On March 6, 2017, in the case of Downingtown Area School District v. K.D., the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court issued a rare ruling in the area of gifted education, reminding school districts of the need to ensure that gifted education and placements must “be tailored to a student’s individual gifted needs, including the instructional environment, methods and manner of instruction.”
Background In the Case
In K.D., the student was gifted in math and had received fifth grade math instruction in a regular education fifth grade math class during his fourth grade year. The student was doing well in the program. However, as the student entered fifth grade, and would require sixth grade math instruction, there was no sixth grade math instruction in his current school, as sixth grade was located in a different school building.
The school district proposed that the student be educated through sixth grade math instruction provided at his home school through online instruction. The parents disagreed with the proposal and sought to have the student educated in person in a sixth grade classroom, even though it would require the student to be transported to another building. Both the Hearing Officer and the Court found for the parents.
Critical to the Court’s determination was that the math instruction needed to be individualized and the proposed instruction was not. The Court found that the placement provided in the past, in person instruction, had been effective and held that moving it to online instruction was a change of placement that required an evaluation to support the same, and that such a change in placement would not be appropriate in light of the success that the student was having in his current placement.
In addition, the Court explained that the student also had an IEP for a disability, and that one of his needs in that IEP required that he have social interaction and that the proposed program did not provide the same. The Court also found that the student had tried online instruction in other areas in the past and had not done well with it, suggesting that online instruction was not effective or appropriate for the student.
The Court’s Warning
The Court’s decision provides a couple of warnings. First, a change from in person to online instruction is a change in placement under Chapter 16. As a result, schools should be reluctant to make such changes if the current gifted programming is working, and should conduct an evaluation before doing so.
Second, school districts must look at the individual needs of a student in proposing gifted programming, including whether the proposed methods have been successful in the past and whether the student has any disabilities that need to be taken into account in determining the best method of instruction for the student.
Bottom Line for Schools
Schools need to make sure that the gifted programming provided is individually tailored to meet each student’s needs, paying specific attention to any disabilities the student may have and what has and has not worked in the past. Schools should be especially reluctant to change programming when the current program is working.
If you should have any questions, please contact an attorney from KingSpry’s Education Law Practice group or your legal counsel.
School Law Bullets are a publication of KingSpry’s Education Law Practice Group. They are meant to be informational and do not constitute legal advice. John E. Freund, III, is our editor.
