exceptional children and are regularly enrolled in an approved special class operated by the District. As such, a parent's election to have their children attend a nonpublic school and dually enrolled in the District's gifted program should not impose the choice between a duty to provide midday transportation or in the alternative forgo their children's right to gifted special education.
Huldah v. Easton Area School District, 601 A.2d 860(Pa. Cmwlth. 1992). The Commonwealth Court determined that the Federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) does not apply to gifted cases. As a result, litigants in gifted matters are not entitled to the recovery of attorney fees or the costs associated with obtaining an independent evaluation of a gifted child at public expense.
Conrad Weiser Area School District v. Department of Education, 603 A.2d 701 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992). The Commonwealth Court concluded that status as a "mentally gifted" student in regular education did not preclude classification as an exceptional student with a specific learning disability entitled to special education.
Ellis v. Chester Upland School District, 651 A.2d 616 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994). The Commonwealth Court concluded that gifted students are not entitled to tuition reimbursement or transportation expenses for private or out of state schools.
New Brighton School District v. Matthew Z., 697 A. 2d 1056 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997). The Commonwealth Court concluded that
that gifted students are not eligible for tuition reimbursement or transportation expenses for college courses unless specifically agreed to by the school district where the student resides.
Brownsville Area School District v. Student X, 729 A.2d 198 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999). The Commonwealth Court held that although compensatory education is an appropriate remedy for gifted students the Appeal Panel exceeded its authority in ordering such an award requiring college-level instruction or other education beyond the regular curricular offerings of the district (Centennial standard), and reversed an award of 1,954 hours of compensatory education after graduation.
Saucon Valley Sch. Dist. v. Jason O., 785 A 2d 1069 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001). The court addressed the scope of a hearing officer's authority. The court affirmed the Appeal Panel's authority to remedy non-compliance. The court rejected the Appeal Panel's remedial authority:
- to order all of the student's teachers, administrators and supervisors involved in the Gifted Individualized Education Plan to complete 10 hours of in-service training by a special education experts. The court said the remedy would usurp the district's power to plan and provide professional development of its employees.
- to require the hiring of a Gifted Individualized Education Plan team consultant to attend the Gifted Individualized Education Plan meetings to facilitate the development of a new Gifted Individualized Education Plan for the student. Such action would obligate the district to include Gifted Individualized Education Plan team members in excess of what is required by regulation,
- to order a student's graduation with fewer credits than established under the district's policy. The court was not asked to consider whether the Appeal Panel has the authority to grant credit for pre-high school courses, which could then satisfy the requirements of graduation. The court's analysis was limited to whether the Appeal Panel has the authority to classify a student as a member of another class.
Appeal Panel Decisions
A complete listing of Appeal Panel decisions.
Hearing Officer Decisions
Special Education Hearing Officer decisions