Knute, it would appear that, if anything, the 2004 changes would strengthen the position adopted in Lillie/Felton.

http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/elig.index.htm

I'm not an attorney, by any means, but this seems to indicate that the criteria for eligibility are based (still) on whether or not the child has: a) a disability under the law, and b) need for "related aids and/or services" as a result of that disability.

Mitigating measures (such as giftedness) which may mask the degree of the impairment are a separate issue-- or should be. The consideration that I'm most familiar with here is a judgement of whether or not a particular aid/service would provide educational BENEFIT to the child. Not whether or not it would put the student "ahead" of average peers, which is the underlying point of Lillie/Felton.




Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.