Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Gifted Education topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Central York committee backs updating gifted-education policy to three-year cycle
Summary
The Central York Policy Committee recommended sending revisions to the district's gifted-education policy to first read, including changing the required plan cycle from six years to three, clarifying plan contents and screening procedures, and asking PSBA to clean up citations.
The Central York Policy Committee on policy review recommended sending revisions to the district's gifted-education policy (Policy 1 14) to first read after agreeing to several substantive edits.
Committee members agreed to change the policy’s stated cycle for the district’s gifted-education plan from every six years to every three years to align with new state regulations and the district’s three-year comprehensive plan. Dr. Iachoff, a district staff member, summarized the change: “The new regulations actually, are every 3 years, not every 6 years.”
The draft preserves the requirement that the district make the gifted-education plan available for public inspection and comment for a minimum of 28 days before board approval and retains language that the plan must address identification procedures, the programs the district offers, and numerical reports on gifted students, personnel and program elements as required by the Department of Education. Staff clarified that references to “reports of gifted students” refer to quantities (numerical counts), not student names.
Committee discussion distinguished between (1) locating and screening potential gifted students districtwide and (2) the formal evaluation procedures used to confirm gifted eligibility and trigger a Gifted Individualized Education Plan (GIEP). Dr. Walker, a district staff member, explained the distinction: “The GIEP is that formalized legal document for a child that qualifies for gifted education,” and the proposed policy also requires a separate “continuum of services” to provide acceleration or enrichment for students who do not have a formal GIEP.
Editors’ and board-review items discussed included abbreviating the full term “gifted individualized education plan” to “GIEP” and revising delegation language that currently says the superintendent “shall” develop administrative regulations; several committee members recommended changing “shall” to “may” because the detailed procedures are maintained administratively (for example, in special-education handbooks) rather than as separate board administrative regulations. Director Stewart and others also raised inconsistencies in the policy’s numbered citations; staff said PSBA (the Pennsylvania School Boards Association) typically reconciles citation lists and would be asked to clean the references before final drafting.
No formal vote roll call was recorded in the transcript; the committee agreed to move the revised policy to first read with the edits noted and PSBA citation cleanup.
The committee then moved to the next policy on the agenda.
